Oh dear, Aristocrat!
Did you read and understand the article, or did you simply activate your "I love Howard" word stream from a random point in a narrative?

I won't repeat the author's well argued statements about the inbuilt skew in the poll. The poll was skewed so much that it would have been a miracle for it to not return the largest number for Howard.

However, Howard isn't running this time around and he was flogged in his last event. He lost an opinion poll of millions, not simply 1000. Get it right... Howard was loser, and in a big way, by the time he was pensioned off.

Anyway, back to the topic, which is about skewed polls, not about political love affairs.

DearJohnBennetts,

This isn't about any love affair I might of had with Howard (ad hominem arguments are often self-refuting anyway), this is about the second longest serving PM Australia has had.
It may have been a skewed poll, I admit that, just like many polls are by targeting a certain demographic or by writing the question in a particular way to enhance a particular outcome.
Yet, the question inevitably arises: Why was Howard the second longest serving PM?
Your beef is with the Australian voters, Mr Bennett, not me.

Aristocrat,

you state, Say no more. Humanities and Arts grads usually lean so far left that anything remotely conservative is considered evil incarnate.

Perhaps true, but i got published in Quadrant four times (maintaning my centre-left perspective) during Nov. 2006 to Jan. 2008 despite being burdened by a simplisitc university degree dominated much by simplistic bias within many subjects which certainly downplayed complexity.

Of Howard- my view of him is that he was indeed a formidable politician who was passionate about Australia, albeit that some of the policy decions his govt made were flawed (although my claim is subjective). As evident from recent govts, these are tough times with the right policy mix a difficult proposition.

Give me Howard any day over Rudd.

Statistics or polls can be manipulated by the legal structures that the Government of the day creates.

Labor will unearth several more religious connections Abbott would prefer to forget - to hurt Abbott in the polls before the elections. Here's an early piece of dirt http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/tony-abbott-linked-to-priest-in-web-of-intrigue/story-fncynkc6-1226573435456 .

The Royal Commission into paedophile priests was not only formed for justice for the victims. It presents an ideal way to highlight any perceived dirt (by association) on Abbott in order to push him down in the polls.

Get it right... Howard was loser, and in a big way,
JohnBennetts,
Wrong ! Australia is the loser. If you think for only one moment that Rudd, just because he won the election was a winner than you are sillier than it looks on paper.

The only thing I can find wrong with this poll is that it placed Rudd up there with Hawke and Keating - and above both of them at that - how's that for a joke? (However, I do think Bob and Paul both did deserve greater recognition than this poll implied.)

On any reasonable scale, the Labor result should have been Hawke, Keating, and with Rudd/Gillard sharing a tied very last place. I can only imagine many of the Labor faction polled were either too young to have been familiar with the Hawke/Keating years, or were still basking in the illusion of 'Kevin 07'.

Still, on any accounting, Howard would have to have been a solid front runner in this race, with merely overstaying his welcome being the only really significant blight on an otherwise shining record. While many may pour scorn on Work Choices (and it certainly was not without fault) it did serve to restore some much needed balance in IR, whereas the Rudd/Gillard fabrication of Fair Work Australia is a 'Farce' and a figment, with very little to commend it.

To me, this poll does however indicate a severe general disenchantment with Julia Gillard, and that is telling indeed. "Bring it on" may well be 'Famous Last Words' (which will be seen in due course to have been very well earned, IMHO).