LOL all thinking people would realise this poll is distorted because the labor vote is split amongst amongst four PMs whereas liberal inclined voters have only one choice in John Howard. In any event the Labor PMs combined attracted more of the overall vote than the Liberal PM.
If the same people that were polled had been separately asked to rate each labor PM individually against John Howard the result would likely be very different. Further on Gillards low vote its unremarkable given she has not been a PM that long. If a similar poll was taken when Howard was in his first term his approval rating would not have been that great at that time either. Kim Beazley was unlucky not to have won the 1998 election given Labor received nearly 51% of the 2pp. A quirk in the electoral boundaries gave Howard victory.
Going back to the Galaxy poll I bet if the question was asked of the same people polled on the basis of a Two horse race, that is who was a better PM, Howard or Hawke, or Howard or Keating etc I bet all those that chose a labor PM would individually choose Hawke or Keating etc and the result would be that Howard would come out second best.
The galaxy poll split the Labor vote thats why the distorted result seemingly in favour of Howard.
Sorry to spoil the party folks but your thread header is nonsense.
