There is a regular question on big business power generally. In every survey I am aware of, going back to the 1960s, a majority have thought that big business has too much power, with an upward trend (also recorded in the 2005 article linked to above).

One hypothesis that could be worth exploring is whether there is a counter-cyclical component to opinion on these matters; that when Labor is in office people are inclined to assume that unions have too much power, and when the Coalition is in office people are inclined to assume that business has too much power.

But you are such a fund of knowledge on polling, Andrew, you might be able to answer this question. Have Australians been asked: does business (or big business) have too much power and too much influence on the Liberal Party? If there is such information for a long period, is there a trend to more or less hostility?

I ask this question because, although it is much more dangerous for the ALP to imply sinister business influence, two can play at the same game.

Finish with scary voice: ‘Greg Combet is Labor candidate for the seat of Charlton. Do YOU think unions should run this country?’

It’ll be ugly.

That Rudd result from Nielsen is similar to the AES 2004 in agreeing that unions would have too much power, 38%/41%. The difference occurs on the other side of the result. In 2007, 53% disagree and in 2004 28% disagree. The similar agree result could be rusted-on union haters who will vote Liberal anyway, and the increase in disagreeing could be people confident that Rudd would not take us back to the 1970s or 1980s. On the other hand, it could be that the AES is a mail-out survey with a printed option ‘neither agree nor disagree’ (31% in 2004), while Nielsen is a phone survey which did not give such an option but recorded a ‘don’t know’ from those who were unable to give an answer or refused to commit to one option or the other.

This is why I like multiple pollsters exploring the same issue in slightly different ways, to get a feel for what role the survey itself is playing in shaping the results.

‘Union sympathy’ was just my way of trying to avoid word repetition; the real issues are what the questions ask, about union power and whether respondents favour their regulation. A voter could have personal sympathy for a fading union movement without supporting political measures to revive it.

My attention has been drawn to a question in Nielsen recently which probably gives us the best info to go on for how things might play out this year:

the response to the question about unions having too much power under a Rudd government cited at the start of this piece was: agree 38 per cent, disagree 53 per cent, don’t know 9 per cent.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/trust-v-economics/2007/06/15/1181414545978.html?page=3