Budget sinks, but budget measures float, while government is seen as uncaring

So most measures were viewed positively on balance, and the two that were viewed negatively were still slightly more positive than the budget as a whole.

This suggests that opposition is not necessarily so much to the budget, per se, but to other factors for which it becomes a symbol.

From my reading of the qualitative research there are two candidates for these other factors.

One is the feeling, even amongst many who support it, that the budget does not do enough to change the direction of the economy.

The other is that for many opponents this confirms that the Abbott government is brutal, only governing for the rich and delighting in penalising the rest.

Another possible candidate could be that the budget represents broken promises, but in fact the level of anger at this appears quite low.

Unlike the leader of the opposition only two of our respondents used the word "liar" when referring to the budget, and "promises" was mentioned by only 20 respondents.

And when "promises" was mentioned, 30% of the time it was by people who approved of the budget who would say things like, "He managed to do it without breaking too many promises, he will cut back on waste, it looks good for next year."

It is as though voters accept that part of the business of politics is breaking promises, and that there is a tolerable level for this.

If a politician breaks a promise on something like not increasing taxes, this will be OK if the tax is one, like the Budget Repair Levy, that voters agree with. But it won't if this is a tax on carbon which voters don't like, or don't understand.

One reason voters may agree with the Budget Repair Levy is that it is an hypothecated tax and they can see how it is being used.

That could be the secret why voters accept indexation of fuel excise – it will go into building roads. As the enthusiasm for the Growth Fund shows infrastructure is something the public is keen on.