Banging the drum about revoking citizenship for terror suspects was always going to work in the Government's favour. And right on cue, Tony Abbott's popularity has risen as well, write Peter Lewis and Jackie Woods.

What's worse: when politicians grasp at base populist measures in a naked bid to rescue their political hides? Or when it works?

The Abbott Government probably didn't need research to tell it that banging the drum about revoking citizenship for terror suspects would fly well in the electorate - even with a bit of cabinet controversy on the side. After all, it's a manoeuvre that taps simultaneously into deep veins like nationalism and fear.

Accordingly, this week's Essential Report shows strong support for casting out Australians mixed up in terrorist activity.

Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the Government's proposal to take away the citizenship of dual nationals who are engaged in terrorism or supporting terror groups.

Total Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens Vote Other Total approve 81% 77% 93% 52% 84% Total disapprove 9% 11% 2% 35% 10% Strongly approve 60% 54% 74% 29% 61% Approve 21% 23% 19% 23% 23% Disapprove 6% 6% 1% 24% 6% Strongly disapprove 3% 5% 1% 11% 4% Don't know 11% 11% 5% 13% 6%

You know you're on a winner when even the Greens are on board. Support is nearly as strong for revoking citizenship of sole nationals at 73 per cent, suggesting the human rights quandary around statelessness is unlikely to keep voters up at night.

There is concern about the decision to revoke citizenship resting with politicians rather than courts. A majority of voters believe a court of law should make any decision, not a government minister.

Q. And should the decision about taking away citizenship be made by a court of law or a Government minister?

Total Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens Vote Other Court of law 54% 58% 47% 71% 56% Government minister 24% 22% 34% 8% 25% Don't know 22% 20% 19% 215 19%

But it's unlikely voters will be too spooked by the details of implementation. Rather, any controversy is more likely to raise awareness of the initial, deeply popular, proposition.

Whether the Government's determined focus on terrorism can turn into votes remains to be seen. Voting intention remains steady - 48-52 - and if the Coalition can maintain its position here then it will be confident the rocky ship of state from the beginning of the year is now on much calmer waters.

Meanwhile, we have recorded a significant recovery of the Prime Minister's standing.

Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the job Tony Abbott is doing as Prime Minister?

Total Sep 2013 Mar 2014 June 2014 Sep 2014 Dec 2014 Mar 2015 Apr 2015 May 2015 Total approve 39% 41% 40% 35% 35% 32% 31% 33% 36% Total disapprove 50% 36% 47% 58% 52% 55% 56% 58% 54% Don't know 12% 23% 12% 7% 13% 12% 12% 9% 11%

At 39 per cent approval, he's just two points down on where he was coming into office. Disapproval ratings remain higher, landing mid-way between the honeymoon that never was in late 2013 and the nadir of early 2015. But there's no ignoring an eight-point rise in approval since March; and in a single month between May and June Abbott's overall rating has lifted from -18 to -11.

With his opponent, Bill Shorten, even less popular at 32 per cent approval and a net rating of -13, the numbers look almost rosy.

It's not the hard line stance on terrorism alone that is to thank for the recovery; a relatively smooth second budget with a big bold small business sound bite certainly contributed as well. But national security is safe territory for conservatives and the ability to clear the air for this issue - even if it has been fuelled by internal dissent - is a clear win for the Government.

And for those of us who shake our heads and wonder how the Government can get away with such a seemingly crude play, it's apposite to note that it is the bloody polls that reflect the view of the broader public. Democracy and all that stuff ... is it them or is it us?

It is conundrums like this that make reading and interpreting the polls and their intersection with politics so interesting; and having a platform to air our theories and thought bubbles has been like Christmas. But, sadly for us, this is the last Lewis and Woods column on Essential polling for The Drum.

The Woods half of the partnership is moving on from Essential Media to new opportunities. Peter Lewis will continue to comment on Essential polls in the coming weeks, but with less wit and insight. Over and out.

The survey was conducted online from June 5-8 and is based on 1020 respondents.

Peter Lewis is a director of Essential Media Communications. Jackie Woods is a communications consultant at Essential Media Communications.