southern man, on 14 August 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:
I know how Bookies frame a market, Bam, and I think the odds they currently have represent a true reflection on the likelihood of each party to form Government.
I don't think the "True Odds" (whatever they are) are any different.
On what basis do you form this assessment? Just a gut feeling, or a careful analysis on the basis of the total amount of money held by all the betting agencies on all the possible election outcomes? I doubt you've made any rigorous analysis, and I doubt you have any evidence otherwise you would have offered it by now.
In short, you are wrong. Here's why:
Quote
As soon as the election was announced there was a lot of money to the Coalition; after Gillard's demise the odds were still strong for a coalition victory
You're wilfully ignoring my point. The betting markets received a metric shitload of money on the Coalition when Gillard was the ALP leader and looked very likely to lead the ALP to an election defeat. After Gillard was replaced as ALP leader - an outcome that caught many by surprise - the odds remained skewed by the massive amounts of money that was placed when Gillard was leader.
Quote
and in the past week the ALP has blown out from about $3.85 to $5.50 - reflecting a flood of money for the Coalition.
It also represents a lot of money held from the Gillard era, the fact that people tend to place bets on outcomes that appeal to them, and that the wealthy have a lot more money to waste on frivolities than the poor. Another example of this appeal phenomenon is how the pre-season odds of a Collingwood or Richmond premiership are always a little lower than the actual odds; here, the betting is skewed by the number of bets than the amounts.
However, I won't discuss the odds any further. Referring to a likely outcome by discussing the betting odds is not a line of discussion that I want to pursue because I won't support the gambling industry in this way. I do not like discussing the form or outcome of
any contest by referring to the gambling odds. I also support Xenophon's and Wilkie's efforts to rein in the gambling industry.
Opinion polling is a better line of discussion and I suggest you shift your line of discussion to the opinion polls. On the current opinion polling the Coalition appear more likely to win. However, even opinion polling can be an unreliable indicator of an election outcome. For example, Keating won in 1993 and Howard won in 1998 despite trailing in the opinion polls during the election campaign. (Howard won the 1998 election with only 48% of the 2PP vote.)
Quote
The other thing I am looking forward to is the disarray and back stabbing which will go on with Labour in opposition.
It's
Labor, not Labour.
Quote
It will make the so called disunity under Brendan Nelson's Opposition Leadership look like child's play.
Speculation. More likely, a hypothetical ALP loss will see some resignations and by-elections. This occurs for members of both sides of politics. It's not a sign of disunity or disarray, just a sign of a politician being unwilling to be in Opposition after being in Government.
Quote
I wonder what the odds are of Rudd being Opposition Leader in 1 month? 3 months? 6 months? 12 months? following the election? The latter would be 1000 to 1 IMO.
More speculation, but let's assume for the sake of discussion that there's a change in government. Not all Prime Ministers that lose an election resign the leadership within 12 months. After Whitlam's heavy defeat in 1975 he remained the ALP leader until after the 1977 election. Menzies provides another interesting example. I accept that defeated Prime Ministers and Premiers are likely to resign the leadership (many also leave politics), but there are enough counterexamples to call your ill-judged "1000 to 1" remark into question.
Other possibilities also exist that you've not considered. The opinion polling suggests that the election will be close. If it is, here is a possible scenario.
Abbott hypothetically wins with a swing of between six and ten seats (in other words, not a large margin) and the Greens retain the balance of power in the Senate. The ALP and Greens - who are 100% likely to control the Senate between them for the next nine months (I leave it as an exercise for you to work out why) - will block key legislation of an Abbott government that they dislike. This includes any attempt to repeal the carbon price. Given Abbott's childish conduct in the last four years, some payback for Abbott's conduct in Opposition is strongly indicated (in other words, do
not expect any Abbott mandate to be respected).
The Coalition have never been strong on respecting mandates in the Senate themselves, and have no right to expect the ALP to do any better (despite Abbott's distinct proclivity to hypocrisy). Furthermore, for any mandate even to exist the measures must have been put to the people at an election and debated by the politicians, the media and the electorate. Small-target election strategies (such as Abbott is running in this campaign) and clear mandates are mutually exclusive.
With key legislation blocked, Abbott calls a double-dissolution election and loses it.
Assuming the ALP do have a relatively narrow election loss in 2013 (which is likely based on the opinion polls), would Rudd want to give up this possibility of being re-elected as Prime Minister within the next 18 months?
Now run this scenario again, but Abbott wins the DD election. That is a more likely time for Rudd to move on in his political career.
So your hypothetical 1000-1 odds are really not framed in any reality. It's also possible that Rudd (who is a more popular leader than Abbott) would remain as leader in Opposition and rebuild a new ALP team. Even if it does occur that Rudd resigns within 12 months, it doesn't actually mean you're right.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please
login now to make this message go away.
This post has been edited by Bam: 15 August 2013 - 10:03 AM
Reason for edit: reword ambiguity
HDMC 
Help
Add Reply
MultiQuote