There has been a fair bit of movement in bookmakers’ odds for the election over the last week and a bit, first in favour of the Coalition and then against, with the leaders’ debate on Friday night appearing to provide the catalyst for the change. At the time of the last of these posts, the Coalition was near its peak at $3.30 with Labor at $1.32, but now Labor is in to $1.22 and the Coalition out to $4.30.
The most notable change on the seat markets is that there are now seven seats that are at evens, where there were none last week. As a result, the Liberals are no longer clear favourites in Capricornia and Bass, and Labor no longer are in Dawson, Leichhardt, Braddon, Deakin and Stirling. Most of these were rated very close to begin with, although there have been reasonably substantial movements in Braddon (Labor $1.40 and Liberal $2.75 last week, now $1.90 each), Leichhardt (Labor $1.70 and LNP $2.60 last week, now $1.87 each), Dawson (Labor $1.57 and LNP $2.25 last week, now both $1.87). The Coalition now have the edge in Indi, where they are in from $2.15 to $1.80 with the independent out from $1.77 to $2.00.
Other movements of note: a much tighter race is now anticipated in Liberal-held Robertson, where the Liberals are in from $3.90 to $2.05 and Labor are out from $1.21 to $1.70, and the Country Liberals’ odds have been cut from $6.00 to $3.75 in Lingiari, with Labor out from $1.12 to $1.22. Conversely, there has been movement back to Labor in Solomon, where they are in from $1.50 to $1.30, with the Country Liberals out from $2.45 to $3.25. There has been movement almost across the board to the Coalition in Queensland, leaving Labor still favoured in Bonner, Dickson and Flynn, but by narrower margins.
With seven seats now tied up, and one moving from independent Coalition, Ladbrokes now has Labor clear favourites in 79 seats (down five), the Coalition in 60 (down one), and others in five (down one). As always, you can find the odds listed at the bottom right of each electorate page in the Poll Bludger federal election guide. Another thing you can find is the latest daily instalment of Seat du jour, today dealing with Chisholm, in the post immediately below this one.
Pat K is really good BK.
She hammers both sides, keeps them on point and pulls no punches.
She’s one of the best in the business, I’m actually listening to radio national on the drive home because of her. She’s tough, but fair.
LGH – are you arguing that a death tax is bad because it’s difficult to collect (possibly) or that it’s unfair in some way? The first might be true, the second I don’t see at all. I’ve never really seen why building up a legacy is regarded with quite such importance.
As to who pays the most tax, it’s a bit unsurprising it’s the cohort with the most money.
SK
I am distressed to find that the plural of “octopus” is apparently “octopodes”. I had always thought it was in fact the same – “octopus” – I thought that the Greek word had been Latinised.
And with eight limbs and clearly ‘natives of our native land’, surely Blue Ringed Octopodes could be allowed to use one of those limbs in a suitable AEC-approved underwater polling booth?
Boerwar @ #1141 Wednesday, May 8th, 2019 – 6:58 pm
A pretty fair assessment.
sprocket_ says:
“Subliminal messaging – yes it’s ok to protest vote for a minor, Indie,- even a RWNJ Party – but preference Labor ahead of the LNP who don’t care about you at all – demographically speaking.”
Nothing reduces the living standards of workers as a group more than mass immigration (increase supply of labour, labour value down, increase demand for housing, house prices up), so demographically speaking, Labor doesn’t care about workers either.
Workers should vote right all the way down the line to signal Labor its needs a better immigration policy because no standard of living gain will be sustainable without it. (and neither will the environment).
If you were awake at the end of the debate you would have noticed that Shorten ended very well. The challenge was staying awake.
My sense is that Mr Morrison had been told not to shout, and not to spend all his time doing nothing but criticise the ALP. But in this debate, unlike the last one with its “space invaders” episode, there were no really striking or memorable moments, no killer blows, nothing much that either party will be rushing to recycle on its YouTube channel. And ultimately that benefits the party which is currently ahead.
Boerwar (AKA Orangeman) ………….Agree totally with your above points especially about the jibe about being a second-rate, second-hand car salesman.
sprocket
On electric cars – I would have loved Morrison to go on about Labor ‘banning the Toyota Hilux’, and Shorten could reply “Toyota have said that over the next ten years they intend to make electric versions of their entire range including the Hilux – how do you intend stopping them from producing an electric Hilux?”
Andrew Bolt says Morrison lost the debate. Shorten with more warmth, more ease. 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮
I would like to congratulate the DT for giving Shorten a great boost!
E. G. Theodore @ #525 Wednesday, May 8th, 2019 – 2:59 pm
Nice how nath has decided that because no one is listening to his rants about Bill Shorten he can expend his energy on Bill’s mother and kick her now she is dead.
What a worthless piece of crap you are nath, a total piece of crap.
Do you want have a dig around in Bill’s back garden to see if he has buried a loved pet there so you can dig that up and give it a bit of a kicking.
ABC Radio News intro
PM Morrison has once again taken Bill Shorten to task over the costings for Labor’s climate change policy during the leaders debate.
Good! If only he’d stop channeling Shouty McShoutface with his ALL CAPS headlines.
Must confess with all these RWNJs falling over themselves to talk up Shorten’s performance there might be some cunning plan afoot……………Dog, I have become so cynical about Oz politics…………
This election will go down as the social media candidate disruption election.
Once again the only takeout that is needed from the debate tonight is that Shorten did not lose.
It takes away the last opportunity for the salavating MSM to shout to the heavens how fantastic Morrison is and how poor Shorten is in these face to face contests.
That is all that is important.
RR
There used to be a plural term ‘octopussies’ for lady occies but that has gone the way of various other terms of genderized abuse like dickhead, prick and knob…
This leads us directly to Bluey’s favourite movie about humans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopussy
Shorten gave a nuanced, respectful answer on the Israel Folau question. Half way through he said “I don’t believe gays will burn in hell though”. I believe Mr Morrison got quite agitated by that for a few minutes.
Bolt is probably laying the groundwork for his post-election articles claiming that Dutton as leader would have won the election.
I really can’t believe that the right are still banging on about electric vehicles. Everyone knows that the big manufacturers won’t be putting out an electric model which is a piece of crap. Time was when everyone thought of garbage trucks when diesel vehicles were mentioned. I changed from a petrol 4WD to a turbo-diesel (otherwise same basic model) five years ago, best thing I ever did: it accelerates up hills which had its predecessor really struggling.
Confessions
One way to handle it would be for candidates to actually publish all previous nasty posts, analyse them publicly and repudiate them publicly at a time of their own choosing, aka before they are pre-selected.
In advanced cases they could do things like undertake cultural awareness courses, meet with affected community leaders and undertake restitution activities such feeding breakfasts to the homeless.
Cassidy
Called it a draw. On reasonable grounds.
That being not the media deciding it.
Interesting that there is agreement on the ABC that the government has failed in its attacks on mr Shorten. No contrary opinion.
Personal opinion is this debate was a Nil all draw.
Which is good for Shorten.
Lars Von Trier @ #1100 Wednesday, May 8th, 2019 – 8:43 pm
nath, go to bed!
There are 151 pussies hanging on a wall at MONA. And if one plaster pussy should accidentally fall….
Further to nath’s faux apoplexy over Shorten’s answer re: religious freedom and Contractual rights. This is what Shorten actually said, according to the Guardian scribe:
“I think this is one of these topics which thankfully for Australians the leaders of the two parties have a closer sense of position than a greater sense of argument. People should be free to practice their religion.
I think you go, so we’ve got to work through the Australian Law Reform Commission’s working out how we work this through and how we work out exemptions in the law which get the balance right between anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom. So we’ll work through that.
If we’re elected the government we’ll sit down with the churches and lawyers and Law Reform Commission and work through that issue.
You went to the specific issue of Israel Folau.
Mr Morrison is right there, it’s a contractual negotiation at one level but I’m uneasy about where that debate’s gone.
On one hand, I think Israel Folau is entitled to his views. And he shouldn’t suffer an employment penalty for it. So I’m uneasy about that part of it.
But I also think that we’ve got to be mindful about the other side of the equation.
People putting out on social media that if you’re gay you’re going to go to hell, I get that’s what he genuinely believes.
When you’re a public figure, that has negative impact, a hurtful impact on other people. So I understand the matter for Mr Folau is under appeal.
Let’s hope that common sense prevails and they find a happy medium. I don’t think it’s a simple issue.
I don’t think it’s a clear-cut issue when the edges bump up against each other. I don’t think if you’re gay you’re going to go to hell. I don’t know if hell exists actually.
But I don’t think if it does that being gay is what sends you there. So I am uneasy. On the Folau matter I’m also uneasy if he has genuinely held views and he could suffer some sort of really significant penalty.
It’s a matter of respecting each other and I do wish that, this is one of the challenges of social media, it can really dumb things down, can’t it?”
P
The only political issue that was spontaneously raised with me during our recent tour of deepest Queensland was Labor’s fiendish plot to foist electric vehicles on already overwrought and oppressed bushies.
It was literally impossible to reason with the people concerned.
Peter van Onselen
✔
@vanOnselenP
Both sides will claim they won, unlike the first two debates Shorten won according to the assembled undecided voters there is no equivalent at this debate. Shorten stumbles a few times, but overall he convincingly won this debate, without a shadow of a doubt. #auspol
Can take that as mission accomplished
Blobbit says:
“LGH – are you arguing that a death tax is bad because it’s difficult to collect (possibly) or that it’s unfair in some way? The first might be true, the second I don’t see at all. I’ve never really seen why building up a legacy is regarded with quite such importance.”
Blobbit just because you don’t see the reason for something this does not entitle you to organise for its theft. But my true position borrows a little from both:
I think a “death tax” is inherently unfair to render on the moderately wealthy. They typically do not possess “more money than they know what to do with”, and you are meaningfully altering the lives their children could have without the tax, which at some point someone in their family worked hard & sacrificed for.
On the uber wealthy, lets measure in hundreds of millions or billions, say $50m up, I think moderate estate taxation would be fair, a person inheriting $45m instead of $50m is perhaps not meaningfully altered in what he can have or achieve in his lifetime. But at this level of wealth they have the means to escape the tax entirely.
So would it be fair to institute a new tax on the upper middle class, to fund an already well supported lower class, when the upper middle class already contribute so much (see income tax table referenced prior), whilst the very rich are taxed nil and continue to pay nil?
No I do not think that is fair. If you could make the uber rich pay, and no-one else, fair. If you make the upper middle pay, and the uber rich escape it, no, very unfair.
The fact is you will not be able to capture the very wealthy with this tax. You will capture the people that don’t deserve to pay more tax that should be entitled to pass their wealth on.
Out of interest there could be ways to combine taxation policy that take the edge off, allow citizens a reasonable way to avoid whilst doing some other good for society, while still looking out for their own interests:
E.g. Australian birthrates are below sustainability. Wealth and income are linked to IQ, having more wealthy people have more children is eugenic and also addresses wealth inequality as it splits the inheritance more ways.
E.g. have your wealth tax start with estates of $50m, but allow a 33% reduction in the estate tax for every additional child above 1 the person births, raises and provides inheritance to.
1 kid, pay 100% of the inheritance tax (say 10% of wealth)
2 kids, pay 66% of the inheritance tax.
3 kids, 33%
4 kids 0%.
$50m split 4 ways has already taken individual wealth down to $12.5m each, a good amount each is able to put at risk in the economy funding new businesses and projects.
We get more equality, the upper middle class are able to pass all their wealth down, the upper class can do so if they are contributing lots of good genes (and persons) to society and still seeing their estate broken down. (or they pay tax)
Elements of this are working in Hungary today and have arrested the slide in their birthrates and levels of family breakdowns.
Again, the pathetic and timid ABC has not been willing to make any kind of judgement on the debate even though they had a hand it is presentation. The best they could come up with is that the “Leaders squared off…….” Regretfully, I am joining some who think it is maybe time to put the ABC to rest….other than turn it into a Oz wide Community Radio which can broadcast fire and cyclone warnings and the like.
I gather if the LNP get in, $87 million is to be chopped from the budget, so I guess even more re-runs of Midsommer Murder.
Charles
That’s when Shorten looked his weakest.
At the same time ASICS tweeted they have dropped Foleau as a billboard for their products
SK
I asked Bluey about MONA’s pussies and, rings flashing the old danger sign, Bluey told me that any institution that forcibly separates octopussies from their pussies needs to be investigated for animal cruelty.
Not one vote changed tonight.
Andrew Probyn just said the Coalition’s policy suite is ‘threadbare’. Laura Tingle wondered what the Coalition will do for 2 and a half years if they are returned, as it won’t take long to get their tax cuts passed and that’s all they have actually told people they are going to do. Plus the Small Government, aka cutting red and green tape, stuff.
Maybe they’ll decide to close parliament and go home after that?
?A former PB poster in the #mymum chain
Finnigans 天有道地有道人无道
@Thefinnigans
Now top that.
#MyMum not only never went to any school. She brought up 10 children. Yes 10!!!!
The Sky After Dark crew are firmly in place, and all lamenting Scotty’s performance. Not just in the debates, but more generally. He’s not aggressive enough apparently.
From the SMH..
Paint a picture…
The leaders are invited to paint a picture of Australia in ten years time.
Scott Morrison talks about a safer world thanks to managing our money and keeping the economy strong.
Bill Shorten says he wants to see a more modern Australia, powered by renewables, wage equality, a scientific nation and becoming more equal country because that will lead to prosperity.
So Scott is still channeling Abbott.. only one line from the Libs in 12 years since Howard even.
What a waste the MSM are not to ever challenge it
Credlin says ‘the needle needs to move’ for Scotty after the campaign launch on Sunday, otherwise he will lose the election.
Yes Tricot, needless to say I agree. Even their so called satire is scared shitless.
They were probably genuinely worried about the extremely long extension leads they would need to carry on their electric vehicle!
Betting markets have certainly taken a view on the debate. Betfair LNP odds out from $4.90 this afternoon to $6.00 just now. A sharp reaction.
Andrew Bolt says Scotty’s only hope is that Shorten makes a mistake and stuffs up. There is no sign the Liberal brains trust have put together a real ‘knock out’ strategy to reset the agenda.
Charles @ #1169 Wednesday, May 8th, 2019 – 9:10 pm
Also, that he didn’t really think hell exists. Bill Shorten just loves messing with Morrison’s head. 🙂
Confessions @ #1188 Wednesday, May 8th, 2019 – 9:19 pm
Scott is bringing his wife and mum.
The thing that most amazes me is that for six years the public have largely bought the media’s depiction of Shorten and the various attempts by the Government, Hanson, Katter, Palmer and the Greens to Kill Bill.
They were all in on Kill Bill.
Coming into the election period, my view, FWIW, was that the public knew Shorten and did not like what they knew.
I also believed that the public was in some substantial respects completely wrong about Shorten.
The three debates, Monday’s Q&A, today’s response to slagging his Mum and tonight’s finishing vision statement have allowed the public to gain a new insight into Shorten.
FWIW I believe that Shorten’s personal ratings will increase significantly on Monday.
As for Morrison, my view is that people did not really know him very well at all.
And now they do.
Well I’ve got news for King Rupert, my next car will be an electric car (probably over the next 4-5 years).
Andrew Earlwood
Hate speech in the name of religion is hate speech.
See Brunei where religion can go with hate against a whole class of people.
The unease is the realisation that there was hate baked in.
Just like we got used to no golliwog dolls we will get used to this.
Its the same logical consistent argument that you can’t yell fire in a theatre.
When speech causes harm we act.
Unlike the US we go further with legislation like 18C
Look at it like that and your unease should disappear as the logic is consistent and does not create an arbitrary constraint on free speech. It does not restrict religious speech unnecessarily
Tricot @ #1164 Wednesday, May 8th, 2019 – 7:08 pm
Methinks that word has come back from the New York residence of an octogenarian media proprietor that shit has hit the fan over the disgraceful overreach of the Daily Notfittiwipeyourarsewith and to try and regain at least some of the ground that act has lost for his empire. And thus there’s some serious backpedalling being done by at least some of his shills.
Rocket Rocket @ #1186 Wednesday, May 8th, 2019 – 9:18 pm
My great great grandmother had 12 kids, one of whom died in childhood. So I guess she ‘only’ brought up 11. 🙂