Centrebet is again trying to make the Victorian election an interesting proposition for punters by offering odds on the number of seats Labor will win. In the Queensland election, I tipped 60, while the Poll Bludger tipped 58. In the end Labor won 59. I’d covered 58, 59 and 60 for $70 each and won $840. The odds were a reflection of the fact that most MSM pundits were tipping in a range from 50 to 53.
This time around, the short odds are for a result for Victorian Labor between 52 and 54. The Poll Bludger’s prediction of 53 is at 7 to 1, the shortest odds for any seat pick.
I don’t have enough seat by seat knowledge in Victoria to make my own prediction, but you can read the rationale for the always well informed Poll Bludger call here. Interestingly, the call includes a prediction that Melbourne will fall to the Greens.
The final number of seats seems intuitively right when you compare the Queensland and Victorian campaigns. As our polling disclosed, the dynamics of the overall campaign are very similar to those of Queensland. And Labor is on similar starting points going into the poll – 62 of 88 seats in Victoria, and 63 of 89 in Queensland (ignoring by-election losses). If you want to look at the really big picture, the two differences are that Bracks are a slightly less formidable politician than Beattie (and his government was in less trouble at the start of the campaign) and that the Liberals are a much less shambolic outfit than Dr Flegg’s bumbling roadshow.
It would be more interesting really to have a betting market on the Victorian Upper House, but you’d also be a braver punter to take a risk on picking its composition.
OK placed my big $5 – one each for 59,60,61,62 and >62.
I reckon Baillieu is an awful TV performer and can’t see too many reasons for Bracks to be on the nose. Victorians like their politics staid and safe – and that’s what we’ve got in spades. Ted’ll do well enough just holding onto his own seat as even he seems to know given it’s one of the seats the Libs have extracted a split ticket for from the Greens.
I’m tipping that the ALP will lose 7 seats, and hold onto Melbourne.
I think Melbourne will be close, but with both Family First and the Greens running, as well as People Power, the protest vote will be split three ways (as well as the lack of an independent candidate like in 2002 directing 5% or so straight to the Greens). The Liberal vote will also be stronger, and they may out poll the Greens.
I have to agree with alex.
Labor will lose:
Mordiallic
Hastings
Narre Warren South
Cranbourne
Ferntree Gully
Kilsyth
Evelyn
Forest Hill
Ballarat East
to the Liberals
Morwell
to the Nationals
Liberals will lose:
Box Hill
South West Coast
Greens will win no lower house seats
I’ve just got my hands on the Border Mail’s figures for Benambra. Based on the poll (45% liberal, 17% nat, 31% labor, 4.5% green, 1.4 % FF and 1.1% an independent without a HTV) the Liberals look like a shoo-in, though I’m very suspicious of the numbers. An 8% swing away from Labor, with the local Liberal member retiring? The Greens going backwards from 7% to under 5%?
Anyway, maybe I know absolutely nothing and water and grazing in the National Park is resonating in Wodonga, or maybe the mayor has alienated more people than she’s attracted. But it’s hard to tell from here.
I don’t think Labor will lose Ballart East, and I don’t think the Libs will lose Box Hill.
I think Labor’s a chance in Caulfield though, and the Liberals may take Prahran.
And I agree with Robert that the Greens going backwards – anywhere – seems really unlikely. I think they are actually going to do better than they’ve been polling.
I also think we’re not going to see a uniform swing – some seats will have a swing to Labor and others away.
Greens win: Melbourne
Liberals win: Evelyn, Hastings, Gembrook, Kilsyth, Ferntree Gully, Mt Waverley, Bayswater, Bentleigh, Eltham, Morwell, S Barwon, Rodney, Burwood, Frankston, Narracan, Ballarat E, Bellarine & Monbulk
Labor wins: Southwest Coast, Benambra
Tossups: both Narre Warren seats, Cranbourne and Oakleigh, with Labor to retain them (just) and residents of that area to have hot and cold running everything for the next four years.
ALP 46
Lib 35
Nat 5
Ind 2
Disclosure: I’m NSW born & bred so if the above are wrong, who cares? If the above are right, or if they’re more right than your predictions/wishes and you’re a Victorian, this would make you a political ignoramus.
Let’s try that maths again:
ALP 45
Lib 35
Nat 5
Ind 3
Andrew E: do you know something about Benambra that I don’t? That poll (dubious though the exact figures may be) tends to indicate that Labor doesn’t have a hope in hell.
By the way, the Greens are putting the Nationals and Libs second and third ahead of Labor in Benambra on their HTV. The Liberal candidate wants to build a bloody great dam on the Upper Murray at Tom Groggin (right in the middle of the Alpine and Kosciousko National Parks), and the nationals have never seen a dam they don’t like, or a tree that shouldn’t be logged. Idealistic lot, those Greens.
Oakleigh? The same Oakleigh that the hard-working Ann Barker holds by 15.2%??
Robert, I share your doubts about that poll. Maybe I’ve been reading too much View from Benambra.
Rebekka, when Da Swing Is On hard-working MPs don’t always survive. I hope you’re right about Prahran tho. The Green HTV in Benambra or anywhere else isn’t worth the hemp-paper it’s printed on.
Can I just say that this is the first post where I’ve referred to Benambra three times, and that I doubt I’ll refer to it another three times over the rest of my life?
The Greens got a split ticket in this Benambra place. Why do ppl insist on getting this wrong?
Exactly Wbb. The Green are most defintely NOT preferencing libs and nats in Benambra.
Sorry wbb. I went to the website and read the HTV, and didn’t see that they had two options there.
I still think that running a split ticket is wrong, however. The Nats, particularly, haven’t seen a river they don’t want to dam, a tree that they don’t want to chop down, or a mineral deposit they don’t want to mine.
As of right now, the Centrebet “bell curve” is centred around 55 ALP seats (at 8:1), so evidently the money’s been flowing Labor’s way since Mark made the original post this morning.
I read somewhere that one tactic in betting on this sort of situation is to see the direction the money is flowing at the last minute, then join in. So, not knowing the first thing about Victorian politics apart from your nice Premier Brock, I’ll put a few $ on ALP 55-57.
Centrebet doesn’t recognise Firefox – what a second-rate online gambling service (not that I’ve ever accessed any online gambling prior to the last three minutes!).
I reckon the Greens will do better than even the most optimistic supporter predicts.
The Planet is in dire trouble & there is a growing uncertainty about the future…the populace are disconcerted…murmuring under their breath about the BIG DRY…the strange reluctance of mainstream parties to take bold initiatives, move beyond the risk-free strategies.
Global Warming is the new DEPRESSION…a NEW (ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL) DEAL is on the horizon…but few politicians & influential CEOs & industry owners are demonstrating the courage necessary to take us into the NEW AGE. Shareholders w/ gray hair & full bellies are too concerned about pedantics…about dividends…accumulating further assets…THE SELF.
It’s time we had representatives that not only demonstrate integrity & vision…but who put their money & principles where their mouth is…
http://greens.org.au/elections/victoria06/bobbrownletter/
Am I right Peter Garrett? When did you forget that?
I hope a media mogul didn’t get yer tongue…& integrity.
and yea, i meant to say, i don’t gamble…i have better things to do w/ my money…like supporting WSPA, CARE, Medicine Sans Frontiers (Doctors w/out Borders), RSPCA…Earth’s Choice on our energy (ENERGEX) bill…
http://www.energex.com.au/environment/environmental_solutions.html
i’m sure the likes of James Packer have enuff money w/out our contributions.
I agree with Rebekka on Oakleigh – I’d be shocked to see Oakleigh in danger. Oakleigh was a very marginal Liberal seat until 1999, but a lot of that was the Liberal MP, Denise McGill having a strong personal vote. Sure, a lot of yuppies have moved into Oakleigh, Murrumbeena and Carnegie and driven the house prices up, but there’s still far less intrinsic support for the Libs than there is in seats like Burwood and I think 15% is too big a margin to see it seriously threatened.
The 2 Narres are hard to judge – much of the ALPs margin from 2002 would be due to the Robert Dean fiasco (his old electorate of Berwick got split between Gembrook and Narre Warren North), and the Libs did win the Narre booths in 2004 but I still think they’ll hold onto them, as interest rates aren’t a state issue.
I think that the ALP will lose Evelyn, Hastings, Gembrook, Kilsyth, Ferntree Gully, Mt Waverley, Bayswater and possibly Mordialloc, Bentleigh and Prahran. I wouldn’t care to guess on how they’ll go in rural or regional Victoria – I haven’t really had time to look at it.
In the inner seats in Melbourne, I think the Greens will give the ALP a real fright in Melbourne, Richmond and Northcote. They may get over the line in Melbourne and Richmond, but it’s hard to know how this last week has affected their chances. I think we’ll also see the Greens vote become more obviously concentrated in the inner suburbs of Melbourne, rather than going significantly up everywhere across the state.
Centrebet does recognise Firefox, Ron. Not that I’d encourage anyone to bet.
The Greens will do very well (around 20%) in the safe Liberal seats (Brighton, Hawthorn, Malvern).
I think Labor’s a chance in Caulfield though
Not a chance. The Tory member has been campaigning like her very life depended on the vote whereas the Labor campaign has been half-hearted. In fact, in a seat that is pretty much Liberal orientated, I rather suspect that they’ve radically overspeny on ensuring victory here.
The Greens will do well in the Liberal voting areas where voters are looking to displace their upper middle class guilt.
Think of how many inner city councils pretend to care about mandatory detention.
I guess that sounded pontificating…a touch of the Family First…
oh hang on!…
i forgot to vote the Packer way…:)
Isn’t sitting thru a City Council meeting similar to mandatory detention?…
I’ll let you know if I feel any better, Bob, after I vote tomorra.
Oh well, fuck it!
They’re still counting Andrew E. Maybe there’ll be a further ten seat loss in a landslide of postals. Afterall, the postals may not have seen how god-awful Baillieu was in the TV debate either.