Howard 1; Costello 0

Bryan · Monday 5 December 2005 · 6:36 am

The most colourful moment on yesterday’s Insiders program was Howard’s revelation that the recently resigned Robert Gerard was Costello’s recommendation. I have bolded the key phrase in the following except from the transcript.

BARRIE CASSIDY: The Robert Gerard matter and now his resignation from the Reserve Bank, Peter Costello is talking nonsense, isn’t he, when he says Mr Gerard has not avoided a dollar of tax?

JOHN HOWARD: He is not talking nonsense. Look, I think Peter Costello has been very unfairly attacked over this issue. The procedure that was followed for the appointment of Robert Gerard is the same procedure that has been followed for all of the appointments that this government has made to the Reserve Bank board. Peter Costello and I were both wanting to find somebody with a manufacturing background and also we wanted to find somebody from a state other than New South Wales or Victoria because the allegations was that the Reserve Bank was too Sydney-centric or at the very least big state-centric. Peter came to me and said, “What about Roberts Gerard?” He is the largest employer in the private sector of people in South Australia. He’s a highly successful…

Howard deftly went on to say that nothing turned on it being Costello’s choice and that Cabinet endorsed the recommendation unanimously. Still the damage had been done. The knife had been plunged. Today’s papers are unanimous in their assessment.

Steve Lewis said, ‘John Howard has left Peter Costello high and dry with his carefully calibrated statement that it was the Treasurer who volunteered Robert Gerard for the Reserve Bank board. The Treasurer is fighting to defend his reputation and political ambition, in the first real scandal to mar his stellar frontbench career.’

According to Glenn Milne, ‘Costello’s supporters were livid yesterday at the performance of John Howard on the ABC’s Insiders program, accusing the Prime Minister of deliberately sheeting home to the Treasurer the blame for the indefensible appointment of Gerard to the central bank board. “It was one of the slickest pieces of ‘I’ll drop you right in it’ I’ve ever seen,” said one of those close to Costello.’

See also: Tim Colebatch, John Garnaut, and John Stone.

Perhaps not surprisingly, yesterday’s panel on The Insiders agreed that Howard was here to stay. Their reasoning was simple: Howard is relaxed and comfortable in the top job and Costello does not have the numbers in the party room for a challenge.

Postscript: As I have posted a number of times on this issue, and as it looks destined to be around for another 6 months at least, I have made it a category: Costello for PM.

November polling crisis for the Coalition

Bryan · Saturday 3 December 2005 · 8:17 am

Yesterday, Morgan released its opinion polling results for the weekends of 19-20 and 26-27 of November 2005. Its headline prediction was a national two-party preferred vote of 57 per cent for Labor and 43 per cent for the Coalition. If an election had been held at this time it would have resulted in a landslide win for Labor.

Morgan predicted a national primary vote for the Coalition of 35.5 per cent, and for Labor it predicted 45.5 per cent.

According to the pollster,

The big issue over the survey period was Industrial Relations reform. The large turn-out to the union-organised rallies around the country to protest against the Government’s legislation underscores this fact…

This is Kim Beazley and Labor’s best two-party-preferred result since August 2001, before the Tampa Affair.

If an election had been held in late October, Labor would have won with a landslide.

The message from the latest Morgan poll is consistent with those from the other polling companies. In the next chart I have aggregated the five polls for the month of November (three from Morgan, two from Newspoll and one from ACNielsen).

Aggregated monthly polling

According to my calculations the aggregate result for the combined poll of more than 7500 people over the month of November was a two party preferred vote for Labor of 54.4 per cent compared with 45.6 per cent for the Coalition. The primary vote for Labor was 42.3 per cent. The primary vote for the Coalition was 38.5 per cent.

The usual graphs are here. You may need to hit the refresh or reload button on your browser to see the latest graphs.

Betting market update

Bryan · Thursday 1 December 2005 · 4:30 am

What a month it has been for Kim Beazley and the Australian Labor Party. Their odds of winning the next Federal election have improved significantly over the month of November. The betting market has it pretty close to even on whether the Coalition or Labor will win the next election.

  • For a Coalition win IASBet would pay $1.85 and for a Labor win it would pay $1.95 (changed from $1.63 and $2.25 in early November). The implied probability of a Coalition win at the next election is 51.3 per cent.
  • For a Coalition win Centrebet would pay $1.72 and for a Labor win it would pay $2.00 (changed from $1.53 and $2.37 in early November). The implied probability of a Coalition win at the next election is 53.8 per cent.

Betting market: Probability of a Labor win at the next Federal election

The usual graphs are here. You may need to hit the refresh or reload button on your browser to see the latest graphs.