Even though I am sure it breaks some minor gambling rule, I am offering odds on all ten contenders for the leadership of ACT.
Maximum bet accepted is $5, and bets will preferably be paid out in beer.
Odds will be revised from time to time, as the situation changes. Note definition of odds of (for example) 2:1 mean you get $2 if you are right, and pay me $1 if you are wrong.
The initial odds in alphabetical order, plus comments are below:
Awatere-Huata, Donna. 1000-1
Coddington, Deborah. 12-1
Eckhoff, Gerry. 25-1
Franks, Stephen. 3-1
Hide, Rodney. 3-2
Newman, Muriel. 6-1
Prebble, Richard. 10-1
Roy, Heather. 15-1
Shirley, Ken. 2-1
Wong, Kenneth, 100-1
Major positives and negatives for each candidate:
Awatere-Huata – positive is very high name awarensss – negatives are she has been expelled from Caucus and is facing fraud charges.
Coddington – positives are her research and writing skills plus being a good looking woman in a party that usually gets few votes from women – negatives are her inexperience and her husband.
Eckhoff – positives are his likeability and tenacity – negatives are no appeal to urban voters, little visibility and lack of charisma.
Franks – positives are his legal skills and knowledge, his visibility on law & order and acceptability to the hierarchy – negatives are lack of charisma, limited profile and unkown leadership ability.
Hide – positives are his huge public profile, being Auckland based (where most ACT voters are), being seen to have a chance at winning a seat, and his ability to run a scandal for weeks on end – negatives are his (un)popularity with colleagues and hierarchy, being seen to be more interested in scandals than policy, his lack of caution and questions about whether he is better as a one man commando than as a General.
Newman – positives are relatively high profile on welfare issues (but less since Katherine Rich moved into that portfolio for National) and eights years parliamentary experience – negatives are not being seen as leadership potential by colleagues and not always being well briefed on the facts.
Prebble – positives are having been an MP since 1972 and Leader since 1996, negative is that he has just resigned as Leader.
Roy – positives are she has done nothing wrong so far, gaining credibility in health and looks ten years younger than she is – negatives are only 18 months in Parliament, inexperience and still gaining in confidence in the House.
Shirley – positives are very good spells as Acting Leader, a capable whip, experienced former Minister and did quite well in his electorate seat – negatives are almost no national profile, lack of charisma and not a good TV performer always.
Wong – positives are no bad press and chance to be be seen as new broom – negatives are he won’t be an MP until Awatere-Huata is convicted or stops her appeals against ACT’s use of the Electoral Integrity Act.
No tag for this post.