The market backing Robertson
December 7th, 2011 at 9:00 am by David FarrarThe latest prices on iPredict for the Labour leadership and the next PM continue to intrigue.
David Shearer is at 70.4% to become the Labour leader. The stock on whether the PM after the 2014 election will be Labour is 52%, so if you multiply them together the chance Shearer will become PM should be 36.6%. However the price for Shearer to become PM is 29.6c or 29.6% which suggests that the market thinks Shearer becoming leader is a negative for Labour winning in 2014 by 7.0%.
But Cunliffe has the same issue. His leader stock is 28.2% suggesting his PM stock should be 14.7%. But in fact it is 7.4%, which suggests that Cunliffe as leader damages Labour chances by 7.3% – much the same as for Shearer.
So how is this possible? Well the answer is that despite not being a candidate for this leadership ballot, Grant Robertson is at 5.7% to be PM after the election. As the price for a Labour victory is 52% this suggests that the market thinks there is an 11% chance Grant will roll whomever gets elected Leader before the 2014 election.
Related posts:
- iPredict on Labour Leader and PM
- Who will govern after 2014?
- Mike Smith endorses Robertson to replace Goff
- Wellington Central
December 7th, 2011 at 9:57 am
What is all the fuss over Robertson. I don’t see it. He is a fat, do nothing loser who shrank the share of the party vote in his electorate.
Of course the Labour caucus and assorted political sycophants tell you that he is the smartest person in the room but if that was the only criteria then 90% of New Zealands population would be ideal Labour leadership material.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:23 am
David, this is the second time you’ve run this line. I know you’ve long thought Grant has the capabilities to be PM, and I agree, talking him up to replace Shearer or Cunliffe appears to be an attempt to destablise the new Leader. The setting of the initial odds on iPredict is not a meaningful comment on Robertson, or on the effectiveness of a new leadership contest, it’s simply a marketing device.
I’ll also repeat my earlier comment, in my direct personal experience with Grant he is a fiercely loyal person.
[DPF: You misunderstand. I am not saying I personally think Grant will roll the leader. I would put money on PM.Robertson if I thought that was the case.
But the price at ipredict is not an initial price, but what the market price has settled on, and the fact Grant is rated an 11% chance to be PM if Labour wins the 2014 election, shows that people out there think there is a chance he will become Leader before 2014.
Of course it might not be a rolling. Maybe the new leader will crash and burn and resign. Or maybe get sick]
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Apart from negotiating his way through the necessary political ladders to become a Labour MP, what has Grant Robertson actually ever done…?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:47 am
He was OUSA President – which is not really a job. You don’t ‘manage’ OUSA funds because OUSA actually has a general manager. You just extend your political network.
He was the NZUSA President – bit more of a job, but again, political role. And NZUSA was often considered a joke by most in the Wellington public service.
Wiki says he managed $7.7m Overseas Aid Fun. $7.7m is nothing. I probably manage about that much every year on average. Most people that earn $100,000 manage that much.
Then he was a Helen Clark ‘official’.
And now he wants to be the Prime Minister of New Zealand.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:47 am
His one obvious achievement is that he ate all the pies.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:59 am
The other explanation is that the iPredict markets are not efficient.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:36 am
If Grant Robertson ate all the pies LGF, what the hell did Gerry Brownlee eat?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Wasn’t it Robertson pulling out of Deputy to switch his support to Shearer what caused Parker to pull out of the race. I can only presume that he’s interested in Deputy because it’s a good platform from which to roll the leadership (for that same reason Cunliffe is wise to pick Nanaia as a running mate) the last thing the next Labour leader needs is speculation of vote counting every time they underperform slightly for the next three years.
I’m not sold on Shearer – he’s got a fantastic back story, saving lives under fire in some of the most dangerous places on the planet supposedly, but the same was true of vietnam war hero John Kerry who made for a very mediocre presidential candidate who couldn’t even beat a relative unpopular GWB.
The leadership of the Labour party is about trying to pick an appropriate counterpoint to JK who would make a good PM. I guess the question I’m trying to raise is why do people think John Key got 48% of the vote and has been such a successful PM?
Here’s two theories:
1) Voters don’t care about politics they just like a nice story. John Key a poor kid from a state house who made a fortune in banking and that fantastic feel good story just really resonated with 48% of the population?
2) Voters have picked JK because he is a pragmatic centrist who has broken with National’s ideologically driven past, marginalised their more extreme coalition partners and the right wing within the party, maintained a reasonable social safety net in welfare, super and WFF, shown a willingness to work with parties from across the spectrum and has credibility on the economy.
For my money I think if the issue is 1) then David Shearer is definitely the man for the job. If the issue is number 2) then Cunliffe probably has the stronger expertise and background to deliver.
Also, there is a certain irony that the people who campaigned on the platform of “This is not a popularity contest” now seem to be backing somebody who’s credentials are not in party political leadership or economic management but somebody with a great back story who can win a political beauty pageant.
Don’t get me wrong, Shearer could surprise everyone and be absolutley fantastic, that’s the nature of an unknown quantity. But you can bet your bottom dollar that right now National has parliamentary staff researching Shearers time at the UN with the intent of ‘swift boating’ his backstory and neutralising that as a benefit, so I hope people aren’t making that the swing factor in their decision. Those members of the Labour caucus need to ask themselves “Would I still support Shearer for the leadership if he’d just spent the last 20 years working in admin for a large but unglamorous New Zealand NGO?”
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
That’s not my recollection at all and I was directly involved. NZUSA is a lobby group, they always have a slightly difficult relationship with officials. However, NZUSA improved its relations with officials in large part because of Grant (with others). He regularly and constructively met with the Secretary for Education, then Howard Fancy, who I’m confident he enjoyed a effective relationship with. By way of an example, under Grant’s leadership, NZUSA secured significant additional funding for students with disabilities (something the Minister, Lockwood, issued a media release on commending NZUSA).
He also worked incredibly effectively to defeat the Laws bill, the first attempt to make students’ associations voluntary. Now you mightn’t agree with that, but it was clearly NZUSA’s objective and my point is that he defeated it despite the Nats and others had a majority on the Education and Science Select Committee.
East Wellington Supporter is talking through a whole in his head.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
We made enough piues for Robertson, Brownlee a
Vote:AND Parekura as well.
Anyone want some?
December 7th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
@ Paul
So, Grant Robertson, as part of his cushy, zero-accountability-to-actual-students, lobby job, went to meetings with education officials. Wow.
When I was in Wellington I, and the people I interacted with, thought NZUSA was a bombastic and unprofessional but ultimately unimportant organisation. They tried to congratulate themselves by asserting interest-free student loans was because of their hard lobbying work, when in fact it was vote buying exercise by the Clark government.
Grant Robertson is the personification of what Labour is – a entity whose only real skill is using other people’s money to do stuff that it wants. That doesn’t mean you can spark and encourage economical growth, or govern for the common good, or lead a nation through trying times.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
EWS, you’re an anonymous commentator, the validity of your opinions is impossible to assess absent some evidence. If you’ve got a specific point to make, argue it rather than making endless unverifiable statememts.
My point directly addressed your’s. I know first hand that Grant had excellent relations with numerous officials and was a very effective lobbyst. That was his job, he did it well. You said otherwise, you are wrong. He then went on to be an effective official in his own right and under a National government.
How’s National’s performance on this score? Tax breaks boost GDP did they? Quit citing the playbook and point to the numbers.
I certainly accept this is a critical part of the role of government, but lets stop pretending NZ’s economic performance isn’t largely a function of exogenous factors.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
@ Paul
My point was that Grant Robertson has done nothing special to warrent being considered the future PM of NZ, let alone actually being popularly elected as the PM of NZ.
“Mr. Robertson, what have you done that would convince NZers that you should be considered the PM of NZ? Well, I’ve been a lobbyiest and fee/levy/tax-payer funding employee for 20 years, and then six years as an MP (after having rolled a dithering David Shearer), and I know how to control the Labour party.”
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
EWS, you’ve narrowed you point considerably and dropped most of the hyperbole.
That’s your view and you’re entitled to it, I objected to you characterising his qualities as being insignificant, they are most definitely not.
I’ve dealt with plenty of MPs from both sides of the House in NZ and in various capacities. I’ve also dealt with NSW and Commonwealth parliamentarians. Robertson, who I know well if that’s not already obvious, is amongst the finest I’ve met.
You clearly take the view that people other than those engaged in public service should be PM. I don’t agree. I think the broadest possible catchment is desirable. Incidentally, under your view, none of Shipley, English or Brash should have ever been leader of National, let alone PM.
You’ll hardly be surprised that I think being a currency speculator is hardly a qualification for PM either and despite being re-elected, I’m yet to see any of the outcomes promised in the last election…
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
@ Paul
NZ makes money, and the government collects tax, because farmers and workers get up 5am to build a life for themselves, because tourist operators get up early to work, because small business owners take risks, and because engineers and scientists, and doctors and nurses exploit their trade/training to be rewarded for work, and because the police, the courts, and the NZDF help to keep order. New Zealand is successful because parents devote their lives to raising good kids instead on viewing children as an agent for social change, or worse, as an accessory/’human right’ to normalise their ‘lifestyle choice’.
They do all this despite the envy, hatred, and interference of Labour Party and people like Grant Robertson who want to use their fat grubby fingers to get what they want. There was time when I though Labour stood for the common good but all I see is a loose confedertion of warring tribes and heavily confused mini-tyrants who think they have a right to tell everyone else how to live.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
EWS, this has ceased to be a meaningul discussion. I’d've agreed with your first para if it extended to acknowledge the role government plays paying teachers and nurses and building the infrastructure those business owners and farmers rely on to get their goods to markets (or the negotiations governments engage in around trade…)
You have a sadly distorted and caricaturised view of what Labour is about and there’s little point in trying to convince you otherwise. Be happy in the echo chamber.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Shipley, English and Brash were never elected as PMs. Though Shipley worked in the real world as a teacher before being an MP. English ran a farm before working at the Treasury before being an MP, and Don Brash worked in banking overseas and has been in business.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
@ Paul
Have a nice day.
I still think Robertson needs to do a lot to prove he could lead NZ. And I doubt middle NZ would vote for an overweight gay childless Prime Minister. The electorate flirted with this with Clark and she had success because she broke the female glass ceiling and was buoyed by the energy of a generation perceiving that her govt could take NZ into a new age of the post-70s/80s. Unless Labour changes radically, they will always be the party of Opposition – as they have been historically.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
I agree with EWS above – Grant Robertson has a very urban appeal. While he may be well regarded in Wellington, I can’t see his style and preoccupations translating into widespread electoral success across the whole of the country.
Vote: