Macnamara – Australia 2022

It varies a bit by area but I’d say:

* Danby – Relatively popular with the Jewish community, extremely unpopular (by the end) outside it, by 2016 I’d say around 20% approval at best.

* Burns – I’d say as of 2022 very popular, way over 60% approval. That would be under 50% now, due to a mix of Labor being less popular, and Burns himself would have lost support with the more left/pro-Palestine voters for his support of Israel. St Kilda is probably where he’d be least popular.

* Shorten – More popular here than most places, I think Labor’s 2019 policy platform was very well received here. I think his approval grew between 2016 to 2019 to over 50%…

* Albanese – Less, I don’t think he’s “on the nose” here like some other places, this area strongly supported the voice for example (top few electorates in the country for “Yes” vote), but I think he’s seen as underwhelming and that Labor’s policy platform is weak, hence the big Greens swing in 2022. Maybe 40%?

* Turnbull – Very popular for a Liberal, around or even over 50% at the time of the 2016 election when there was the promise of him changing the direction of the party, probably slumped to 30-40% by 2018 due to his failure to do so.

* Morrison – Extremely unpopular across all areas. I’d say in 2019 it would have been 20-25% and by 2022 well below 20%.

* Dutton – Extreme unpopular in most areas, probably has some support in pockets of Port Melbourne (more tradie types) and Caulfield for his very pro-Israel stance. 20-25%.

They’d be my guesses.

@Trent interesting, thanks for the insights.

I think some people might’ve seen through Turnbull and realised that the party was full of right-wing members so Turnbull couldn’t do much hence why Turnbull might’ve been competitive here in 2019 if the Liberal candidate was good.

So basically Burns, Shorten and Turnbull being popular here (and more so than Albo who is progressive) kinda tells us that it’s not a solidly leftist area at all, but more of a moderate area, with Danby being an exception. However, if the right is too conservative (Scomo and to a greater extent Dutton) the moderates and centrists will look elsewhere.

If Turnbull was popular here maybe Dutton will have a swing against him outside Caulfield given that he caused the turmoil that saw Turnbull knifed as leader.

Yeah definitely in parts, the seat is a real mix. Overall, ABC Vote Compass usually has the seat placed pretty firmly to the left.

But certainly some suburbs – especially Port Melbourne, Albert Park, Middle Park, Docklands, Caulfield East, and possibly the Melbourne 3004 corridor – are pretty moderate exactly as you describe. I’d say ranging from centrist (Albert Park, Port Melb) to moderate left (Docklands, Melbourne 3004, Caulfield East).

Most of the Caulfield area is more conservative leaning, but again mostly very moderately so and probably a more traditional swinging area, similar to somewhere like Murrumbeena. Outside the Jewish community, much like you describe – turned off by conservative Liberals but happy to vote for moderates.

The Orthodox Jewish community is different: very socially conservative but will vote for a good Jewish Labor candidate.

South Melbourne, Southbank and Elwood I would describe as very solidly left, especially socially progressive, but not in the northern suburbs student activist / socialist type way.

St Kilda, St Kilda East, Balaclava and Windsor are proper left wing and almost like a pocket of the inner north has been dropped in the inner south. Really not too different to Richmond, Fitzroy, Northcote etc. The dominant left vote is a similar type of voter to the inner north, it’s just about 5-10% less than up there because there are a little more mixed demographics in the south.

Actually I should mention too, regarding the Shorten & Albanese thing, I don’t think that’s necessarily a sign of the seat being more centrist than left, despite Shorten being from the right faction and Albanese from the left.

I think the Shorten/Albanese difference had more impact on the ALP vs GRN contest in the seat than it did the Liberal vote, and was more about the policy platforms each was bringing to the table.

In 2019, Shorten had a really bold and ambitious agenda which I think caused the Greens vote to stagnate, because Labor were seen to be bringing bold reform to the table; whereas in 2022, Albanese was seen to be bringing more of a “safe” centrist agenda to win over Liberal voters in QLD & NSW. The Liberal vote actually declined even further, but it was the Greens had a huge swing to them, which I think indicates Labor voters wanting something more bold & left-wing.

Issues like SSM (third highest ‘Yes’ in Australia) and the Voice referendum (sixth highest ‘Yes’ in the country) show Macnamara is very left on social issues.

So where I talk about Shorten vs Albanese’s approval, it’s less about whether they are personally moderate or progressive, but more about Shorten being able to win over ALP/GRN swing voters with an ambitious reform agenda, and Albanese losing ALP/GRN swing voters by actually not living up to his progressive reputation, and bringing a watered down “What’s the point?” (other than boot ScoMo) agenda.

I don’t know how much this matters either, but Shorten is Victorian and Albanese is from Sydney, and Melburnians are a parochial lot.

On balance, Macnamara is definitely much more left than right. While there are centrist areas, and places open to voting for a moderate Liberal, I don’t think there’s enough areas like that to cancel out the more solidly left areas. The Liberals came close in 2016 but I can’t see the conditions being as favourable for them as that again (deeply unpopular incumbent + unusually popular Liberal leader).

Also, 2016-18 may have burnt some of those voters who swung to the Liberals that year. Not only was Turnbull unsuccessful at turning the party around, they knifed him for trying, all his allies resigned, and the party is now more right-wing as a result. And there’s now a history of the Liberals replacing moderate leaders at both state & federal level – Baillieu in 2013, Turnbull in 2018, O’Brien in 2021 – so with Pesutto, even if he makes it to the next election, there’s already the perception that he’s one leadership spill away from the religious right taking over and people would be skeptical about how much influence he’ll actually have.

@ Trent

Do you want to explain why Danby was unpopular he is often compared to David Feeney in Batman.

A few reasons:

1. Seen as an uninspiring dinosaur of the party who was out of touch, been in the job too long, invisible in the electorate, really brought nothing to the table, basically a seat warmer who only ever spoke up on anything if it was about Israel;

2. Related to that, seen to only serve the interests of the Jewish community, particular with a single focus only on Israel and a complete disinterest in any local or domestic politics, and ignored the rest of the electorate (which is the vast majority);

3. Out of touch with the views & values of most of the electorate. As discussed above, Melbourne Ports is very socially progressive but he was seen as a very conservative Labor MP, similar to David Feeney as well, and in some ways almost a Mark Latham type. In fact, Danby has since become a regular on Sky News;

4. Actually handing out HTV cards putting the Liberals above the Greens, and constantly bombarding the whole electorate with anti-Greens pamphlets – he was doing this before the Greens were even competitive, and the seat was actually a marginal ALP v LIB seat, and his materials were almost as if the Greens were his only competitor and the Liberals didn’t exist.

In an inner-city, socially progressive, socially conscious seat like this, a Labor MP who was seen as lazy, with very socially conservative views, a singular focus on a conservative religious community, and very nasty campaigning against the Greens (who are generally liked here) just didn’t sit well.

And it felt like as the seat gentrified and only moved further away from Danby’s views, he doubled down and really showed increasing disdain for the community he was no longer in touch with. I think moves like handing out two different HTV cards even insulted the intelligence of the electorate.

@Trent not to mention Danby himself has pretty much rorted the entitlement system for pollies by claiming travel allowance for a holiday with his wife when he did nothing of parliamentary or political value. Also did the same for a trip to Israel I believe to attend a pro-Israel/pro-Zionist conference, all at the expense of taxpayers.

And I get that he’s Jewish and all which explains his actions but you don’t see the likes of Mark Dreyfus or Josh Burns get up to the shady stuff that he gets up to. I mean, they’re strongly pro-Jewish like parts of their electorate and their heritage but both have managed to balance their own views with the wider community’s concerns and, at least in Josh Burns’ case, he is progressive enough on issues like climate change and actually giving two hoots about his electorate which is why he won in 2019 and 2022 even though he was inches away from the Greens beating him.

100% agree. Josh Burns was able to hold onto Danby’s supporter base in the Caulfield area that could otherwise have easily flipped to the Liberals, while also fending off the Greens by being visible across the whole electorate and trying to represent a wide range of the community’s more progressive views as well as local issues.

I also thought the 2022 campaign in particular was very collegial between Steph Hodgins-May and Josh Burns. They were obviously both competing fiercely in a close race, but both clearly showed a lot of respect for each other. In fact at times they seemed very united against the Liberal candidate Colleen Harkin.

It was the total opposite of the old Danby campaigns which were basically just Danby relentlessly attacking the Greens over an issue most of the electorate simply didn’t care about.

I actually think the spotlight on Israel-Palestine will hurt Burns a bit now since the war in Gaza has put a spotlight on the issue. Within the pro-Zionist community it already was and has already been a central issue and probably won’t shift any votes. But it’s put a spotlight on the issue for the voters who the war in Gaza has more likely turned against Israel (young, progressive, socially conscious voters who would oppose the IDF’s response to Oct 7), and Josh Burns himself has been in the spotlight.

So it’s possible that this issue could shift some votes in Caulfield from ALP to LIB due to Penny Wong’s comments and the UN votes; while simultaneously shifting votes in suburbs like St Kilda, Windsor & South Melbourne from ALP to GRN over Burns’ support for Israel.

(I still maintain the issue won’t shift many votes, but it could be a net-negative for him in such a tight seat where Labor only need a -0.4% swing to lose)

@Trent if Danby was too conservative for this seat why did it nearly vote Liberal then? The Liberals are more conservative than any Labor MP.

It wasn’t just him being more conservative, it was also his laziness and ignoring local issues and most of the electorate that made him unpopular.

And Turnbull being seen as socially progressive with a promise of moving the Liberals back to the centre was a viable alternative for some.

Interestingly the 2PP was partly as close as it was because Greens preferences didn’t flow as strongly to Labor as usual either.

Would Michael Danby have fit perfectly with the Liberal Party if wasn’t for the SDA Union? Since he left parliament, he pretty much became critical to ALP on Sky News after Dark similar to Mark Latham

With the large ttp and Peter Dutton as leader the LNP doesn’t have a chance winning here. A poll by Redbridge has shown a swing away (about 7%) from Labor mostly at the Greens expense. I feel with Steph Hodgins-May no longer contesting and the loss of her personal vote she has built here the Greens will fall into a distant third place. The Greens stance on Gaza won’t have helped very much but, I would say the Jewish vote wouldn’t have been really voting Greens in the first place anyway.

@ Trent, Toommo9/Marh
A few points
1. Danby was probably an Old Labor but the west of the seat was rapidly gentrifying during his tenure. He pretty much only relied on Caulfield in the end. He is a bit like the late Kimberley Kitching, Raff Ciccione
2. Danby never really spoke on climate etc and never attacked the Liberals for anything may have seen to give them a free pass
3. Josh Burns tries to be progressive on many issues such as LGBT issues, Animal Welfare, climate etc. People in the electorate who i have spoken to says that he is very likeable and sort of the person you would love to invite over to your home for a BBQ.
4. Danby attacks Daniel Andrews and Jacinta Allan and disgraced himself by appearing on Credlin;s Chris Lilley style mockumentary “The Cult of Daniel Andrews” .Neither Daniel Andrews and Jacinta Allan are Pro-Palestine and he never gave them credit for removing level crossings on the Frankston/Dandenong lines, Metro Tunnel and even building Anzac station (right in the heart of the electorate) which benefited Melbourne Ports/Macnamara.
5. Danby never gave any credit to what Albanese did achieve such as increasing share of renewables, net zero legislation, help to buy legislation, expanding paid parental leave, same job/same pay all of which will be very popular in this seat.
6. However, maybe Danby did try to win over Progressive Green voters by being pro-refugee, speaking on Tibet, Uyghurs etc.

Mark Latham is a good comparison. Danby would get along better with Latham and Somyurek than with most Labor MPs.

All great points Nimalan. He didn’t understand the seat at all. It’s a seat than only leans left economically but is very left socially. Danby the opposite.

He’s more DLP than Teal if you put it in those terms.