Macnamara – Australia 2022

Similar boundaries were proposed in 2021 but we’re met with opposition from labor as it would erode there margin and I suspect they will do it again but given the division is oddly shaped and already under quota it won’t be able to avoid it unless it crosses the yarra and I believe this seat may fall due to these reasons.
@el Capitan my Kooyong takes in the reamining of booroondata McNamara can rake part of stonington in exchange for its portion of glen eida and will take some more of tha lga from goldstrin.
@nimalan I believe to former member for Higgins is gonna try and retake Higgins and frydenburg would have been. Better retaking Kooyong as Monique Ryan is gonna be very vulnerable given the controversy that surrounded her. As long as they explain to the rank and file it’s a strategic decision they should understand I certainly do

@ John, the reason i suggest Frydenburg runs in Higgins is due to a bigger Jewish community than Kooyong, this could assist him and it maybe better for him to represent Caulfield. IMHO if Frydenburg was the member for Higgins or Goldstein he would have likely survived. Also Katie Allen is a female Doctor like Monique Ryan so maybe she runs there instead. Also i am interested in what the TPP for a redrawn Higgins would have been?

I don’t think parachuting Josh Frydenburg will work here as Macnamara and Kooyong are both very different seats, the Liberals narrowly missed out here in 2016 but as long as Dutton or any Liberals from the right of party are leading the Liberals can forget a seat like this. Depending on the redistributions the Greens could win here but we will wait and see what the changes are.

Check the thread. It maybe raue can answer that it might be easier to just have frydenburg appear there and help. Otherwise they might be seen as parachutes being so far from where they live/former electorate what faction is she from? From what I understand frydenburg only wants to be leader and if he wins the libs will most likely be in govt

@bob he meant in Higgins not Macnamara. The liberals chances here will be all but lost in 2025 as the redistribution will make it a green v alpncontest as it will probably take in higher green voting territory but on the flip side it should sure up the lib vote in Higgins making that seat reclaimable. I reckon the greens will pour resources in here and most likely take the seat as there will be an anti govt swing unless the government

Can recover from the hole they’re digging themselves into

Josh Frydenberg should run in Higgins not Kooyong and certainly not Macnamara. He might help campaign here but still. This seat is probably the most likely seat that the Greens will gain if they gain any seats.

Having popular MPs help campaign with candidates is a great idea. The NSW Liberals should start preselecting in key seats by 2024 to avoid the debacle at the last election and they could get Andrew Constance to help them campaign in Bega and South Coast, plus Gladys and (dare I say it) Perrottet to join the campaign which would win them votes. John Howard could help too. The NSW Liberals choosing to campaign alongside Howard instead of Turnbull, Scomo or Dutton helped them: Turnbull is unpopular in Coalition circles not because he’s a Moderate but because he’s not really a “Liberal” or a “conservative”, Scomo just lost an election last year despite being the only PM since Howard to serve more than one full term in office, and Dutton and Abbott are not popular for obvious reasons, whereas Howard one four consecutive elections, made major reforms and is still considered one of the greatest Australian Prime Ministers (progressives may disagree though, but you can’t deny that a survey in 2010 (conducted in the 10 most marginal Labor seats at the time and the 10 most marginal Coalition seats at the time) showed that 50% of respondents nominated the Howard government as the greatest Australian government in recent history, compared to 19% each for Bob Hawke and Paul Keating).

I’m interested to see how the suburbs that fall in the state electoral district of Caulfield vote in federal elections. Caulfield is a marginal Liberal seat but still a blue-ribbon Liberal seat. The MP for Caulfield is David Southwick, a Moderate who is the deputy leader of the Victorian Liberal Party.

Yet the suburb of Caulfield itself is in the federal seat of Macnamara, and so are Balaclava, Caulfield North and Ripponlea. Caulfield South and Gardenvale are in Goldstein. Elsternwick and Glen Huntly are in both Goldstein and Macnamara. Then to make things even more complicated there’s a few suburbs that partly fall within the state seat of Caulfield. St Kilda is in three state seats (Albert Park, Caulfield and Prahran) and in the federal seat of Macnamara, St Kilda East is in two state seats (Caulfield and Prahran) and the federal seat of Macnamara, and Ormond is in three state seats (Bentleigh, Caulfield and Oakleigh) and two federal seats (Goldstein and Higgins).

All of this means that Macnamara at least partly overlaps with two state Labor seats (Albert Park and Oakleigh), two state Liberal seats (Brighton and Caulfield) and a state Greens seat (Prahran), yet is held by Josh Burns (Labor).

NP
I’m not seeing any overlap of Macnamara with the state seat of Oakleigh. They’re on opposite sides of Grange Rd.

The redistribution will push the seat of Macnamara further to the left but should push Higgins back to liberals

Greens candidate for the last three federal elections for Macnamara Steph Hodgins-May is reported to be front runner to replace Janet Rice in the senate. If she is successful it may impact the Greens chances here. Remember the Greens polling went backwards when their candidate for consecutive elections for Batman (now Cooper) Alex Bhathal quit the Greens in 2018.

This is a different situation compared to Cooper where there was infighting and bulling allegations towards Alex Bhathal whereas Steph Hodgins-May doesn’t have that problem. She probably does have some sort of personal vote but I feel that a lot of those voters still feel animosity towards Labor on climate policy and housing so it most likely that there won’t be a swing away.

@political the difference here will be the redistribution. its most likely going to take in stronger greens areas in windosr and south yarra unless labor gets their way again

will be interested to see how the caulfield area swings in the next election and what happens to the greens primary vote in this suburb. given their blunt pro palestine stance (something btw i agree with) i’d expect a swing against the greens but i have no doubt they can win this seat if they campaign hard on issues relating to cost of living and housing affordability. however they could face some backlash within the heavily jewish areas.

That is why the Greens will push very hard to put the Caulfield tail out and replace it with Prahran and South Yarra in the upcoming redistribution. Labor will even more vehemently oppose it.

@ Louis
I am not sure if the heavily Jewish areas around Caulfield have a strong Green vote to begin with it. Important to remember Booth results are misleading as many Jewish voters dont vote on polling day due to the Sabbath so it over-estimates the Green vote in many booths. Lets assume the swap does not go ahead. For the Greens to win they need to knock Labor out of the 2CP. I always thought that is unlikely because i expect a further decline of the Liberal vote with Dutton as leader. As Dan M correctly stated Labor would vehmently oppose the swap as they could potentially loose booth seats. Interestingly, i feel Dutton now sees a chance in some Teal seats and Higgins and is pushing a Pro-Israel position especially some like James Paterson who has pivoted from China to the Middle East in recent weeks. Ironically, this will hurt then in Outer Suburban ethnic seats such as Werriwa, Calwell etc which until recently they said they should focus on due to large Muslim Communities. I am interested to see how Victorian Socialists will do going forward in seats such as Calwell they are more Pro-Palestine than the Greens and already do well in Northern Melbourne

@all macnamara will certainly lose the tai; in caulfield as any attempt to keep and make some hidieous monster will just be seen as gerrymandering

Violence in Caufield….

@Nimalan I agree that I don’t think the Israel/Palestine conflict will have much impact on the Greens here, even if Caulfield remains in the seat after the redistribution (which I hope it doesn’t).

Caulfield has a large Jewish population, especially Caulfield North which has the highest in the country, but I think it’s pretty safe to assume that anybody who wouldn’t vote Greens due to their stance on Israel after this conflict, would also not have voted Greens prior to this conflict anyway. I can’t see it moving a single vote, to be honest.

I really do hope that after the redistribution:
– Higgins becomes centred on Stonnington (east of Williams Rd) and Glen Eira, uniting the Caulfield area with suburbs like Murrumbeena, Carnegie, Armadale & Malvern, all of which form a very strong community of interest;
– Macnamara basically becomes Port Phillip + the Chapel Street corridor, effectively uniting the heart of the “inner south” in one seat

It just makes sense.

I agree though that even if the boundaries were to stay the same (which they won’t because Higgins is way below quota), Labor are already on a knife-edge of losing this seat to the Greens anyway. Even if the Greens vote remained stagnant, even a 1% swing from Labor to Liberal would result in a Greens gain by knocking Labor out of the 2CP.

So even on current boundaries, any of the following scenarios could knock Labor out of the 2CP count: a small swing from Labor to Liberal, a small swing from Labor to Greens, a small swing from Liberal to Greens, or even just a small change in minor party preference flows! It’s a very precarious situation for them where almost any change other than Labor increasing their own vote could see them eliminated before the 2CP.

If anything, a redistribution that maximises the chance of an ALP v GRN 2CP, rather than minimising the Greens vote, might be their best chance of holding the seat (as long as the Libs don’t preference the Greens).

@ Trent
Totally agreed, The Greens will not be affected here by the Israel/Palestine conflict in this seat. Lets assume the swap does not go ahead for a second. The Greens will seek to improve their vote around Albert Park, St Kilda Road, Port Melbourne, South Melbourne etc they are really the areas they need to improve and they can win votes from both Libs/ALP there. I always thought the Libs will crash further in these areas with Dutton as leader so the Libs may get knocked out of the 2CP here. However, if the Libs improve around Caulfield based on a Pro-Israel position then the ALP may get knocked out of the 2CP as i dont think ALP can improve anywhere else to offset a potential loss of vote among Jewish Australians. Interestingly, i think Greens may win Wills based on a Pro-Palestine position with help from Socialist preferences as there is a large Muslim community around Fawkner, Hadfield and parts of Glenroy. I also made some comments in the Calwell thread about how this conflict may play out in Australian elections.

If the boundaries were unchanged, the Greens would be a strong chance in McNamara because they would likely benefit from any dissatisfied ALP voters and continued weakness in the Liberal vote. But Higgins would be between the ALP and Liberals. I don’t see the Greens winning Higgins unless it was shifted into St Kilda, which could happen if the AEC shifted the City of Melbourne parts of McNamara and South Melbourne/Port Melbourne but I don’t see the AEC going that far.

@Trent and @Nimalan – if there’s any seat where campaign materials aimed at Liberal voters to “vote for Josh Burns to keep the Greens out” could pop up, it’s here and it will be over Israel. On the other hand if Caulfield ends up in Higgins then you can imagine the same organisations pushing for the Liberals.

@ John
Agree, it is a very interesting situation if Jewish voters intended to abandon Labor due to unhappiness over the Israel-Palestine conflict they may inadvertently elect a Greens MP in Macnamara although if Caulfield part moves into Higgins then i would expect the Libs to campaign on a Pro-Israel Platform. As mentioned in the Calwell thread i think there maybe a chance that Greens pick up Wills on a Pro-Palestine platform with preferences from the Victorian Socialists.

The Labor party aren’t any better on Israel then the greens almost half hearted support is nothing more then a face saving speech in his heart he supports Palestine but won’t say it publicly because it will cost votes.

Should be renamed Yarra after the caufield swap is done

John, it shouldn’t happen. It’s a commonly used name that can’t be linked to any one electorate. There’s an LGA called Yarra City and the Yarra River runs along or through many electorates. There’s also Yarra Ranges and Yarraville, neither of them are in the current Macnamara.

I only just caught up on the most recent comments here.

Firstly, there’s no need to rename Macnamara at all. It was only newly named prior to the 2019 election, deliberately replacing a geographical name with the name of a female scientist. They won’t go back to a geographical name. The only geographical names they will keep are those that reference the heart of the capital cities themselves – Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, etc.

@John & Nimalan in reference to the Dec 30 comments, totally agree with both. The dynamics of the seat are so strange, that the average voter won’t realise that any swing from Labor to Liberal on current boundaries will result in a Greens win.

On the topic of the redistribution itself, I wonder how many Caulfield residents – who have previously opposed any changes – would reverse their position if they had a better understanding of the dynamics of this seat and how likely it is that keeping Caulfield in the seat could actually HELP the Greens (hence the Greens even proposing to keep it there) and wind up with them being represented by a Greens MP?

I did note that there were far less objections than usual to mine (and other) proposals to remove Caulfield, I wonder if that is a factor. Perhaps the objections will come more from Jewish voters in suburbs like Balaclava would who would remain in Macnamara under the proposal, moreso than Caulfield voters who probably wouldn’t mind being moved out into a more traditional ALP v LIB seat!

@Trent

I actually played around with what the AEC can do if they don’t do the Caulfield/Prahran swap. You can put basically all of Caulfield/Elsternwick in Macnamara (including the Goldstein part), and then just put Caulfield East/Glen Huntly into Higgins. Which actually would work out pretty well and would be pretty tempting for the AEC to do.

@drake its gonna happen sooner or later. labor refusing it is just gerrymandering

@ John
I feel that if Victoria did not loose a seat that slowly Cauflield would have moved out. In 2013 even without Victoria gaining an additional seat it lost Caulfield South and most of Elsternwick it used to extend as far south as North Road. In the past the Liberals would have wanted Caulfield in Macnamara due to it previously becoming better for the Libs. Now that it is unwinnable they want it moved to Higgins which was previously safe. The Greens previously wanted Caulfield removed now they want it to remain. Priorities change. If they swap went ahead it would actually make Macnamara a ALP/Green seat now and with Lib preferences they actually have a better chance of holding it.

@Nimalan did you mean the Greens previously wanted to keep Caulfield in Macnamara and now they don’t? Caulfield is the most Liberal area of Macnamara and it’s a weak spot for the Greens given the large Jewish community there. Again, there would be more Muslims who vote One Nation than Jews who vote for the Greens or any other socialist party.

@np no they want to keep it in. id say theyre looking at the long game n trying to win both seats or trying to stop the libs winning higgins given that they could win macnamara on current boundaries

@ Nether Portal
No other way around. I agree the Greens if little if any support among the Jewish community for reasons we discussed in the Higgins thread. However, if in the past the Liberals especially when Turnbull was PM were getting closer and closer to win Macnamara on the current boundaries so they were aiming to win it and did not need to worry about Higgins. Now it is possible that the Greens can win both seats on current boundaries. The greens dont need the Jewish community to win either seat while Labor and the Libs do.

@Trent the only electorates named after cities, towns or suburbs are:

* Adelaide: existed since 1903 (when SA got single-member seats)
* Ballarat: Federation seat
* Bendigo: Federation seat
* Brisbane: Federation seat
* Canberra: existed since 1974 (the first time the ACT got two seats; now it has three)
* Corio: Federation seat
* Eden-Monaro: Federation seat (Eden is a town and Monaro is a region)
* Fremantle: Federation seat (interestingly the state seat of Fremantle is one of only five to have been contested at every single WA state election)
* Kooyong: Federation seat (the suburb of Kooyong is now in Higgins)
* Melbourne: Federation seat
* Newcastle: Federation seat
* North Sydney: Federation seat
* Parramatta: Federation seat (interestingly the state seat of Parramatta is the only one to have been contested at every single NSW state election)
* Perth: Federation seat
* Sydney: existed since 1968

Federation seats are electorates that have been contested at every single election since the 1901 federal election (the first Australian election post-Federation).

Since the AEC wants to keep using names that have been used at every election (I assume that would also count the original SA and Tasmanian seats created in 1903 as well as the original territory seats), technically the only one that could really be abolished or renamed is Sydney, but that won’t be renamed or abolished since then it would be the only state capital other than Hobart without an inner-city seat named after the city itself.

So you are correct that many are named after capital cities (Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney), but not all of them are. Some are named after other large cities (Ballarat, Bendigo and Newcastle), others are named after suburbs (Corio is in Geelong, Fremantle is in Perth, Kooyong is in Melbourne and North Sydney and Parramatta are both in Sydney), and then of course there’s Eden-Monaro which is named after the town of Eden on the South Coast and the Monaro region which is just west of the South Coast (covering Queanbyean and the Snowy Mountains down to the Victorian border).

About renaming seats though, these ones can’t be renamed:

* Federation seats: Ballarat, Bendigo, Brisbane, Capricornia, Corangamite, Corio, Cowper, Eden-Monaro, Flinders, Fremantle, Gippsland, Herbert, Hume, Hunter, Indi, Kennedy, Kooyong, Macquarie, Maranoa, Melbourne, Moreton, Newcastle, New England, North Sydney, Parramatta, Perth, Richmond, Robertson, Swan, Wannon, Wentworth, Werriwa, Wide Bay
* SA seats contested at every election since 1903: Adelaide, Barker, Boothby, Grey, Hindmarsh
* Tasmanian seats contested at every election since 1903: Bass, Franklin
* Original territory seats: Canberra, Lingiari, Solomon
* Named after former PMs: Barton, Bruce, Chifley, Curtin, Deakin, Fadden, Fisher, Forde, Fraser, Gorton, Hawke, Holt, Hughes, Keating, Lyons, McEwen, McMahon, Menzies, Page, Reid, Scullin, Watson, Whitlam
Reincarnated seats that existed in 1901: Oxley, Riverina
* Named after someone with the same surname as a former PM: Cook (Captain James Cook and Sir Joseph Cook)

Plus any seat with an Aboriginal name can’t be renamed, plus the AEC won’t rename seats like Sydney (even though Sydney isn’t a Federation seat and shares its name with a state electoral district).

@Nether Portal, further to Nimalan’s comments, I believe the main reason the Greens have changed their position from wanting to remove Caulfield to wanting to keep it is because of how the 3CP dynamics have changed.

One thing that hasn’t changed, is that the Greens’ best (and really only) way to win is to overtake the Liberals – not Labor – and win a GRN v LIB contest similar to the state seat of Prahran.

Back in 2016, there didn’t appear to be any risk of the Liberals falling out of the 2CP, so the only consideration really was replacing LIB/ALP areas with GRN ones (eg. Caulfield with Prahran). This would reduce both the ALP vote to get the Greens into the 2CP, and the LIB vote to help the Greens win the 2CP.

What has changed now is that the Liberal vote has plummeted so much, that removing a Liberal area actually has a high likelihood of turning Macnamara into an ALP v GRN seat, which are very difficult for the Greens to win (just look at how long they’ve been trying to get over the line in Wills & Cooper/Batman).

The Greens’ best chance of winning Macnamara is to keep the Liberals in the 2CP. Keeping Caulfield in the seat is the best way to do that, and on current boundaries, even just an 0.6% ALP to LIB swing would result in a Greens gain!

So my guess is that if current boundaries really only need a small negative swing for Labor to result in a GRN v LIB contest they would easily win, they wouldn’t want to jeopardise that by possibly creating an ALP v GRN contest they’d lose.

Sorry I had a typo there in my second paragraph. Meant to say this:

One thing that hasn’t changed, is that the Greens’ best (and really only) way to win is to overtake *Labor* – not *the Liberals* – and win a GRN v LIB contest similar to the state seat of Prahran.

The best way to illustrate that is just to look at the 3CP from 2022:
LIB – 33.67% (they actually finished 3rd in primary vote)
ALP – 33.48%
GRN – 32.84%

So, on current boundaries, even if the Greens vote didn’t budge, just a tiny 0.7% swing from ALP to LIB would result in the following:
LIB – 34.37%
GRN – 32.84%
ALP – 32.78%

That’d usually be at least a 60-40 GRN win, but even expecting higher preference flows to Liberals in Caulfield, the Greens would still comfortably win by roughly a 58-42 margin.

I think that’s what they’re banking on. They would have looked at those numbers, and looked at how close they are and how little is required (just a small swing against Labor in ANY direction!) to win, and then compared that to what a likely ALP v GRN 2CP would look like if a large part of the seat where the Liberal vote is the highest was removed.

It’s funny situation where replacing Caulfield with Prahran would practically guarantee they come first in both primary vote and 3CP vote, but would lose the 2CP vote; whereas current boundaries don’t guarantee they’ll make the 2CP (but they know they are right on the cusp) but guarantee they’d win it if they do make it.

Trent, but that is assuming the Liberals recommend preferences to Labor everywhere. What happens if the Liberals decide to recommend preferences to the Greens in just this seat (and maybe a handful of others that are Labor v Greens contests) just to spite Labor? If that were to happen, the Greens would be favoured to win on any set of boundaries.

I believe this situation occurred for the Queensland state seat of South Brisbane (although it was tight anyway and Labor most likely would have lost even if they received a favourable preference recommendation).

If there is one seat the Liberals will be the least likely to direct preferences to the Greens it’s this one.

The Greens want Caulfield to stay in Macnamara for the reasons Trent mentioned above but also because they want to win Higgins. If you do the swap then they have no chance of winning Higgins. Greens only need a 2.4% Labor->Green swing to win in Higgins.

The Greens ideal boundary would maybe be Macnamara going into the Elsternwick part of Goldstein. It’d bump up the Liberal 3CP just enough to not risk them falling to 3rd, and they actually outpolled Labor by 1 vote if you combine the Elsternwick senate votes.

@Yoh An, the thing is that’s a big “if” and when the Greens are only a -0.7% ALP swing away from winning Macnamara on current boundaries, it’s unlikely they’d bank on a scenario in which their chances hinge on where the Liberals direct preferences.

Especially as Drake said, the area around Macnamara, Goldstein & Higgins is the last area the Liberals would want to direct preferences to the Greens because all 3 have large Jewish populations, and both Higgins & Goldstein are Liberal targets they want to win back, so they wouldn’t want to alienate Jewish voters in those two seats.

Strategically for the Greens, on current boundaries they’re only an 0.7% ALP-to-LIB or 0.4% ALP-to-GRN swing away from winning Macnamara and a 2.4% ALP-to-GRN swing away from potentially winning Higgins, whereas the Caulfield/Prahran swap would effectively take them out of the Higgins race while making their Macnamara chances reliant on the Liberals preferencing them.

@Drake – That’s an interesting analysis of adding Elsternwick to Macnamara, something I hadn’t looked at.

@Trent, if doing the Caulfield/Prahran swap would make it “very difficult for the Greens to win”, why wouldn’t Labor suggest it in their redistribution proposal and break their years-long opposition to the swap? It seems odd that the Greens see it in their interest to keep Caulfield in Macnamara, and Labor does too!

I still favour Josh Burns to hold this seat. I assume he has increased his profile since the last election, especially over these past few months advocating against anti-Semitism and a generally more pro-Israel stance compared with his party as a whole, which may have a similar effect as Michael Danby did in stopping any swing away from Labor in Caulfield. In other areas, Burns may increase his vote as he has broken ranks with his party over some environmental issues which may help win over Labor/Green swing voters. Additionally, Steph Hodgins-May is not the Greens candidate which will put them at a fairly large disadvantage given she likely had a personal vote as a perennial candidate.

I think the main reason Labor wouldn’t have proposed it (before it became known that Higgins would be abolished) is because it would disadvantage them in Higgins.

Their proposal would have strengthened their Higgins margin, so I’m guessing their strategy was to try to hold both.

I think the numbers show the swap would have made minimal difference to Macnamara’s 3PP anyway, it would make an ALP v GRN contest slightly more likely but certainly not guarantee it. So it was probably in their best interest to keep the status quo there while boosting the Higgins margin.

Whereas for the Greens, same outcome for different reasons – why make a change that makes an ALP v GRN contest more likely in Macnamara while simultaneously taking themselves in the Higgins race, when they can remain competitive in both.

Higgins being abolished might cause a rethink of the strategy for both now.

I worked out a notional 3PP for Macnamara on the new boundaries proposed by the AEC and it actually would be an ALP v GRN contest, but there’s only 0.23% between first and third so the situation remains the where really any 2CP combination is possible with the smallest of swings or even a small change in minor party preference flows.

I posted this over in the redistribution thread, but worth putting here as a follow up to that comment too.

Here’s what I calculated as the notional Macnamara results for the new draft boundaries, using a methodology that adjusts all the special votes to factor in Windsor’s variation from Higgins as a whole, as well as using Higgins’ preference flows at the 3PP stage to apply to the “Other” (non-ALP/LIB/GRN) vote being transferred in from Windsor when calculating the new 3PP.

What I ended up with for Primary Votes was:
ALP – 31.71% (-0.05%)
GRN – 30.14% (+0.49%)
LIB – 28.53% (-0.47%)
Other – 9.62% (+0.04%)

And for the ALP v LIB 2PP:
ALP – 62.73% (+0.48%)
LIB – 37.27% (-0.48%)

Now the 3PP is where it gets interesting! In 2022 the difference between 1st and 3rd place was only 0.83%. On the notional results, now the difference between 1st and 3rd place is only 0.23%!

ALP – 33.45%
GRN – 33.34%
LIB – 33.22%

So that would be an ALP v GRN contest (which I assume would be something like 56-44 to ALP), but it’s certainly within a margin of error and even small changes in preference flows could result in a different outcome. An 0.5% swing from Labor and you probably end up with a 62-38 GRN v LIB result. An 0.2% swing from the Greens and you’d probably get a 63-37 ALP v LIB result.

Definitely a unique seat in that you could get 3 different 2CP margins – all ending in a relatively safe 2CP margin too – based on swings of less than 0.5%.

Appalling attack on Josh Burns’ office by protesters.

“Zionism is fascism” is a perfectly accurate statement.

Whether one is pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, the attack on Josh Burns, or anyone’s electorate office or workplace is completely unacceptable and should be called out (and Zoe Daniel has already done so via Twitter/X). And before anyone says anything, I’d say the same if someone did the same to an MP like Adam Bandt or the likes.

These aren’t protests, these are just vile schmucks running amok. The Greens should call it out as well as everyone else otherwise they’ll be seen as endorsing this sort of attack. However knowing the demos of this electorate they’ll probably get rewarded for it next election even with the big Jewish cohort in Elsternwick/Caulfield/Ripponlea.

Agree Tommo, it is perfectly fine to do demonstrations and protests in the street but as soon as they become violent and result in harm to people or property then that is unacceptable.

i condemn the attack on Josh Burns office and hope that he feels safe in this country which is his as well as much as it anyone else. I am not commenting on who is morally right or wrong in the Middle East conflict, i have good friends of both communities. What i would say is that Josh Burns has conducted himself well during this conflict he has not used inflammatory language and has always been measured and polite. I am not sure if the Green will win Macnamara they may increase their support in the west of the Seat around Port Melbourne, Albert Park, South Melbourne purely due to demographic change and these areas are have very few Jews and many people in those areas will be indifferent on the conflict. There is very few Muslims in Macnamara so i dont think the Greens will campaign on Palestine here unlike Wills. The thing that may save Josh Burns is that some Jewish Liberal voters may tactically vote for him to keep the Greens out in Macnamara. Interestingly, Josh Burns has never been attacked when he is appears on Sky After Dark virtually every other Labor MP, moderate Liberals are torn to shreds when they appear with Peta Credlin, Rita Panahi maybe this is a sign that some Liberals are getting ready to vote tactically for Josh Burns.

@Nimalan good to see you back.

I think what will happen in Macnamara is some Liberals (especially Jewish Liberals) will preference him second since he’s a Labor Right MP with strong connections to the Jewish community and there’s a serious chance the Greens could win Macnamara.