Dunkley by-election, 2024

“I disagree.Dunkley is a seat where there will be many people in the $150k to $250k earning range who will bear the brunt of any change.”

As of the 2021 census, 22.1% of households in Dunkley had $3000+ total household weekly income. That’s just over $150k per year, but that’s household income not personal income. That’s slightly below the Victorian average (24.2%) and the national average (24.3%).

So they are a slightly smaller group in Dunkley than in other seats.

I was going to say the same.

It’s really only a pretty small part of Dunkley (around Frankston South & Mount Eliza) that is affluent. The vast majority of the seat ranges from middle-class (Langwarrin, Seaford) to very much working class (Frankston North) and would be completely unaffected by reducing the top threshold from $200k to $180k.

Libs might do better here than expected.

Dutton may be more appealing (or at least less repulsive) to voters of Dunkley than any other seat in Victoria. Dixon and Dunkley have a lot in common from a socio economic view and being outer suburbs etc.

Further the liberal candidate has some name recognition and to be a mayor of Frankston under the liberal branding he must be doing something right.

On the flip side the Victorian State liberals seem to have found another way of shooting themselves in the foot by flip flopping like a paralytic pancake over their position on the Victorian treaty with indigenous people.

Pollster

@Pollster
I suspect there is *something* different between Dunkley and
other relatively white, outer suburban seats (Linsday, Petrie, Dickson) as they returned something like 30% yes (Heck, Longman was 25%) while Dunkley was higher at 44%.

This could flag that Dutton will not do well here as expected. (Or it could mean f*** all)

@ Pollster/Leon
Dunkley demographically is very Anglo & Socially mixed so has a mix of low SES as well as wealthy suburbs. It is very irreligious and had a thumping result for SSM. It also had a better than national average result for the voice. Suburbs like Langwarrin are typical outer suburban middle income suburbs with a lot of tradies but at the same time very secular as well, so i dont appealing to Trans issues etc will work here at all.

I tend to think the bigger issue is the possibility of rate rises in response to the changes to the tax cuts. What did for Howard in the end was the rate rises in response to the ‘sandwich and milkshake’ tax cuts re 2005 or 2006. That, particularly if the RB went early, even 6/2, would probably kill Labor here.

Even if it doesn’t overly effect albo on this issue in dunkley it will have wider implications especially in the teal seats. There also the you can’t trust albo factor that might effect them here

Leon,
The obvious difference is that the other seats are all in Queensland where the Coalition has historically done better than Labor at the Federal level.
Nonetheless Dunkley is usually Liberal, and it seems Labor are on the nose(we will get a better idea when the next polls come in).
Add the likelihood of broken promises(Ben note that whether you are affected or not,as a voter you might be offended at a broken promise),and the difficulty that Labor has in retaining the seat becomes obvious. I

I honestly think the assertion that these changes will damage labor’s chances at the next election are absurd. Sure, voters may view it as a broken promise, but when push comes to shove, the vast majority of voters vote based on personal economic issues. Considering the fact that for every one person negatively effected by these tax changes, approximately twelve will benefit directly at the hip pocket (and probably a similar ratio in Dunkley) I think that these changes will have reasonably broad support.

That being said, I don’t suddenly expect poll trajectories to reverse, but I don’t think any further decline in the labor vote can be attributed to these changes…

Regarding stage 3 tax cuts, at least 90% of the population will get a bigger tax cut than what they were promised. Is it a broken promise if you get more than promised? Perhaps. Those in the top tax bracket will get a tax cut but half as much as what was promised, if I am reading it correctly. I believe many people will read between the lines when they hear the words ‘tax cut’ to see if they’ll benefit.

Surely, there’ll be low income earners who are unhappy with Albo’s revised stage 3 tax cuts and would rather than forgo their additional tax cut so that those in the top 5% of income earners get what they were promised originally.

I think the bigger issue is the prospect of the RBA raising the cash rate either in early February or early March. There’s a huge outer-suburban mortgage belt, especially inland in the middle and north. This could crush Labor’s prospects.

@Loius, one caveat is that once you break a promise like this then everything is on the table, from stuff promised before the election to stuff ignored during the campaign. A good example is Howards ‘Never ever” GST (and all the core and non core promise stuff), and even though he took it to an election he basically got thrashed but was saved by the vagaries of our electoral system.
Also, if pocket book issues were really such a big thing, Albo would have tanked when the low/middle income offset was removed.

I find it bizarre that this is a hill the Liberals are willing to die on. The practical implication of their stance to reverse any changes to Stage 3 is that they will be going into an election effectively proposing a tax cut for the top eight percent and a tax raise for the bottom 92 percent. I don’t see the broken promise narrative (as true as this may be) overcoming the obvious indefensibility of such a position.

I happen to be in the top eight percent. It is inconceivable to me how someone in my position could complain about Labor’s changes. I’m still getting a generous tax cut. Most people are doing it much tougher than I am.

@nocholas they never said anything about a tax increase for the bottom 92 percent. stage 3 tax cuts merely reduced the taxes of those top 8%. albo is simply saying hes reversing the stage 3 tax cuts to pay for tax cuts for the other 92%

Yes, but given Stage 3 comes into effect in July, at that point reversing the change will constitute a tax increase for the bottom 92.

I don’t think this will damage the ALP, it appears it’s lower income male voters that are soft for the ALP, they’ll be indifferent/slightly pleased.

Who it does throw under the bus are the Teals …..this positions the Libs to win back some of their blue ribbon seats which is why the liberals will run with it.

All up, some thing for the Libs and ALP, serious questions about relevancy for Teals.

no they wouldnt. that would just be stupid

MLV
Great post. agree completely.
“Also, if pocket book issues were really such a big thing, Albo would have tanked when the low/middle income offset was removed.” really good point.

Nicolas
I doubt that the Coalition will propose anything of the sort. It would be suicidal to take any tax cut from anyone
Have you ever heard of the “VIRTUOUS CYCLE” ?
Basically when tax rates are reduced collections increase. Tony Abbot verified this as recently as 2013 with the levy he put on high income earners of 2.5%. Collections went DOWN $5 Billion immediately !. A PROVEN policy failure. That great economic genius Bowen wanted to reintroduce this levy in 2019 !. There is a “speciale” kind of idiocy, or insanity involved in reintroducing FAILED policy. In essence this (policy change) is simply the latest variation on a profoundly stupid concept.
I’ll put it another way. We don’t give high income earners a tax cut, for reasons of fairness, equity justice, need, sucking up to them or anything else. We do it so that they are not DIS- INCENTIVISED from working harder, longer, more productively, and expansively . Or going somewhere else (OS) where they are more valued and so on. Also most business high income earners incorporate to stay under the threshold, therefore most workers in the highest bracket are wage earners, contractors, specialists.
In conclusion this issue is NOT about you, me, or any INDIVIDUAL person or concerns. It is in reality about a greater collective or national interest, which has by the actions of the PM, & Govt been significantly compromised, or betrayed. As such this act of betrayal ought to be identified clearly and condemned for the weak, false, expedient, deceit, and deception that it is. In fact this policy distortion, or perversion has no merit whatsoever !.

Easy Labor retain with a positive swing.

If the Coalition doesn’t seek to revert the changes, aren’t they themselves breaking the promise that Sussan Ley made just a few days ago? What are they going to propose instead? Are they going to concede partially to Labor’s changes in spite of how they’ve positioned themselves in recent days? I just find it hard to see how they are going to fight Labor on this issue.

@paladin

I don’t seek to disagree with you on economics, but my comment was from a psephological perspective and how this issue is perceived, and particularly in response to the idea that this is a ploy to win over high-income voters.

Ian, I wouldn’t be confident predicting an easy Labor retain. The Liberals have a stronger, local candidate this time and with polls showing a decline in support for Labor this will have to be seen as a toss-up contest. Especially since this is a swing seat that may be slightly conservative leaning, as Labor only tends to win here when they are riding high in the polls.

I would say Labor retain but with a slight swing against given it would always probably be a Labor leaning seat if it was under current boundaries

What the Libs can do is essentially reverse to the original Stage 3 plan but then propose additional tax cuts such as raising the tax-free threshold and reducing the 19% tax bracket to 16% like Labor has proposed (and call it Stage 4 Tax Cuts or something like that). Sure that would be disastrous for the budget but they can argue that they aren’t reversing anything but rather going further and giving more tax cuts to everyone including those in the lower income tax brackets.

I agree the teals will be in a tough spot regarding Labor’s Stage 3 tax changes but I’d argue so would Dutton because he seems to believe that he can win over outer suburban and regional electorates while abandoning the teal seats and the multicultural marginal seats like Reid and Chisholm. These seats have higher incomes than the seats the hard right of the party believe are the future base of the party and Labor’s Stage 3 Tax Cut changes benefit them more than the original Stage 3 plan. Having a campaign solely on breaking promises won’t really matter if voters would benefit from said breaking of promises.

Nicholas
Steady on . The government will be overturning legislation. the coalition have reacted to a few aspects of that. Wouldn’t you be critical if they didn’t take the time for a considered policy response ? Are you trying to conflate some “Lazy Susan” remarks as policy commitments ? That would be foolish surely !!!? Perhaps you would be extending a position or credibility to Susan that she does not even receive from her colleagues ?

I confess to having little faith in the Coalition to pursue my argument of pragmatism. However my comments refute the Substance of the govt position.
The overriding PERCEPTION will be that the govt is duplicitous, deceitful, and chaotic. Even more so if the govt were to re run the “big end of town ” spiel (nonsense). The proposition that anyone is interested in making ” a ploy to win over high-income voters.” is frankly ridiculous , as I’ve already referenced at length
Also its worth reminding all, that the big lies of privatising medicare in 2016, & CDC for pensioners in 2019 resonated strongly in seats like Dunkley. Peta Murphy even circulated flyers on this. So perhaps the real question or issue (for the PM/GOVT) is moving to one on CREDIBILITY, or believability !!?

Yoh An
Very thoughtful comment. What do you think of a residue influence from the Voice referendum ?
Perhaps if there is an effect it might be evidenced in a seat like Dunkley ? I guess i’m alluding to the divisiveness, condescension that played out.

Dan M
iT’S worth being mindful that the govt has increased spending by well over $200 Billion this term. They have tons of money and are spending even more still. Angus Taylor has even noticed, and said something ….!!
SURELY THAT MEANS THAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS WAKING UP TOO !!!?
Perhaps your concerns for the budget are a little misplaced !?

Pollster
i agree with you. Are you inferring that Dunkley is ripe for revolt !?. Or simply that it might be difficult or messy ? It will be interesting to see if the liberal party can mobilise sufficiently to make a contest of this. Surely they can handle campaigning in just one seat as opposed to 37 ?

I’d agree with Marh – if this seat was meant to be conservative leaning on its current boundaries except at times of high watermark Labor support, then Peta Murphy would not have won it in 2019, an election where outer surburban electorates of the likes of Longman, Lindsay, Braddon and Bass switched to Liberal. On that note, while the Liberal candidate being the Frankston mayor is noted, I’d err on the side of a swing against Labor but a hold with a much reduced margin. The general election come next year after the Vic federal redistribution may be different though.

Dan M and Sandbelter’s comments on the teals are of note though – if independents in the teal seats are perceived as unable to gain wins for their electorates, even if not on climate change issues, then on economic policy, then I do wonder how many voters there would think to revert to wanting a Liberal (provided they’re a candidate that better represents the area and its voters unlike say Katherine Deves).

One of the big questions is how many candidates there will be – a low number like Aston (5) or 13 like Fadden? If there are lots of candidates it could get really messy.

@paladin

Why not cut the 45% rate too then? The Stage 3 tax cuts don’t provide any additional incentive for someone earning above $200,000 to increase their income.

While it may not effect this seat in a major way it will cost albo his majority

Labor actually got slight swings away at the 2022 election in the northern parts. I’m talking Seaford and Carrum Downs. Since they’re more intertwined with outer suburban Melbourne than the Mornington Peninsula, the 2PP swings away from Labor were quite like the swings in various Labor heartland seats in outer Melbourne, albeit on a smaller scale.

On the flipside, Mt Eliza had really swung hard to Labor. This was probably a spillover from the ‘teal wave’ where affluent, ‘teal-ish’ suburbs and towns turned on Morrison. There were also big swings on postal votes as well as in Frankston and Langwarrin. These swings to Labor were much, much larger than the swings away from Labor in the north.

Dunkley is like a microcosm. The by-election will be a litmus test that serves a few purposes:
– To see if teal areas are as anti-LNP as they were in 2022 and/or whether Labor can hold onto or even win affluent voters.
– Determine whether Labor can reverse the support lost in 2022 in outer Melbourne.
– It might also test Labor’s popularity in the mortgage belt, given the persistent inflation and interest rate rises.

Nicholas
Precisely. It’s really just a choice between the reality of collecting the maximum revenue, or being distracted by political posturing. I’d want modelling and a rigorous cost benefit analysis before giving anything away though

How can somebody in their right mind vote for a party that has broken so many promises.

I wonder if anyone would make note of the fact that this by-election will be held on Albo’s 28th anniversary of his election to Parliament as he was elected at the election held on March 2 1996.

Therefore would Dunkley voters give Albo a good anniversary present!

I’d say Labor hold but reduced margin but if the Frankston mayor runs again after redistribution he might win. Dunkley will lose part of Mt Eliza to flinders

@Matthew See: 2 March also happens to be Albo’s birthday. Therefore I think Dunkley voters will likely give Albo a good birthday present.
@John: Since Mt Eliza is the Liberal Party’s strongest area in Dunkley, Dunkley losing part of Mt Eliza to Flinders will be even better for Labor.

So Maybe this is why Albo is holding back on fuel efficiency standards. Lots of tradies who love their utes.

A broken promise, is a broken promise. Today stage 3 tax cuts, what next? Rewarding any political party with a by election win will only embolden them to make more changes before the next election. Big issues need to go to an election. Howard did it with GST.

The majority will receive an extra $804 per year, $67 per month, $31 per fortnight or $15 per week. How does this help the cost of living crisis? Try reducing excise duty on fuel, getting serious with supermarkets over price gouging or doing more to cap energy prices.

I hope the voters of Dunkley punish the government for lying!

I’m not familiar with this area at all but looking at census data would this be the most racially monochromatic seat in greater melbourne (besides maybe Jagajaga)? all of the top 5 places of ancestry are european and the % of voters with CALD backgrounds is significantly lower than greater melbourne and victoria. even the liberal seats of menzies and deakin contain sizeable chinese populations and la trobe has a relatively abundant indian and sri lankan diaspora. that being said, why is this seat (older, whiter, middle class, outer suburban), with demographics seemingly incompatible with labor’s base, relatively safe for the labor party?

@ Louis
You are right Dunkley is very ethnically homogeneous and is not really becoming more diverse. This is contrast to neighboring Casey LGA which is rapidly becoming very diverse. As you correctly pointed out La Trobe has a large South Asian community (especially Sri Lankan). Other very monocultural parts of Melbourne also include Casey/Yarra Ranges LGA & Jagajaga as you pointed out. Aston is also becoming more diverse these days.
However, Dunkley is very socio-ecomically diverse ranging from public housing Frankston North, working class Carrum Downs, middle class Langwarrin/Seaford, Upper middle class Frankston South and elite Mount Eliza.

Interesting @Nimalan. do you think one day dunkley could end up similar to lindsay (socially mixed, lower diversity compared with statewide figures) and trend firmly into the coalitions hands or are there other factors keeping it in the labor column. i’ve heard some mention of high irreligious % and gentrification around seaford which perhaps are keeping the electorate relatively socially progressive and thus fairly safe labor.

The seat seems to be way more socially progressive than Lindsay even with their on paper similar demographics:

Marriage Equality vote:
Lindsay: 71.97% (actually higher than a lot of Teal seats)
Dunkley: 56.17%

Voice ref:
Lindsay: 31.01%
Dunkley 44.18%

The big difference between the two seems to be religion.

No religion:
Lindsay: 29.8%
Dunkley: 50%

@nimalan that would depend on the growth in Flinder if flinders were to grow it would push more population into dunkleyas Flinders is a corner seat and the only place they can go is into dunkley.

@ Louis
Good question, i actually think there is a good comparison to Lindsay, it is socially mixed and very Anglo. However, maybe there is some subtle differences that probably impact its trajectory. Mount Eliza is actually more like a Teal Northern Beaches suburb with private schools and probably much wealthier than more affluent parts of Lindsay such as Glenmore Park, Leonay etc. Also Seaford has gentrified more recently so it has attracted a lot of millenials/younger Gen X voters and this is why its support for Voice was quite strong. I do agree like Drake & yourself said Religion seems to be a major difference and it is more socially progressive. Some have often compared neighboring Casey LGA to Penrith LGA. Casey LGA is much more religious but one key difference is that is very CALD and 45% of people speak a language other than English at home whereas in Lindsay it only 24%. Casey is also very socially mixed, it has low support for SSM but decent support for the Voice especially in the more ethnically diverse areas.

@Drake, you got Lindsay and Dunkley, the other way around for SSM

Evening Labor wins the seat they will need to keep the swing under about 3.5% otherwise that’s a coalition win and it becomes vulnerable at thenextelection

Mount Eliza should be back in Flinders due to close similarities/ties with Mornington and Mount Martha. Hopefully this will happen in future redistributions.

@ian given the shortfall in Flinders it will take in some of mount Eliza this redistribution. And that will depend on the numbers in Flinders as it is a corner seat what happens to mount Eliza will depend on how the numbers are

Mount Eliza is the most Liberal part of Dunkley. Perhaps this strengthens the Liberal margin in Flinders?

Does anyone still believe that the govt action (re the tax cuts) was not in reaction to their own polling in Dunkley ?
How personally invested was Albanese in this radical action ?
What happens to the govt and particularly Albanese if they lose this by election ? Or even if they just narrowly win ?
There is quite a lovely, beautiful symmetry, or irony to the reality that a by election (Eden Monaro) concretised Albanese’s Prime Ministership and another (Dunkley) may well end it ! Almost poetic justice !
Perhaps the stakes are not so high, but are they any less in the perception of Albanese himself ?

yes they are desperate to hold this seat. a loss or narrow victory would only bolster the libs and cause leadership problems for albo. currently nationwide labor is only narrowly beating them in the polls well within the margin of error