Box Hill – Victoria 2022

Liberal preselection has been won by Nicole Werner, a pastor at the Pentecostal megachurch Planetshakers, according to Paul Sakkal of The Age. Among six candidates, she apparently won in the first round with 65/95 votes, an overwhelming level of support.

You have to wonder how the Liberal Party’s embrace of megachurches plays in a wider electorate. The 2021 WA election suggests it won’t play well. They’re also tied in public consciousness to a Prime Minister who is rapidly losing popularity.

I suppose that puts to rest the rumours that the Libs were keeping this open to put Robert Clark back in.

If the Liberals want to be competitive at the November 2022 they would drop Josh Frydenberg in as the candidate here, and put the existing preselected candidate, Nicole Werner, on their upper house ticket for North-Eastern Metro

Frydenberg’s not winning back the voters that left the Liberals for Labor in 2018. He already got deserted by his electorate in 2022. Still probably better than the current candidate but not the answer if they want to be competitive in this seat.

Frydenberg won’t win here, neither can Nicole Werner. The Lib brand is too much on the nose in Vic. To be honest Nicole Werner is one of the better state Lib candidates. Most of them are absolute duds.

Those two polling places in the centre of Box Hill voted 70% Labor at the federal election. Can the Liberals forget about winning this seat back?

@ Nicholas, i agree with you the Libs are not going to win this seat back for sometime. The Redistribution has damaged the Libs significantly here as it lost Elite territory in the City of Boroondara for middle class suburbia south of Canterbury Road. Although it is to be pointed the Western Fringe of Whitehorse Council (West of Elgar Road) Mont Albert/Surrey Hills is no less affluent and should be solid Liberal.

I am almost certain Libs would probably put more resources in the Western Suburbs to appeal to anti-lockdown and anti-vax votes that would otherwise go to UAP/LDP/OAP instead of areas like Box Hill where people are more pro-vax, more likely to accept the lockdown, and would deplore the anti-vax “freedom” rallies which would likely make Labor easier to retain this seat.
Next to Box Hill is Bulleen which is Matthew Guy’s seat. There may be a possibility Guy could lose his seat based on the federal elections and if Labor tried to put effort for the first time in Manningham. Guy is too anti-vax by pro-vaxxers but too pro-vax by anti-vaxxers.

A recent article on The Age listed it as a target but I’d be close to writing it off.

The tide turned heavily against the Liberals in this area in May, far moreso than in the 2018 state election, so I can’t see the Liberals actually performing better than in 2018.

The redistribution has slightly widened Labor’s margin here according to the VEC release yesterday.

And it’s on the Suburban Rail Loop. That may be controversial more broadly because of the negative press it has been getting, but it’s almost certain to be a vote winner in the actual suburbs covered by Phase 1, which should help Labor hold both Box Hill and Ashwood and gain Glen Waverley.

Sportsbet are paying $4.00 for an independent to win here. Do they know something the rest of us don’t?

With Labor paying $1.90, and Liberal paying $2.95, the implied probability of a major party winning is well under 100% – only 86.5%! If you assume that only a major party has a realistic chance of winning, that’s a huge arbitrage.

Similar situation in Ashwood ($6.00 for an independent to win, 95.8% implied probability of a major party winning), Bass ($6.00, 96.4%), and Mornington ($2.05, 62.7%). These don’t seem like seats that independents are likely to win.

Does Sportsbet have some deep insider knowledge or is this another case of sloppy bookmaking?

Sloppy bookmaking surely – they were paying $28 for a Labor win in Prahran earlier today when that’s a highly probably outcome!

The bookies have the Libs on surprisingly high odds here compared to other neighbouring seats like Ashwood and Ringwood.

Sportsbet is in way remotely reliable at all

no”

Yeah their odds are rubbish.

In Prahran currently they have the Coalition with better odds than Labor, when:
– The Greens margin is 9% vs Lib compared to about 0.3% vs Labor; and
– Based on federal results, the Libs would have finished a *distant* third, not even remotely close to making the 2CP let alone winning the seat.

In Caulfield they have an ex-ALP independent with close to no chance of beating Labor into the 2CP count with much better odds than Labor, despite the VEC classifying the seat as notional Labor now, and again on federal results Labor woumd have won with close to an 8% margin.

I don’t believe in betting on elections, but with those odds it would be a good time to put some money on Labor in both seats (I still don’t think they’ll beat the Greens in Prahran but for a modest bet it’d be worth the chance at a huge return).

Agree virtually no chance in Box Hill this time around for the Libs. Demographic trends especially all the new apartments in Central Box Hill is helping Labor.

I don’t see the LNP winning here, Labor will most likely increase their margin here.

Agreed. The eastern suburbs are slowly drifting away from the Liberal Party and the party’s cosiness to Pentecostal megachurches is causing untold damage to its brand.

Assume this seat falls mainly in the federal divisions of Chisholm and Deakin .. as 3% plus margin expect alp hold in current environment

The more I look at it the more it seems to me the liberals position is fundamentally unsound. The question is how many seats they retain..I would presume they hold the seats that have a 5% plus margin. The seats with margins below that come into play. To either Labor or independents. The seats on the border 0 to 2% margin will depend on candidate quality. Where there is a alp sitting mp in a notionally liberals seat which is borderline then he or she could retain.

After listening to the Raf Epstein vox pop interviewing voters in Box Hill yesterday, this seat might actually swing back the other way.

Only 2 people interviewed supported Dan. And despite Matthew Guy not being a draw card, a few of the Asian voters interviewed recognised the Liberal candidate when shown a picture and said they’d be voting for her.

In virtually every interview across multiple pivotal seats, there has never been more than 2 people with the intention of voting Labor.

I am not convinced that this election will be the lay down misere for Labor that everyone expects. It is starting to get eerily reminiscent of 1999 when Jeff Kennett was meant to be a ‘shoo in’ but the arrogance and control really put people off. Daniel Andrews refusing to speak to Virginia Trioli is very reminiscent of Jeff Kennett not wanting to speak to Jon Faine. The danger for Labor that enough people will cast a protest vote thinking it won’t make a difference and it may very well do. And when speaking to people, hardly anyone has anything nice to say about the Andrews government – and nobody has anything nice to say about the Libs.

Agreed @redistributed

Everything is pointing to a close election except for the publicly-released polls. Dan is taking swipes at the Libs at every chance he gets. A complete 180 from not even acknowledging their existence at the 2018 campaign.

I think Daniel Andrews is definitely behaving like Jeff Kennett was in 1999, and although no one really likes the Libs, there’s enough of a sample through the ABC vox pops to conclude that the premier has a severely damaged public image, and are willing to lend their vote to the Libs to see change, despite not being particularly enthusiastic about the party.

That seems to be the general consensus on the ground. In virtually every vox pop conducted, out of 8-10 people interviewed, no more than 2 people have signalled approval of or intention to vote for Daniel Andrews.

Mark and redistributed, do you know if public polls varied dramatically in the lead up to the 1999 election?
I do agree with your view as I have read online sources that indicate most voters are either dissatisfied or indifferent with the performance of Andrews and Labor overall.

However, I also note that many young voters are actually supportive of Labor and the progressive platform, particular projects like SRL as they will benefit their travel to and from university.

Further to your comments about this election being like 1999, in the latter case the Coalition lost quite a lot of rural seats but hardly any in the metropolitan/urban area.

Perhaps 2022 will play out in a similar fashion, Labor will suffer huge swings in their ‘traditional’ northern and western suburbs base, potentially losing a handful of seats but only suffer negligible swing in the affluent inner suburbs and lose just one or two seats.

@Yoh An Potentially, yeah.

I don’t want to come out and say that “oh Dan is gonna lose 100%”, but I think there’s definitely enough evidence to suggest that the polls visible to the public are far from accurate (as in, the real margin is closer)

Dan’s media team actually had to delete a tweet last night which attacked the liberals for announcing health upgrades in Mortlake, Willaura and Hamilton. The premier’s campaign is looking increasingly desperate and frazzled. Even the video promoting the return of the SEC was filled with more swipes at the liberals than actual details about the proposal.

I personally am a young voter who voted for Dan and have come to regret it for a plethora of reasons, including changing views due to increased political engagement. I think the idea of the SRL is good but the actual design, plan and costings are terrible. It really doesn’t have a business case in its current form. But my age group really isn’t up for grabs. It’s the 30+ vote that is.

@Yoh An

In answer to the poll question, I believe at about 8 weeks out from the 1999 election, Newspoll (or one of the other main ones, can’t remember) had the Libs up by a margin of 56-44. I read the synopsis recently. Will have to dig it up.

Steve Bracks was also a figure that wasn’t really well known and didn’t have much exposure at the time.

Libs appear to be throwing everything at this seat to win it back

They’re definitely in with a good shot. The Lib candidate matches up well with the Chinese community there, and Labor’s Paul Hamer has been quite lacklustre, similar to hawthorn’s John Jennedy.

Mark, as someone who lives in the neighbouring seat of Bulleen i dont get the feeling that this time around the Libs will win it. I would not compare Paul Hamer to JK he is much younger has a stem background is quite visible in this community secured funding for Laburnum Primary, Old Orchard Primary and Chatham. SRL will be popular here. Only thing going against him would be the level crossing removals in Surrey Hills/Mont Albert and the loss of the station but that is the Liberal end of the electorate. Also the State Liberals used to rant against BRI etc

The Liberal MP “matching up well with the Chinese community” versus a Caucasian Labor candidate with a gender studies PhD didn’t seem to make much of a difference in Chisholm.

@ Nicholas, the same could be said in the seat of Moreton which is similar to Chisholm in many ways where the Libs preselected an ethnic Chinese candidate and got a backlash in areas such Sunnybank.

@Mark, I don’t think ethnicity would be a significant role in the voting decisions as many would think.
Just look at the results of Chisholm where Gladys who is ethnic Chinese lost her seat to Carina who is Italian and ironically the polling booths where polling booths with the most swings against Gladys are in the most Chinese heavy areas.

Yeah but it’s Gladys Liu. She was already a controversial figure of a tired government.

The shoe is on the other foot in this state election. Paul Hamer started blocking people for questioning him about the makeshift tents outside Box Hill hospital.

@Mark:

While there may be some similarities to 1999, even including the seat count where Kennett held 58 seats and Labor currently hold 58 seats notionally, and the large personalities and dominant styles of both premiers. But it’s certainly not a 1:1 comparison.

Here a few different reasons categorised by topic:

1. POLLING.
Yes polling can be inaccurate and change, and I also agree to an extent with Mark that the published polls are probably inflated, however the differences are:
a) Most psephologists have acknowledged that polls were far more inaccurate and “bounced around a lot more” in 1999 than they do now.
b) I believe in 1999 Kennett’s leads were more to the tune of 54-46 or even 55-45, around 3 months out from the election. That is a large margin. But polls this time have consistently been in the 56-60% range for Labor.
c) Even when the Libs were leading 55-45 in those 1999 polls, Labor still had a primary vote of around 40%. Times are different now with a much larger minor/independent vote, but the Liberals polling at sub-30% is an unwinnable position, which leads me to the next point…

2. IMPACT OF MINORS/INDEPENDENTS
Minors & Independents have a much larger share of the vote now than 1999 which creates a very different dynamic. However, the problem for the Liberals is that the Greens have by far the largest share of the non-major vote, and their preferences flow at least 85-15 in favour of Labor. That allowed Labor to win the federal election with only a 32% primary vote, but the Coalition simply don’t have a large source of preferences like Labor do which makes their low primary vote much harder to overcome. In most seats, the Liberals require at least a 44-45% primary vote to win, whereas Labor require far less.

3. ELECTORAL MAP
In 1999, Labor picked up 13 seats with only a 3.66% 2PP swing because 12 of those 13 seats were marginal. The electoral map this time is far more favourable to Labor:
a) The Coalition need to gain 19 seats to form government, but even a uniform swing of 6% would only net them 10 seats, and with a notional 58 seats Labor would still have a majority even if they lost a further 3 seats to Greens or independents on top of that.
b) The swing is not expected to be uniform – much larger swings are expected in outer regions (but where Labor hold double digit margins) with much smaller swings elsewhere, meaning a 6% swing may actually only result in 5 or 6 Liberal gains based on where the swings are expected.

4. FEDERAL DRAG
In 1999, there was a 3 year Howard/Liberal government that was extremely unpopular in Victoria, so federal drag was an issue for the Liberals as it is in most elections. However, this year federal drag actually impacts the Liberals more than Labor because the federal Labor government is brand new and still very popular, while the Liberals are still being federally dragged by the very recent memory of a much-hated 9 year government, fresh controversies, and possibly the most unpopular opposition leader ever.

5. OPPOSITION LEADERS
You’re right to say that Bracks was relatively unknown in 1999. But so are a lot of opposition leaders, including Andrews in 2014. Matthew Guy, however, is not unknown. He is extremely unpopular, and was already emphatically rejected 4 years ago. His return to leadership is also perceived as a sign of the Liberals’ very shallow talent pool.

6. CHANGING POLITICAL CLIMATE
Since 1982 Victoria has consistently been on an increasingly leftward trajectory. The state is arguably a lot more progressive in 2022 than it was in 1999, and as a result the Liberals are more unelectable than ever. Kennett’s success in 1992 & 1996 was a reaction to the recession, but you could argue that the swing back to Labor in 1999 was almost a “correction” to Victoria’s natural leftward lean.

In today’s political climate, conditions almost have to be perfect for the Liberals to win power in Victoria against the state’s natural lean.

In 2010 for example you had severe federal drag following Rudd/Gillard, an 11 year old Labor government who recently replaced their popular leader, a very moderate and quite popular Liberal leader in Baillieu, a more favourable electoral map, and the Liberals still only won a 1 seat majority.

In 2022 you have federal drag hurting the Liberals, a very popular federal Labor government, an electoral map that massively advantages Labor, and an extremely unpopular Liberal leader.

So in summary, while there are some similarities to 1999, the conditions this time are just nowhere near as favourable to the Liberals as they were to Labor in 1999. The Liberals have a MUCH steeper hill to climb and a lot more working against them than Labor did in 1999, or than the Liberals did in 2010.

Even if 1999 was repeated in an identical fashion against those odds – the exact same turnaround in the polls, and the exact same 2PP swing – Labor would still have a clear majority based on the electoral map.

One final note: If Labor were reduced to a minority as many on the right are hoping for, they would only require the support of the Greens. So it would actually be an even more left-wing government than a Labor majority. I find it strange that so many of the right-wing “freedom” types seem to be talking up the prospect of a Labor/Greens government!

very interesting points trent. I think the libs this election r just trying to maintain/gain enoguh seats to give them a competitive shot in 2026, which is way they want psuetto(sorry if i spelled it wrong) to wing hawthorn back so badly. I think if the vic lnp try and interject matthew guy one year out again then it wont be a good look for them.

omg, so many spelling errors in my last comment

@Trent ‘s third point is worth emphasising – given the electoral map and where the swings are expected to occur, it is quite possible that the Liberals could improve their 2CP yet suffer a net loss of seats.

* 2PP

@Mark, emphasising Nicholas and Trent’s point we have time and time again the swings are not uniform. Even in 1999 the swing in metro Melbourne was negligible. In the 1995 NSW election, the Coalition won the TPP but Labor won the majority of seats as much of the TPP was wasted in safe North Shore seats. In 2006 when Labor was running for their third term like now they actually got a swing to them in the critical seats of Eltham, Bentleigh and Cranbourne which they took from the Libs the election before. In 2014, even as the Libs lost government they got a Sophomore surge to them in Forest Hill. In 2010 State election, the Libs got a 6% Swing but their majority was small as much of it was wasted in seats they already held got a 12% swing in Ferntree Gully but in Ripon it was only 1.6% and Labor held Ripon. If we look at 2022 election it very possible that Labor will notionally gain Bayswater with a sitting member which means they will need to win 20 seats which will make the job harder. Box Hill and Ashwood are two seats where there could be a sophomore surge. If Labor gets a 15% swing against them in St Albans but a 1.5% swing to them in Bayswater then Labor actually gets the overall advantage.

Sorry Trent, I stopped reading at the polls portion.

I’ve addressed this before: The only pollster that’s consistently polling Victoria is Roy Morgan, and they overestimated Labor by 10% in Victoria at the federal election. Their last poll was an SMS survey using a sample that was over a month old.

That and redbridge group, who ask blatantly leading questions to skew the result.

The polling this cycle has been almost absent. If you look at the prior elections, there was a variety of different polls from reputable sources.

I cannot and will not believe that Labor have such a big lead in polling, when virtually everything else, including the way the parties are campaigning, suggests otherwise.

Albo wasn’t particularly popular either. Daniel Andrews is somewhat of a Scomo figure when it comes to election dynamics, and how the current budget release is perceived could create a drag for Dan over the next few weeks if it’s not received well.

I appreciate your comment, but I think you left a lot of things out.

Whilst you are right Mark about Roy Morgan’s polls overestimating the Labor vote, even the more respectable polls like Newspoll show modest leads of at least 5% for Labor in 2PP and also primary vote, although those could have been few months ago in August 2022.

@Yo Anh

And that brings Labor’s lead to where Kennett was in 1999 at the same time period. We’ve come full circle!

In all seriousness though, Labor is not campaigning like a party that’s ahead full stop, let alone a party that’s supposedly 20% ahead in the 2PP.

Labor activists are even the subject of a police investigation for stealing sJohn Pesutto signs off private properties in hawthorn. The way this campaign is being run is in stark contrast to 2018, where campaign tactics/behaviours from Labor were backed up the eventual 2PP result. Internals much be showing something very different to what we’re able to see.

Mark, you have a point but none of the seats Labor won in 1999 had margins greater than 10% and all but one (Gisborne-now Macedon) had 7.8% were less than 5%. If i am being generous to the Libs i can see them winning Melton, Cranbourne, Narre Warren North, Narre Warren South, Pakenham, Sunbury, Yan Yean, Point Cook, Hastings, Hawthorn and Nepean that is still not 19. That is excluding the possibility that Libs could lose a seat or two to Labor or independents.

Part of Jeff Kennett’s loss in 1999 was self inflicted and part was just unlucky – if he had not pissed Roger Pescott so far off there would have been no Mitcham by election which Labor one and if head not appointed Alan Brown as London AG there would have been no Gippsland West by election that the previous Labor candidate won as an independent. If there had been a Lib incumbent or if they had even retired in 1999, it is probably likely that the Libs would have held the seat. If Peter McLellan had not dropped dead on election day, it is possible that he would have held on in Frankston. And in Geelong, the Labor win was only 12 or 20 votes. If the Libs had won all four they would have had 47 seats and a small but workable majority.

Mark
To describe Paul Hamer as lacklustre is underestimating the man. I dealt with him professsionally before he went into Parliament and he was always a good guy to deal with – he will not the world on fire – but he is very sincere and comes over as earnest and wanting to help. He told me that he was as surprised as anybody else that he won the seat. He has a few local runs on the board. I have met John Kennedy too, nice guy – but old and doddery (and that was before Covid and his heart attack) – should he win, you could not rule out a Hawthorn by election in the next term – perhaps why the ALP seem to be starving his campaign of funds – loss of a seat in a general election is politically easier than in a by election.

BTW, Labor is still delivering Box Hill campaign material despite the fact the Redistributeds are now in Ringwood. At least the Libs get the seat right.

The areas in which the Liberals are tipped to perform strongly in are outer northern, western, and southeastern Melbourne.

If the Liberals get a 10% swing in these regions, they gain Hastings (notionally), Nepean, Pakenham, Melton, and Cranbourne. Five seats total.

A 15% swing also wins them Narre Warren North, Narre Warren South, Niddrie, Werribee, Point Cook, and Sunbury. 11 seats total.

At 20%, they also win Mulgrave, Bundoora, Oakleigh (I’m being very generous here with my definitions), Yan Yean, Tarneit, and Sydenham. That’s 17 seats in total. So with a 20% swing in the areas they are tipped to perform most strongly in, they still can’t form majority government!

Meanwhile, let’s say Labor gets a mere 5% swing in the eastern suburbs. Then they gain Sandringham, Brighton, Bayswater (notionally), Croydon, Glen Waverley, Evelyn, Warrandyte and Kew. Eight seats – which is as many as the Liberals would win if they got a 12.5% (everything up to and including Niddrie) in the outer northern, western, and southeastern suburbs.

It is possible that the election is very close on a 2PP level but Labor still wins in a “landslide” in number of seats.

@Mark: “I appreciate your comment, but I think you left a lot of things out.”

I actually didnt, but you just stopped reading at the polling part which was the least important section.

Perhaps continue reading the rest of it 🙂

@ Redistributed you are absolutely correct about 1999. Let me slightly tweak the scenario and show how Jeff Kennett could have won even with the regional backlash.
1. Your comments about Mitcham are 100% correct. The Mitcham by-election had a 15% swing and Labor won it by 60% 2PP but at the general election Labor only managed to win by 0.5%. If Roger Prescott retired at 1999 say for family reasons it is very likely in the absence of a sitting Labor MP that the Liberal candidate would have succeeded him
2. 100% Agree on Frankston East if sitting member had not died. they could have held this seat.
3. The Seat of Carrum won against the trend in 1996 due to increasing affluence. The Libs got have got a sophomore surge and rode the wave of gentrification. As the state finances were now good they could have pork barrelled this seat. Upgrades to Schools removing Level crossings etc. In the end they only lost by 0.2% but they could have a got a swing to them.
4. This scenario then only limits the losses in Melbourne to the two most marginal of Oakleigh and Tullamarine.
5. This scenario assumes that the Regional Backlash remains or maybe slightly amplified so Geelong is still lost and Gippsland West is lost at the general election similar to Gippsland East part of the reason was closure of regional rail in both seats.
6. The Coalition now has 46 seats and a slight majority. Labor now has to go up the regional pendulum only Options are Bellarine and South Barwon. Bellarine is the most marginal Liberal seat post 1999 (and held prior to 1992) so it is the most likely that drops the Libs back to 45 still a majority. South Barwon is unlikely to be won in 1999 as it was more rural and there was less of the sea change phenomenon back then and used to be a safe conservative seat. With 45 there is a narrow majority like in 2010 to be on the safe side JK could negotiate a confidence and supply agreement with Rural independents to restore services now that states finances are in better shape.

@Mark: “And that brings Labor’s lead to where Kennett was in 1999 at the same time period. We’ve come full circle!”

Yep and that’s where all the other factors and huge differences between 1999 and 2022 come into play.

As I concluded my comment with, if 1999’s situation was to be replicated EXACTLY this year, the Liberals would still be nowhere near forming government, because the electoral map is so different to 1999.

Kennett lost a swag of seats with margins under 5%. This year, as Nicholas pointed out, the Liberals could get double digit swings and still fall well short.

Labor picked up 13 seats in 1999 – 12 of them were on margins of 5% or less – and that was enough to form government.

This year the Liberals need 19 seats which takes them well into double digit territory but Labor’s most margin 19 seats (vs LIB) included ones in areas that aren’t expected to swing.

That’s simply not comparable to 1999…