Warringah – Australia 2028

This is basically a non-contest. Labor actually won the notional 2PP against the Liberals, and did so in a thumping way. Steggall got yet another swing to her, and this was all despite a moderate woman being preselected by the Liberals, and suggestions that there would be a swing against Steggall.

Fair to say I think the Liberal brand is on life support in this part of Sydney.

I think in a seat like this the Liberals are better off now ensuring that Zali Stegall remains the MP so that Labor does not win the seat, same with Wentworth and Mayo.

This seat is Zali’s until she retires. Current boundaries are more favourable to the left with the densification around North Sydney. It’s not inconceivable for Labor to pull off a victory here. Same goes for Wentworth. The only way for the Libs to have a shot here is for a 180 degree turn to the centre on social and culture war issues and maintaining an economically right position.

@Dan for Labor to win this seat, a lot would have to go right for them. So far the only pathways are:

A. Steggall retires and Labor runs a full guns ablazing campaign.

Or

B. The Liberal vote drops so low that they finish 3rd, and their preferences sees Labor defeat Steggall. I don’t think this one is likely as IIRC they preferenced the Teals above Labor this year.

It’ll take climbing an electoral Everest for the ALP to win Warringah, even if it’s left-leaning nowadays. It’s like Labour in the UK not having a shot of winning any Liberal Democrat seats (like Wimbledon) even if those are more moderate than the past when the Tories won them.

Labor will need to either have:

1) A Teal (post-Steggall) that runs third but above 20% and Labor getting about 25-30% themselves and rely on preferences from that Teal/Greens to beat the Liberals.

OR

2) No Teals and Labor campaigning hard to mop up all of the Steggall votes and get above 35% and rely on the Greens getting 10-15% in Warringah.

Labor won’t finish first in Warringah in any cases given the way the electorate runs and it’s difficult to see them win (their 2PP win was purely based on an assumed strong preference flow from Steggall to Labor and a strong Steggall vote), but then again, they almost won North Sydney if it wasn’t for Kylea Tink so it’s probably more plausible than every before.

Tommo9 – there was nothing “assumed” about the strong preference flow from Steggall to Labor. All ballot papers were counted in the Warringah 2PP count. Its an actual count of how people voted.

@High Street It might be that people voted for Steggall and didn’t really care what they did with their preferences. But if it was a binary choice between the Liberals and Labor, it would be a different outcome.

That is a theory that keeps getting put around CJ – most notably by Antony Green – but it’s total garbage. Ben produced data before this years election which showed that in EVERY Teal contested seat in 2022, the preference flow from Teal voters to Labor was well in excess of 70%. It just doesn’t happen by chance.

If I was Teal voter and got continually told that my preference to Labor over Liberal was something that I just filled in by chance and hadn’t thought about, I would be insulted…

Antony Green used this theory to state that Labor was unlikely to win Bennelong in 2025, as all the 1 Teal 2 Labor voter in North Sydney in 2022 didn’t actually mean it, did they? I mean, how could they – its the north shore, right?

Theory blown out of the water – should never be mentioned in polite company again

That may be, but I do wonder if people may get cold feet for voting Labor if offered only the choice of Labor and the Liberals.

Bennelong had the benefits of an incumbent Labor MP and a dismal Liberal campaign. Though I do recognise how extraordinary the result was. If North Sydney was still around it’s likely that Labor would’ve won that 2PP for the first time too.

@CJ how is the Liberal brand done here when this is entirely overlapping with state Liberal seats? It was a rejection of Dutton and Scomo.

Likely that Labor would’ve won that 2PP???. Based on neighboring seats Labor would have won the 2PP in North Sydney by >55%. I might tally up the booth results to calculate what it would have been.

The bigger question is would Kylea Tink been the first Teal IND to lose to their seat and it go to Labor. That we will never know.

@NP the state brand is fine, for now. Federally, it’s screwed.

If Labor can win Longueville and every other polling place in Lane Cove and Hunters Hill LGAs bar one, I’d say they’d have a good shot at winning Warringah in the absence of a Teal.

@High Street That’d be very embarrassing for the teals. It would damage their standing since the tactical Labor/Green voters would end up switching to Labor and hand the old blue ribbon heartland to Labor.

If North Sydney had not been abolished Labor could’ve still won it anyway given they were within striking distance in primaries last time and had they made it to 2nd place Tink’s preferences could’ve sent Catherine Renshaw into parliament as the first Labor member for North Sydney.

If Tink had contested Bennelong for example I suspect she’d do best in Hunter Hill/Lane Cove/Longueville but it wouldn’t be enough to beat Labor as Jerome Laxale has Ryde, Chatswood and co tied up and he’s much more popular than Kylea Tink in terms of presence and profile, given Tink was probably one of the lesser known Teals compared to Steggall, Spender or Monique Ryan.

You still have to remember that the libs have had a bad couple of elections in this area. Speculating on what might happen in the absence of a teal is meaningless because there is one.

It certainly would have been, Dan M, it certainly would have been.

Quite possibly there were plenty of strategists back in Climate200 party central that were quite Ok with North Sydney going and Tink not having to recontest. Even more so based on how the results actually turned out with the bib Liberal to Labor swings across the region

One challenge for the Labor party winning these seats is that Greens preference Teal over Labor like they did in Fremantle and Bean as well. However, Green preference of Teal over Labor at 3CP stage is usually not as strong as Green preferences to Labor over L/NP at 2CP stage or Teal over Lib at 2CP stage.

Agree – despite HTV card recommending it, the Green preferences to Teal over Labor at 3CP is only just over 50% in Sydney Teal seats. Very close to 50% at times.

The theory i have for that is that the soft Green voters either tactically or through genuine preferences have moved to Teal on Primary votes. The remaining Greens who did not shift on primaries are probably are true believers and some of them Green Left or Red Greens these people often prefer Labor over Teals due to economic matters and probably see the Teals as ‘Liberal Lite”. While most of the Teal vote is tactical i do honestly believe there are probably some Green voters and even a few Labor voters who genuinely prefer them these Blue Greens/Doctors Wives or even Old Democrat voters but never had a party that fit their niche.

I agree with the above commentary that Zali Steggall will hold this until she retires. I can’t see anyone defeating her.

Most teal voters were former Labor voters or Greens voters who voted tactically according to 2022 Australian Election Study. Not many teal voters were disgruntled Coalition voters. I don’t think this phenomenon changed in 2025, at least in Liberal or now ex-Liberal seats.

The question about whether Labor would’ve won North Sydney (if it hadn’t been abolished) is an interesting one. We’ll never know. I think the contest would’ve been tighter and Labor would have a good shot. The Liberals still would’ve poured resources into sandbagging Bradfield regardless, hence making the Liberals spread more thinly.

@Nimalan: “Green preference to Teal over Labor at 3CP stage” and @High Street: “The Green preferences to Teal over Labor at 3CP is only just over 50% in Sydney Teal seats”: Greens weren’t in the 3CP in Sydney teal electorates, and these electorates did not finish as teal vs Labor contests. If you were talking about how Greens’ 3CP preferences flowed in seats that finished as Labor vs independent contests such as Fremantle and Bean, this is not relevant to the teals seats we are talking about that are Liberal vs independent contests. If you were talking about the ratio of preferences flowing to teal relative to Labor at the exclusion of the Greens (4CP stage) in Sydney teal seats, this varies a lot by electorates. In Bradfield the ratio was almost 1:1 (both Labor and Boele received betweem 46% and 47% of Greens 4CP, although Boele received slightly more than Labor), however in Mackellar, Wentworth and Warringah, teals all received more than half of Greens’ 4CP preferences, which were significantly more than Labor’s. In Warringah, Steggall received more than 60% of Greens 4CP preferences, more than twice of what Labor got.

All these mean in seats that are likely to finish as Liberal vs teal contests, Greens voters tend to preference teals over Labor, making it difficult for Labor to stay in the 2CP. If North Sydney wasn’t abolished and was contested in 2025, I think Tink would have retain it on the basis that Labor would not have put much effort into it because I think Labor would have prioritised sandbagging its own seats and targeting some winnable marginal Liberal vs Labor seats over trying to defeat incumbent MPs in teals seats they had never won before and did not even make the 2CP in 2022, like what they actually did in 2025.

@High Street @Tommo9 much of this argument of “would Tink have lost to Labor” is very brash. For one, it assumes Labor campaigns the same in North Sydney that they did in Bennelong. Considering Labor has a much friendlier relationship with the Teals than they do with the Greens, it’s plausible that Labor would’ve taken a step back to allow Tink to win, so as to prevent an outcome where they make the 2PP, but lose, meaning their effort was for nothing.

For another, it’s looking at the Labor results very macroscopically. Yes, Labor did increase their vote across the North Shore, however from looking at Warringah booths that were formerly in North Sydney, Labor’s vote dropped in some booths. Not to mention, there was a fairly stable Greens vote across the North Shore, which would’ve fed more preferences to a Teal before Labor anyway.

@ Joseph
A typo on my part
I meant when the Greens came 4th and were elimated at the 4CP stage and their preferences were distributed. Hawthorn in 2022 is a good example the Greens preferenced Teal over sitting Labor MP on HTV card. However, on Greens preferences flow was not as strong to ensure Teal made 2CP even though more Green voters preferenced Teal over Labor

https://antonygreen.com.au/vic22-election-hawthorn-analysis-of-preferences/

@Nimilan – Yes, I agree with your contention about soft Green voters either tactically or through genuine preferences have moved to Teal on Primary votes. You see that in every Teal contested seat. The Green primary might have been 15% in these seats before the Teals but it was very shallow. Many were disgruntled Liberal (or anti Labor voters) from way back and as soon as they had a viable option that allowed them to not vote Liberal but still not have to upset generations of their ancestors and vote “for the Labor Party!” – a more viable option than the Greens – they ran away from the Green to the teals as soon as they could.

@Votante – for christs sake – for how long are we going to keep using that 2022 Australian Election Study as a reliable benchmark??! It was poor report then and it is now well out of date. All it did was bundle up all the results in Teal contested seats into a single bucket a make a broad assessment. It completely overlooked that the 2022 results in North Sydney and Bradfield were significantly different from all the other Teal contested seats. Whilst it has elements of truth to it, it can’t be said to completely explain the entire dynamics in every seat

@Joseph

I think it is pretty damn obvious that Nimalan and I are were referring to the stage where the 3CP result is being determined. That is what is typically referred to as the “3CP stage”. I would reckon that is the terminology Ben Raue our host would use. The next stage would be the “2CP stage”. Going my your counting system, there never would be a “2CP” stage or a 2CP count – the count would end at 3CP.

(So I don’t think you made a typo Nimalan).

Having said that, mty earlier comment should have said:

despite HTV card recommending it, the Green preferences to Teal over Labor at 3CP is only just over 50% in SOME Sydney Teal seats. Very close to 50% at times.

You’re reference to Bradfield 2025 preference flow proved that to be accurate, but it is not always true, I can concede that. You point out examples where it is not true – notably where very strong incumbent Teals are standing, whereas Nimalan points out examples where it has been true.

@CJ – as to your comment (and your’s to Joseph). Why do people continually think that Labor would have given a Teal a free pass to a seat Labor could have won? They didn’t in North Sydney in 2022 – would would they if North Sydney had existed in 2025?? There is almost ZERO change that they would have lost the 2CP in North Sydney in 2025 if they had made it ahead of Tink. There was approx 6-8% 2PP swing to Labor across the entire region and the 2PP in North Sydney going in would have been <1%

The Labor result in Warringah went down in many former North Sydney booths because:
a. Labor ran a locally energetic campaign in 2022 in North Sydney, with an excellent candidate who surprisingly garnered some local media attention. This did not happen in Warringah 2025
b. In 2022 the Teal candidate in North Sydney was new and uninspiring, whereas in Warringah in 2025 Zali is seen as a well known rock star and justifiably so.

@High Street my way of thinking is this; Labor would’ve likely seen this seat having an Independent incumbent, and gone “you know what, she might be able to consolidate here. Let’s go after a different seat”. Independents are hard to knock off, and Tink was seen as relatively inoffensive (save for the redistribution meltdown).

It’s different to how Labor went after the Greens in Queensland and Melbourne, because Labor doesn’t get along with the Greens. Historically, Labor has been much happier to leave an Independent in one of these seats rather than run a full campaign against them.

Funny how over the course of a few years we’ve gone from doubting that the Liberals could ever lose the now-Teal seats, to seriously contemplating the possibility of *Labor* winning these seats.

@High Street, I brought up the Election Study as it was done following the “teal wave” of 2022 and I see an element of truth in it regarding the tactical voting part. I agree that it’s a bit outdated and is a broad assessment that ignores intricacies of various seats.

Nicholas, the Liberals losing their hold on once rock-solid seats in the inner-city areas of the major capital cities is indicative that they are no longer attracting young, tertiary educated professionals who used to back them in historical times (up to the late 20th Century).

This is true for most conservative parties worldwide, particularly in other western democracies such as UK and USA. It is essential for the Liberal Party to decouple from the hard right, culture war rhetoric which is a turn off for the types of people/voters living in the inner city districts.

So basically they just have to be Labor Lite. When has that ever worked out for any conservative party?

John – the NSW and Tasmanian Liberal Party state branches with their multiple election victories showed that to win elections in Australia you need to just focus on the fiscal conservative aspects like tax reform and free market principles, which is in contrast to Labor who prioritised local manufacturing and increased support for the public sector.

Both parties were agnostic/neutral on social issues and simply took issues on their merits.

As someone who is “young, tertiary-educated, and professional” myself, I’d say that this year has turned me into a rusted-on Labor voter for the foreseeable future. In some ways, this is to the credit of the Labor Party “outliberalling” the Liberal Party on economics (becoming “Liberal Lite”?). But if the Liberal Party needs to be obsessed with culture wars to distinguish themselves from “Labor Lite”, so be it, but that is just a concession that people like me should not be voting for the Liberal Party.

Hi CJ

I understand what your thinking was, I’m just saying that I don’t think its founded in any logic of how major political parties that have a broad branch network actually work.

You mention what has happened “historically”, but “historically” there hasn’t been a party like group of Independents that have taken away so much of the national Labor primary vote. So there isn’t really a precedent for how Labor would have acted in North Sydney if that parallel universe had existed. They would basically have had to not lose anymore tactical voters from Labor to Teal to Labor and the primary vote swing of 3-4% from the Liberals that would have likely occurred would have been enough for them to come 2nd and then go on to win. Not a big lift

Agree High Street, I would say that the teal independents are more of a ‘movement’ similar to the early days of the Australian Democrats being a breakaway Liberal Party group that was known as the Liberal Movement (LM). As a centrist type of party similar to the Lib Dems in the UK, these voters would prefer Labor rather than the Coalition/conservatives and this is borne out in their voters’ preferences.

John, on another point – going too ‘bold’ for either major party can backfire as it gives the opposing side plenty of ammunition to use in attack ads/campaigns. Some examples include John Hewson with the Coalition’s ‘Fightback’ campaign that was heavily criticised by Paul Keating and Labor; and Bill Shorten with a strong socialist style campaign centred on major tax reform that was also countered by Scott Morrison and the Coalition.

@High Street : “3CP stage” generally refers to the counting stage where only three candidates are left and the candidate that finishes third is being excluded, not when the 3CP result is being determined (4 candidates are left). “2CP stage” is the final counting stage where only two candidates are left and the candidate with more votes is declared elected, so the count still ends at 2CP, not 3CP. I think this is the terminology that most election analysts including Ben would use.

Read that again Joseph, what you have written.

By your logic, both the 3CP stage and the 2CP stage are the last stage of counting. This is because the preferences of the candidate that comes 2nd in the 2CP count are never distributed – there is no one (other than the candidate that has already won with >50% in the 2CP count) left to distribute preferences to.

I stand by my view that the “3CP stage” is the count where the 3CP is being calculated – i.e the preferences of the candidate excluded on the 4CP are being distributed. Each “stage” finished with the count for that stage, then the next stage starts. This is self evident because nothing happens after the 2CP count is known, as that is the end of the count.

I don’t see the point in arguing about definitions (it is getting tedious) but IMO this is very clear.

“Green preference of Teal over Labor at 3CP stage is usually not as strong as Green preferences to Labor over L/NP at 2CP stage or Teal over Lib at 2CP stage.”

It is clearly referring to when the Greens are knocked out and preferences are distributed between Teal, Labor and Coalition. Otherwise there would be no point referring to the 2CP stage further on.

Yes 3CP is when three are left and 2CP is when two are left but if you’re talking about preference flows you are talking about a transition from one stage to another. So sometimes I’ll use terms like 3CP->2CP. In this case I think the original comment was about 4CP->3CP.

Antony Green makes some ‘Interesting’ points in a comment below his latest blog article

https://antonygreen.com.au/fed2025-evidence-on-labor-supporters-voting-strategically-for-independents/

Out of interest @High Street – does your opinion on tactical voting change when the combinations change? For example Liberal voters switching to Labor to avoid a Green victory, or Labor voters in the country switching to rural independents where the 2CP and 2PP margins can be quite large? Calare for example?

And regarding your comment on Antony’s thread – I noticed you mention that we ‘know’ how voters would preference if the IND is knocked out by Labor at the 3CP count. However in order for that to happen have you accounted for the fact that the share of tactical Labor voters who vote 1 IND decreases in that scenario (because they would have voted Labor instead). Do you not believe that if more tactical Labor voters began to stop voting IND, the resultant preference flows from IND – ALP would be less friendly to Labor due to the composition of the IND vote being less friendly to Labor (as you would have less of their tactical voters and perhaps more who would otherwise vote Liberal if they couldn’t vote IND)? I’m not sure we can simply assume an IND getting 35% of the vote will have their preferences distribute the same way they would if they only got 20% and Labor got 25% for eg.

Hi Maxim. 2nd question first. It’s a good question.

You don’t need to “account” for it, would be my answer. Yes, you are correct – the RATE of preference flow would be lower, but the ABSOLUTE number of preferences required to get a Labor candidate finishing 2nd across the line to win 2CP would be there, on the AVAILABLE evidence of the 2PP.

I just fundamentally believe that it is not legitimate to discard the 2PP result by saying “Oh – the voters did not mean it – its all just coincidence”. I see Anthony quoted some study to support his theory but I have never heard him talk of that before. BTW -his theory got smashed in Bennelong, which I am yet to hear him acknowledge. But look, sometimes his theory might be right – but it is not ALWAYS right. Indeed, it is not in often right – it is very much rarely right. Our host Ben produced a great post before the May election that demonstrated that Teal voters preference Labor >70% EVERY time. I am willing to say that this is more likely a pattern than random chance..

So when the 2PP in a Teal seat is >50% Labor, we should believe that Labor may very likely have won it, had they come 2nd. Now often they are too far behind the Teal on primary to come 2nd – that’s FINE. But if they are, then you didn’t need to vote strategically, did you?? An if they are close to coming 2nd and you vote strategically in an attempt to ensure they come 3rd and get excluded, then you may well have just cost your preferred candidate a chance to win the seat.

As to you prior question Maxim, I do take heed of what Kevin Bonham says on that front, as he did in the seat of MacNamara. I can see a semi logical reason for a Liberal voter to do that. But I still think it’s fundamentally irrational or against eh voters best interest. Firstly, you are giving away a chance of your preferred party to win, and reinforcing the point that they can never win. If they can come 2nd in such a close contest, then they can come 1st, and all they need if they come 1st is for Labor to come 3rd and for there to be decent leakage of Labor voters preferring Liberal instead of Greens. A good proportion of Labor voters will prefer a moderate Liberal over an angry Green.

Second – what the real problem if the Green does win? It’s not changing the balance in the House and maybe will cause disruption in your main opposition. It’s not like this new Green MP that you dislike is now running the country.

Your country example is now really what the situation is in Warringah. Why bother voting strategically? Labor are still likely to come 3rd anyway. At least you are giving your $5 of public funding to your preferred party by not voting strategically. And so what if you are wrong once and the Labor candidates surges and knocks out the rural IND causing the national to win. It’s still 60/40 approx on 2PP. You seriously believe the Rural IND was going to support a Labor government if it came to a Confidence vote??

I basically can understand all the arguments about strategic voting but don’t think ANY of them hold up in a preferential system. It’s a type of collective madness that we have imported, mainly from the UK.

I want to Thank Zali Steggall for her advocacy on Australian content quotas on streaming services. This legislation recently passed and is long overdue.