Mulgrave – Victoria 2022

To view this content, you must be a member of this creator's Patreon at $5 or more
Unlock with Patreon


  1. There was an article in The Australian the other day remarking that in a number of the booths overlapping Daniel Andrews’ state seat of Mulgrave, there were huge swings against Labor’s primary vote. Some might say it’s just looking to stir up issues where there are none given Labor won all federal seats overlapping it (Hotham, Bruce and Chisholm), but nevertheless, I do wonder come the state election…has there ever been a case where a state party in government loses its leader at the election but still wins it despite that?

  2. @WL I’m not sure but don’t think so. It happened in British Columbia in Canada with Christy Clark. One of her backbenchers in a safe seat almost immediately resigned so she could return to parliament in a byelection. Also her former seat was Vancouver based, but her new seat was rural.

    In QLD 2015 Ashgrove wasn’t the tipping point seat by any means so we could have seen it happen there (but it didn’t). This article in the conversation goes into what happens in that case:

    I don’t think it’s unloseable, but Andrews has a lot of margin and even in 2010 it would still count as a safe Labor seat. Plus being leader (premier or opposition) actually helps you in your own seat. The theory that they’re too busy for their constituents is more than countered by name recognition. In the ACT the Liberals get a small boost wherever their leader happens to be running that election. I think Marshall would have lost Dunstan if he wasn’t premier.

    Predicting ALP retain.

  3. @John Interesting to note that this time, all 3 party leaders in the ACT have the same Kurrajong seat so it will be interesting what happens then.

  4. “One of her backbenchers in a safe seat almost immediately resigned so she could return to parliament in a byelection.”

    The ultimate parachute manoeuvre!

  5. The state redistribution also made Mulgrave safer, pushing it right down into Springvale and Noble Park.

    The seat will probably attract a laundry list of candidates protesting one thing or another, but I don’t think Andrews will be in any real risk.

  6. @ Nicholas, Correct the Jells Park part of Wheelers Hill is very affluent has been transferred out got a campus of an elite private school. Wheelers Hill reminds me of Templestowe or maybe even West Pennant Hills. A part of the Wheelers Hill which is almost affluent is still here St Justin PS booth (only booth). The Brandon Park area even through it is in Wheelers Hill does not seem to be as affluent and at both state and Federal level seems to always be marginally Red.

  7. I think the fact that there is a federal Labor government will come into play as well.

    Dan’s chances of winning would be far higher had federal Liberals retained power. Now that federal Labor is in, it becomes a whole lot more shaky for Andrews, just purely based on historical dynamics.

  8. @Mark, how would that be possible that a reelected LNP make Andrew’s chance of winning more likelier? The likelihood of Dan’s reelection would likely be determined by the popularity of Albanese in Victoria up until November mainly Vic-Federal relations.

  9. @Marh

    Every time VIC Labor has lost, it’s been a federal Labor government. Albanese won’t be as popular by the time November rolls around, and Dan’s popularity has only sunk. It’s not going up.

    You’d know this if you weren’t so partisan.

  10. c/o the Age:
    ““Labor will not go unmolested by independents in their own seats,” a high-ranking Liberal official said, arguing independents could win in seats like Melton while others in safe Labor seats like Mulgrave could diminish Labor’s vote and direct preferences to the Liberals.

    The Liberals believe a prospective candidate in Mulgrave, who was not yet ready to be announced, is well-known locally and will garner significant support. But the revelation that the Liberals are providing assistance to other candidates could be used by the Labor Party to question their independence.”

    Anyone have any idea who this might be?

  11. The Libs may try supporting Dai Le style independents in the safe multicultural Labor seats like this which honestly could be Labor’s biggest threat state-wide given how inept the Libs are themselves.
    As for Labor questioning the independence of such candidates, they tried questioning Dai Le’s own independence by highlighting her past history with the Libs and look how well that turned out for them.

  12. But that being said, given how awful the Libs have been in selecting candidates (though Labor has been any better either), I won’t be surprised if all their trained independents turn out to be complete duds.

  13. @Dan M, I think only Joe Garra is the closest equivalent to Dai Le by looking at political history of both (Dai Le is more well known though).

  14. I initially thought Labor would fairly comfortably win this state election but I’m starting to think that with all these independents who are against Labor taking safe & marginal seats with the greens taking others Labor doesn’t have the resources to fight all fronts. This could be really tight state election.

  15. @Bob, the reason why I would significantly scale down the chance of Labor winning significantly is due to Vic’s strict donation laws. The Teals had enough resources in the Federal due to Climate 200 funding. This won’t be the case in the state election plus Teals can’t use the same rhetoric since ALP is in the state government and was only intended to target conservatives (Yes, Vic Libs is quite Right-Wing and has an anti-covid/vaccine mandate stance on the likes of Desantis but they are in opposition). You are right that some Dai Le style may contest but only Joe Garra is the closest equivalent I could ever find. Of course thing could change in the next few months.

  16. The national executive controls all the preselections in the state so as a result no surprises that the vast majority of candidates endorsed are parachuted and often have no connection with the electorates they claim to represent like for example the Point Cook Labor candidate lives in Frankston. Furthermore, much of the Labor heartland is multicultural with large Vietnamese, South Asian, Middle Eastern and African communities while almost every single Labor candidate selected there is Anglo. That combined with the fact that there’s a lot of resentment against the Labor govt for the lockdowns and vax mandates means there’s a ripe breeding ground for Dai Le style independents in the Labor heartland.

  17. Dai le is a independent with close ties to the liberals.her husband I understand is a office holder of a local liberal party branch.i would class her as an independent liberal. She won not because of the failure of Labor to establish but because kk was seen as unpopular

  18. The liberals run a big big risk running dummy candidates in safe Labor seats especially when they will struggle to recover seats like Hawthorn. In Parramatta steve Christou ran as a right wing independent preferenced the liberals and collected 3% of the vote

  19. I’m inclined to believe the talk of independents winning a number of Labor seats is thunder with no lightning unless a clear picture emerges showing otherwise. Especially if the calling card is over restrictions. Aside from a loud few, people have moved on from the pandemic and aren’t interested in revisiting those days and assigning blame. The KK loss was thanks to messaging over local issues and who was best placed to deal with them, not by putting the pandemic front and centre.

  20. @Adda Agreed, we’ll have to see what type of independents come through and whether they’ll appeal to the seats they’re contesting. I think Yildaz could’ve really took it to Labor if he ran as an independent for Pascoe Vale but he’s now part of the Victorian Party.

  21. I think all the independent talk won’t amount to much either. I doubt we would possibly see more than 1-2 metro seats fall to independents, and I don’t think any will shuffle enough preferences to Liberals to make a difference either.

    On a related note, take it with a grain of salt because Roy Morgan’s polls haven’t been particularly accurate, but the latest Victorian state poll released last night from a sample of 1700 had:
    Labor – 43.5% primary vote, 59.5% 2PP
    Liberals – 29.5% primary vote, 40.5% 2PP

    Morgan polling has consistently overestimated the Labor vote so I’d probably wipe a good 4-5% off that, but it’s at least consistent with every other state poll in indicating that there still hasn’t been any evidence of a significant “collapse” in Labor support, and not one single poll has shown the Coalition recovering at all compared to 2018.

  22. RE: The discussion around the 15 June regarding the impact of Labor or Liberals being in federally..

    Firstly, I think post-pandemic with state governments having a higher profile in the public than ever before, people will also disassociate state & federal better than ever before.

    Secondly though, Albanese is likely to still be in a honeymoon period until at least the end of this year. Historically, state governments cop the anger voters have towards a federal government (especially an unpopular one) who has been in power for some time. For example when the Liberals narrowly won in 2010, Labor had already been in for 3 years federally and were in turmoil and quite unpopular at the time.

    However, in elections where the federal government was only newly elected, history has shown that effect to be diminished (almost non-existent) as the new government is still in a honeymoon phase.

    That is almost certain to be the case this time. Since coming to government in May, the overwhelming narrative has been that the damage of the Liberals’ 9 years is fully coming to light, and that it’s a relief that Labor are repairing the damaged relationships and putting us back on the right track. That will gradually wear off obviously but it’s not like federal Labor will already be a negative drag on state Labor governments in only 4 months time. An SA state byelection on the weekend just had a +6% swing to Labor even on top of the overlapping federal result. And usually byelections swing against the party in government.

    And if there were to be any federal impacts, then the Liberals choosing Peter Dutton as their leader will cancel out any advantage the state Libs might have had from Morrison no longer being PM. Peter Dutton is so hated by the Victorian population that him as opposition leader is just as damaging as if Morrison was still PM, and I guarantee every anti-Liberal attack ad will have both Guy & Dutton’s faces to link them and demonstrate that Dutton represents the new direction of the Liberal Party.

    On the topic of Andrews’ popularity, his approval ratings and ‘Preferred Premier’ ratings are still quite strong. Usually they are less indicative of a result than the 2PP anyway, and have to be quite poor to really be a drag on the 2PP. That’s just not the case as he’s still sitting close to the 50% mark.

    Andrews actually has better approval and ‘preferred’ ratings than Albanese had; and Guy has much worse approval and ‘preferred’ ratings than Morrison even had in Victoria. There’s really no evidence that he is unpopular, those who don’t like him are just a lot more vocal and open about it now than in 2018 (eg. They couldn’t possibly claim a “shy” voter status not showing up in polls this time).

  23. @Trent, The reason why Guy possibly has low approval ratings could be the damage from the lobster scandal and his leadership incompetence that appeased no nobody (Moderates view him as hardline tone and sympathy to the anti-vax and Christian right movement while the Right thinks he is “Labor lite” for not being enough conservative and anti-vax and not his image out of it) given his campaign is to attack Andrews and almost nothing for introducing his policy if he leads Victoria (He either made alternative policy our of thin air or barely makes bipartisan support on some policy)

  24. Can’t help but laugh at the ongoing insistence that the Victorian Libs are a “hard right” party – to think that you’d have to believe Karl Marx is a centrist!

    Just look at the Vic Libs capitulate on all manner of leftist woke crap like this treaty body which they voted for (and there are cringeworthy photos of them bowing at some smoke ceremony on the parliament steps) or pre-selecting candidates like their most recent effort in Dunkley, a left-wing female ex-Labor member barrister. Even the Nat leader Peter Walsh shows up at school climate protests to support the students. Just pathetic really.

  25. I really hope, for the Liberals’ sake, that this is not their secret weapon. Today, outside of Andrews’ office, Aiden McLindon announced his candidacy for Mulgrave. He’s from the “Freedom Party of Victoria” (which the VEC doesn’t currently show as registered). As to why this disenchanted ex-LNP man (originally from Queensland, was a state member there) is running here is anyone’s guess, since he has no chance of winning, but in an interview, he said that his party’s focus was “influencing the outcome” of the election rather than electing members, so at least he is pragmatic. He also had a go at GTV, so good on him.

    Images of the announcement:

    Interview with 6 News:

  26. @Entrepreneur, McLindon started as an LNP but due to issues he formed his own party “The Queensland Party” but then later merged into the Katter Party

  27. @Entrepenuerial I agree the Vic Libs probably aren’t hard right but it’s a bit silly to think they’re some woke, left group. They’ve leaned very heavily on social conservatism but have had to change a bit recently and for the upcoming election to appeal to more voters and their traditional voters. The federal results also probably spooked them. They seem to just be agreeing with some policies to not rock the boat.

  28. @North East, the spectrum of Vic Libs is interesting as they are not right enough to be the right faction but they are also not moderate enough to be considered a moderate faction. They embrace some ‘woke’ policy that puts many socially conservative voters off they have hardline populist language against Andrews and their opposition to pretty any covid/vaccine mandates have put off moderate/small liberal voters and some pro-vax conservative immigrants (mainly Chinese Australians). This meant they are in a lose-lose situation (think of Turnbull’s energy policy, which was opposed on all sides)

  29. You can compare to NSW Libs where they had a more competent reputation. I think this is because mostly moderate factions control the state party despite Dominic’s well-known socially conservative views

  30. There are some members in the Vic Lib caucus who are opposed to abortion and support things like gay conversion therapy plus there’s Tim Smith who voted against the treaty so I guess that would be enough to placate socially conservative voters who already vote Lib anyways and would never vote for Dan Andrews under any circumstances. But this puts off the moderate voters that the Libs would need to keep on their side.

  31. @Dan M the Vic Libs all capitulated on the bigoted “anti conversion therapy” bill which had nothing to do with the imagery of people attached to electrodes which the phrase makes people think of, and everything to do with pushing an anti-Christian agenda.

  32. @Entrepreneur you are clearly brainwashed and can’t grasp that the Anti-Conversion Therapy Bill was much needed.

    I have a friend who lives in this very electorate and his dad is a pastor. His mum found out his sexuality (gay) and threatened to chop his fingers off. He was locked in his room and only escaped once he could contact me and I contacted the police. He had conversion therapy performed on him too. He is permanently scarred from this experience.

    No matter how well-intentioned extremists may be, their actions are still harmful. It’s not an anti-Christian agenda, it’s an anti-harm agenda.

    Hate Dan all you want but you can’t deny his social agenda is powerful and garners support in a way that the Vic Libs can’t because they are so far right and their leader is so fragile and plain.

    I predict an ALP retain, in Mulgrave and in government.

  33. @ Jono

    Really sorry to hear that, but to suggest that Dan is socially progressive and that he will win government is a joke. As a bi dude and having formerly voted for Dan, what he has done to our public services and what he did throughout covid has been absolutely disgusting.

    There have been multiple sources now, including Kos Samaras and Antony Green, suggesting a minority government is highly likely. This was supported by the release of internal data from both parties this week, showing Labor losing around 12-15 seats.

    Dan has been an absolutely awful premier and you don’t have to be a Liberal to see it. I will be voting for the Libs at the state level for the first time ever, just because the thought of Dan winning again makes me physically ill (I wish I was kidding).

    You’re doing yourself a disservice by ignoring the resentment that has built up towards the premier and his party in this state, and it’s clouding judgement on here, going by the comments.

    Also, the bill is BS. At the surface level, it looks good. But when you dig deeper and see that churches can be criminally charged for merely offering neutral support, it’s absolutely authoritarian and insane (par for the course with the Andrews government). Conversion therapy is disgusting, but punishing church officials for merely supporting someone who’s suffering sets them up for being entrapped. Also, the bill does nothing to tackle the rampant regressive practices within other religions such as Islam. The premier has almost completely avoided that one (funny that, safe Labor areas are where the highest “no” votes on the SSM plebiscite came from)

  34. @jono threatening to chop someone’s fingers off is disgraceful, but is already dealt with under existing criminal laws that have been on the books long before the conversion therapy bill.

  35. @Mark I am very aware of the built-up resentment in the community towards the state Labor government and especially towards Dan Andrews. I am aware of the intra-party corruption (that has now been addressed and rules very strictly adhered to) and reported politicisation of the public service, but I was specifically responding to someone’s comments about conversion therapy, not about those other matters.

    However, it is not a joke to suggest that he has been one of the most activist and socially progressive premiers in recent times. The reforms made such as the safe injecting rooms, euthanasia laws, conversion therapy ban and decriminalisation of sex work all point to this, as well as the retention of the SafeSchools anti-bullying program. It’s also not a joke to suggest that he may (I never said “will”) win government at the next election, whether leading a majority or minority government. I based this prediction on the stats from Roy Morgan’s most recent Victorian state politics polling. ( I am very aware that polling is never 100% accurate and am very aware of the anti-Andrews sentiment throughout the community.

    The bill doesn’t need to target other regressive practices because that is not what its purpose is. If just one bill targeted every regressive practice in society, you’d think we’d be living in an ideal world by now. Using whataboutism may support your argument that the premier is bad, but it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020. If the repressive practices you are referring to in Islam involve FGM, there has already been a bill enacted that outlaws FGM in Victoria. Your “what ifs” in your final paragraph are flawed because they are based on the assumption that the bill specifically targets churches. That is not true. The bill applies to any conversion attempts in any faith setting or with any faith background. This Bill is supported not only by LGBTIQ+ advocacy groups but also by the Liberal state opposition who “will not amend” it at all if elected – and you will be voting for them.

    Not sure what your point is with the last sentence, apart from maybe you are saying that safe Labor seats are more socially conservative. This doesn’t surprise me, the working class has always been socially conservative hence the rise of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, the UAP, and the “boganisation” of the Liberal Party. If anything, this makes the premier’s social reforms even more commendable.

    Once again, I’m not saying the premier is perfect or saying his government is free from moral sin and questionable behaviours (far from it). I’m simply saying that it is refreshing for those suffering to have their voices heard in parliament, when conservative governments like most Liberal ones would muffle them. And right now, I see no viable alternative in this state – a state parliament whose leaders seriously lack the political talent for people, but who are marred by Machiavellianism and blind idealism.

  36. @entrepreneur I understand you may feel attacked by the laws as a churchgoer (I assume). I understand you may be confronted by it and feel that your faith is somehow threatened or that the government is out to get you. But I still think enshrining this social movement is still very powerful, as someone who is part of the LGBTIQ+ community. You may not be able to relate, but it’s all part of the pursuit of social justice for those in our society who face difficulties that others may not. We are ensuring future faith-practising people know “Hey, this isn’t right. Sexuality is not a choice and it is harmful to attempt conversion on or chastise, or make false promises to someone vulnerable.” I hope you see where I’m coming from. Someone I know thought it was a bad bill for another reason – “It looks good, but no actual arrests have been made”. Some think it’s a facade of progressivism.

    What I know is I agree with the premise of the bill along with LGBTIQ+ Advocacy Groups, and even the Liberal opposition.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here