Australian federal double dissolution election in 2009

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
In Australia's federal parliament the lower house (House of Representatives) is elected to a maximum three year term and the Upper House (Senate) is elected to a six term. Usually with every election half of the senate is elected, however sometimes the a Double Dissolution election is held where the whole Senate is elected. According to the constitution a piece of legislation being rejected by the Senate twice can trigger a double dissolution election.

The POD is that in Early 2010 then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (Australian Labor Party) calls a double dissolution election. The trigger being the Senate rejecting the Carbon trading legislation on two occasions. Such an election around March of 2010 would probably resulting in one of the biggest victories for the Australian Labor Party in history with the Labor Party winning 54% of the two party preferred vote and winning between 96 and 98 seats (out of a total of 150) in the House of Representatives. In the Senate the Labor Party only needs to rely on the Australian Greens Senators to pass legislation. In the resulting joint sitting of both houses of parliament the Carbon trading legislation is passed.

What happens next

Also somebody change the title please to Australian federal double dissolution election in 2010 please, thank you.
 
Last edited:
Some things I think would happen:
-I think there would be more resentment towards's Rudd's leadership in his second term from within the ALP. If in the OTL, they were ready to take Rudd down after 2-2.5 years of dysfunctional leadership style, imagine the point the Federal Parliament ALP would be at if they had to go through another few years of Rudd.

-Rudd strengthens his position even further on the back of his second election victory. People like Maxine McKew and Chris Bowen are prime candidates to get into the Cabinet whether at the start of the term or in reshuffles throughout the term. As he promotes more loyalists to the cabinet, there would be less incentive to continue being close to Gillard.

-I personally think that with all the resentment towards' Rudd's leadership style, all that was needed was a trigger for a leadership crisis. In the OTL it was the polls. In this TL it will be something else.

What would be different, I think, is that it would be a more bitter struggle. Rudd would have the legitimacy of two election victories, would have more supporters promoted into the cabinet, and assuming NSW ALP continually replaces its leaders because of bad polls as in OTL, Rudd could make the "Don't do what NSW Labor did".

-I don't know what would happen to the Libs. I think Abbott would be on his way out as leader after an election defeat of a large magnitude. Only Bishop and Hockey would be left as credible leadership contenders. Andrews and McFarlane are too old. Maybe Morrison or Dutton if they want to go to a new face.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Some things I think would happen:
-I think there would be more resentment towards's Rudd's leadership in his second term from within the ALP. If in the OTL, they were ready to take Rudd down after 2-2.5 years of dysfunctional leadership style, imagine the point the Federal Parliament ALP would be at if they had to go through another few years of Rudd.

-Rudd strengthens his position even further on the back of his second election victory. People like Maxine McKew and Chris Bowen are prime candidates to get into the Cabinet whether at the start of the term or in reshuffles throughout the term. As he promotes more loyalists to the cabinet, there would be less incentive to continue being close to Gillard.

-I personally think that with all the resentment towards' Rudd's leadership style, all that was needed was a trigger for a leadership crisis. In the OTL it was the polls. In this TL it will be something else.

What would be different, I think, is that it would be a more bitter struggle. Rudd would have the legitimacy of two election victories, would have more supporters promoted into the cabinet, and assuming NSW ALP continually replaces its leaders because of bad polls as in OTL, Rudd could make the "Don't do what NSW Labor did".

-I don't know what would happen to the Libs. I think Abbott would be on his way out as leader after an election defeat of a large magnitude. Only Bishop and Hockey would be left as credible leadership contenders. Andrews and McFarlane are too old. Maybe Morrison or Dutton if they want to go to a new face.

With Rudd acheving such a huge electoral victory is going to make it much harder for his opponents to try a leadership challenge than in OTL. It is possible such a leadership change could occur, it would depend on Labor's standing in the opinion polls between 2010 and 2012 or 2013 (when another election would be held)

Actually Tony Abbott would be Liberal Leader in a March 2010 election, however he wasn't leader for very long (he become leader in December 2009). I don't know if he would remain leader after the Labor Party winning such a convincing victory although. In probablity he would either resign as Liberal leader or be replaced with either Julie Bishop and Joe Hockey

There is very good a chance Peter Dutton would have been defeated in his electorate in a Labor victory of such such proportions I have proposed in my TL. Since after redistribution his election was notionally very marginal Labor before the 2010 election in OTL. Therefore only Scott Morrison would have been seen as a "fresh face".
 
Last edited:
Abbott will get beaten hard. Rudd vs Abbott as it is was closer than it should have been in 2013. Imagine if the man was still PM. I think Qld basically almost goes entirely to Rudd (he's a Qlder first of all, vs some prick from Manly, i genuinly think that's what will come to most when voting, especially since we made it out of the GFC pretty well and got given free money). I could see them retaining that 85 seats or so, if not actually picking up more.

What I imagine happens is probably Labor win a big majority. He may be insufferable to most in the party but if you got a high approval rating it isn't going to mean much. Which means no Gillard as leader (probably a good thing in hindsight, for her own sanity) in any way. Labor probably doesn't pursue a carbon tax so no political suicide. Hopefully Shorten and other faceless men remain in the background also.

Abbott I think will be booted as leader by Turnbull again and run in 2013 and probably win in all honesty. I don't think they'd spill Rudd in a hurry but they'll wait for him to go and then replace him with Gillard as leader of the opposition. Question is, whether Tone then dumps Turnbull as PM (If he was as bad as he is now, he would have gotten ditched in about 2-3 years, but Abbott would lose his re-election).
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Abbott will get beaten hard. Rudd vs Abbott as it is was closer than it should have been in 2013. Imagine if the man was still PM. I think Qld basically almost goes entirely to Rudd (he's a Qlder first of all, vs some prick from Manly, i genuinly think that's what will come to most when voting, especially since we made it out of the GFC pretty well and got given free money). I could see them retaining that 85 seats or so, if not actually picking up more.

What I imagine happens is probably Labor win a big majority. He may be insufferable to most in the party but if you got a high approval rating it isn't going to mean much. Which means no Gillard as leader (probably a good thing in hindsight, for her own sanity) in any way. Labor probably doesn't pursue a carbon tax so no political suicide. Hopefully Shorten and other faceless men remain in the background also.

There is no guarantee that is going to occur, the faceless men remaining in the background. All Kevin Rudd needs to do is screw up once and they will come out of the shadows. Actually in OTL Gillard was an effective Prime Minister, despite her government was a minority government. Apart from the Carbon Tax, all the other policies of her government were popular. In OTL Tony Abbott was very clever in opposing the Carbon tax, because Australia has among the highest electricity prices in the world.

Abbott I think will be booted as leader by Turnbull again and run in 2013 and probably win in all honesty. I don't think they'd spill Rudd in a hurry but they'll wait for him to go and then replace him with Gillard as leader of the opposition. Question is, whether Tone then dumps Turnbull as PM (If he was as bad as he is now, he would have gotten ditched in about 2-3 years, but Abbott would lose his re-election).

The coalition would have do some pretty radical policy changes to win the 2013 election, namely reducing immigration and/or abolishing negative gearing. Both would be appealing to the public, especially given rapidly escalating house prices, along with rents (in some markets). In my opinion the latter policy would be more likely advocated by Labor than the Liberal party, if Malcolm Turnbull advocated abolishing Negative Gearing his party would revolt. The former policy would be defintely be advocated by a Liberal party led by somebody other than Malcolm Turnbull.

On the upside although Legal recognition of same sex marriages by parliament would be achievable between 2010 and 2013. Since Malcolm Turnbull would allow a free vote among his party's members. That would save the Australian populace from an expensive plebiscite it had to endure in OTL.

Regardless of who is leading the Labor Party, the 2013 election would be very likely a another convincing Labor victory. I suspect after that the Liberals would elect a Trump style conservative leader that would lead the Coalition to a surprise 2016 victory. Such a leader would have the slogan of "Making Australia Great Again". Scott Morrison or even Tony Abbott I believe would be the ideal candidate for such a leader. Such policies being implemented would be huge cuts in immigration numbers and a possible ban on all further immigration of Muslims. Also the Greens would do very well (probably up to 15% of the primary vote) in such an election getting a few lower house MP's getting in such an election. Since they would be the primary opposition to such a Liberal party leader.
 
Last edited:
There is no guarantee that is going to occur, the faceless men remaining in the background. All Kevin Rudd needs to do is screw up once and they will come out of the shadows. Actually in OTL Gillard was an effective Prime Minister, despite her government was a minority government. Apart from the Carbon Tax, all the other policies of her government were popular. In OTL Tony Abbott was very clever in opposing the Carbon tax, because Australia has among the highest electricity prices in the world.



The coalition would have do some pretty radical policy changes to win the 2013 election, namely reducing immigration and/or abolishing negative gearing. Both would be appealing to the public, especially given rapidly escalating house prices, along with rents (in some markets). In my opinion the latter policy would be more likely advocated by Labor than the Liberal party, if Malcolm Turnbull advocated abolishing Negative Gearing his party would revolt. The former policy would be defintely be advocated by a Liberal party led by somebody other than Malcolm Turnbull.

On the upside although Legal recognition of same sex marriages by parliament would be achievable between 2010 and 2013. Since Malcolm Turnbull would allow a free vote among his party's members. That would save the Australian populace from an expensive plebiscite it had to endure in OTL.

Regardless of who is leading the Labor Party, the 2013 election would be very likely a another convincing Labor victory. I suspect after that the Liberals would elect a Trump style conservative leader that would lead the Coalition to a surprise 2016 victory. Such a leader would have the slogan of "Making Australia Great Again". Scott Morrison or even Tony Abbott I believe would be the ideal candidate for such a leader. Such policies being implemented would be huge cuts in immigration numbers and a possible ban on all further immigration of Muslims. Also the Greens would do very well (probably up to 15% of the primary vote) in such an election getting a few lower house MP's getting in such an election. Since they would be the primary opposition to such a Liberal party leader.

eh i mean she was desperately unpopular however and even if its only the Carbon tax, it was because of the Carbon tax (and mainly her handling of it, should have sacked her advisors first to be honest) that caused her getting the boot.

Also if Rudd wins 2 elections they wouldn't be in such a hurry to ditch him. They'd have to know how bad it would make them look.

I mean if the Libs go even further right than Abbott in 2013 they'll alienate their city voters which means they're stuffed and they can look forward to having 40-50 seats in parliament. If far-right politics was popular Hanson would do better.

In 2013, the Libs could always go the way of introducing some kind of restriction on foreigners buying homes like we have now as well as reduced immigration. That would win.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
eh i mean she was desperately unpopular however and even if its only the Carbon tax, it was because of the Carbon tax (and mainly her handling of it, should have sacked her advisors first to be honest) that caused her getting the boot.

Also if Rudd wins 2 elections they wouldn't be in such a hurry to ditch him. They'd have to know how bad it would make them look.

There is leadership approval/disapproval and intention to vote in opinion poll, the two often do not correspond with each other. Also I said that the Gillard governments policies apart from the Carbon Tax were not unpopular. Tony Abbott in OTL got so much political momentum for opposing the Carbon Tax.

I mean if the Libs go even further right than Abbott in 2013 they'll alienate their city voters which means they're stuffed and they can look forward to having 40-50 seats in parliament. If far-right politics was popular Hanson would do better.

True a few Liberal members in wealthy inner city electorates would be defeated. However the Liberals could gain a significant number of Safe Labor outer suburban and also marginal provincial electorates. That realignment would be enough to generate a narrow surprise victory.
 
There is leadership approval/disapproval and intention to vote in opinion poll, the two often do not correspond with each other. Also I said that the Gillard governments policies apart from the Carbon Tax were not unpopular. Tony Abbott in OTL got so much political momentum for opposing the Carbon Tax.



True a few Liberal members in wealthy inner city electorates would be defeated. However the Liberals could gain a significant number of Safe Labor outer suburban and also marginal provincial electorates. That realignment would be enough to generate a narrow surprise victory.

Remember, Labor is the party of the union, there is no way they would be able to swing enough suburban seats to make up for the backlash. A centrist-Labor vs a right to far-right Libs only ends one way.

Oh yeah Abbott got a lot of momentum over it. Gillard however I think because of that one reason is probably an ineffective leader, her handling of that was so bad it really overshadows the good she tried to do (i mean she was on the backfoot as it is because people where pissed that she wasn't elected by the people).
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Remember, Labor is the party of the union, there is no way they would be able to swing enough suburban seats to make up for the backlash. A centrist-Labor vs a right to far-right Libs only ends one way.

Because the way the whole right to far-right approach was done the wrong way, in the past it failed to attract socially conservative, working and underclass Labor voters and repelled socially progressive, middle class Liberal voters.

Now if it is handled in the right way, which would be a socially conservative, populist approach (similar to Donald Trump's* approach) it would result in a narrow victory for the Coalition parties. It is debatable if anybody in the Liberal Party would prepared to do such an electoral approach. Although for the National Party could do such an approach in order to win seats in provincial cities and outer suburbs of the major cities, while at the same time not repelling away their base support. That could make the National Party into the senior partner or at least an equal partner in a Coalition government.

* I predicted that Donald Trump would win the Republican nomination and be elected President. A lot of people thought I was simply crazy.
 
Last edited:
Because the way the whole right to far-right approach was done the wrong way, in the past it failed to attract socially conservative, working and underclass Labor voters and repelled socially progressive, middle class Liberal voters.

Now if it is handled in the right way, which would be a socially conservative, populist approach (similar to Donald Trump's* approach) it would result in a narrow victory for the Coalition parties. It is debatable if anybody in the Liberal Party would prepared to do such an electoral approach. Although for the National Party could do such an approach in order to win seats in provincial cities and outer suburbs of the major cities, while at the same time not repelling away their base support. That could make the National Party into the senior partner or at least an equal partner in a Coalition government.

* I predicted that Donald Trump would win the Republican nomination and be elected President. A lot of people thought I was simply crazy.

To be honest i think i called it also for republican nomination and i knew after the e-mail thing came out with clinton that it would be close and everyone in America was being a bit complacent when it came to trump (but her performance is for another topic).

The Nationals if they somehow ended the coalition could do it, which would be a crazy story and not likely. The move for a Trump like figure won't be one coming out of the libs, it would be coming out of the nats after all.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it isn't likely in this tl. It would take a lot of other things happening as well to get to that stage. One thing that would almost certainly need to happen is that the coalition would need to be killed off.

Hypothetically with regards to this far right thing. Lets say the Libs run an inner city elite like Turnbull and lose badly in 2013. Not before Turnbull takes the Liberals towards the centre, gets rid of almost all the social conservatives and what you're left with is basically somewhat fiscally conservative, social moderates (so the lib's would be centre-to centre-right party that's very 3rd way I guess). In the meantime the Nat's go toward the right, maybe even moreso (one way is George Christensen as leader of the Nat's after 2013). You then have this big tent mess where you have everything from centrists to the far-right, not hard to kill off the coalition from here if there is enough tension.

You then see Christensen bring on board one nation people (maybe have Pauline either join the party or partner up with One Nation like Labor and the Greens do here) and people like Abbott, Bernadi and disenfranchised social conservatives from the Libs. You would have a monolith of a National Party that would run everywhere (and probably win most regional seats and some outer suburbs, though I suspect it wouldn't be that many suburb which i think stay with Labor and the libs).

So basically you would have a 3 party system coming out of it, with none of the parties liking each other. It must be said though, Labor and the Nationals will both be after the same voters almost (working class) and Labor has the unions on their side, cause by definition i don't think the nats would be pro-unions.
 
Top