Australia Double Dissolution election in 2010

[Teejay]

On the 30 November 2009 the Australian Senate fail the pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation, which would have establish a carbon trading emissions scheme. The POD is then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd introduces the legislation into the Senate again and gets rejected a second time. So Kevin Rudd decides to go to a Double Dissolution election in early 2010.

The election result is a Labor party landslide with a two party preferred swing of 1% to Labor and extra 6 seats for Labor giving them 89 out of 150 seats. In the Senate would need to rely on the Greens to pass legislation although.

Personally I believe Tony Abbott would have been replaced as Opposition leader after such a humiliating defeat. It would be likely that Malcolm Turnbull would become Opposition leader again. Beyond that I dunno how a Second Rudd government would have gone after a Labor landslide win. It is likely that laws legally recognising same sex marriage would have been passed sometime during this parliament, since whoever is Liberal leader (other than Abbott) would grant a free vote to Liberal MP's and Senators on this matter.

 

[Tzaero]

I wouldn't say that the Liberal party leadership wouldn't pass back to Turnbull as Turnbull was considering ending his career in politics in 2010.
If it seems that Labor would win again with an increased majority with likely result of a longer wait in opposition for the Libs Malcolm is more likely to walk away.
As for a probable leader for the Liberal party after Abbott when Malcolm isn't available... Joe Hockey.

Also regarding a DD, pursuing this course could even result in Labor ousting Kevin earlier.

 

[Spens1]

A lot changes assuming Rudd wins. Gillard doesn't become PM or if she does, its only after Rudd is booted/resigns/gets pushed.

Turnbull in 09, without Abbott's clique running amok like otl probably has quiet a good run in truth. He'd be probably be a decent centre-right PM and he pushes the party towards the centre, though i suspect the right of the Libs would be an angry-vocal minority. In this case, I imagine he could be PM by, if not 2013, then by 2016/17.
That's just speculation, he may be the same as otl and he tries to entertain both sides, if he does that, then they stay in opposition.

 

[Teejay]

I wouldn't say that the Liberal party leadership wouldn't pass back to Turnbull as Turnbull was considering ending his career in politics in 2010.
If it seems that Labor would win again with an increased majority with likely result of a longer wait in opposition for the Libs Malcolm is more likely to walk away.
As for a probable leader for the Liberal party after Abbott when Malcolm isn't available... Joe Hockey.

Also regarding a DD, pursuing this course could even result in Labor ousting Kevin earlier.

I wasn't aware of that, how would Joe Hockey fare as Opposition Leader?

A Labor landslide would straighten Rudd versus the opponents in his party for a little while, I would reckon he would be deposed as Labor leader with in a couple of years.

 

[Tzaero]

I wasn't aware of that, how would Joe Hockey fare as Opposition Leader?

A Labor landslide would straighten Rudd versus the opponents in his party for a little while, I would reckon he would be deposed as Labor leader with in a couple of years.

I'd reckon Hockey is pretty much Abbott without the very social conservative baggage so he'd fare better.

 

[Fred the Great]

On the 30 November 2009 the Australian Senate fail the pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation, which would have establish a carbon trading emissions scheme. The POD is then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd introduces the legislation into the Senate again and gets rejected a second time. So Kevin Rudd decides to go to a Double Dissolution election in early 2010.

The election result is a Labor party landslide . . .

But it absolutely wouldn't have been a Labor landslide or likely even a win because the Coalition would have gone hard opposing the great big new tax on carbon, and as subsequent election results, and prior political experience, shows when you go to an election promising to bring in a new tax, prepare to lose.

 

[Spens1]

But it absolutely wouldn't have been a Labor landslide or likely even a win because the Coalition would have gone hard opposing the great big new tax on carbon, and as subsequent election results, and prior political experience, shows when you go to an election promising to bring in a new tax, prepare to lose.

yeah theirs no two ways about it, it would have been a close one. the bush would have balked at the idea of the carbon tax big time.

Long term though it wouldn't have been good for them because they where in no position to govern again so quickly after 07. Even if they won it would have been just (that goes the other way too, i think Labor wins about 78-83ish seats, so not a huge majority).

 

[Sciox]

But it absolutely wouldn't have been a Labor landslide or likely even a win because the Coalition would have gone hard opposing the great big new tax on carbon, and as subsequent election results, and prior political experience, shows when you go to an election promising to bring in a new tax, prepare to lose.

Also depending on the exact dates and butterflies of Rudd calling the election, Garret's opposition to and warnings about the home insulation scheme could come out around the same time there was the fraud investigation, the deaths of the workers installing the insulation and the fires.

 

[Teejay]

But it absolutely wouldn't have been a Labor landslide or likely even a win because the Coalition would have gone hard opposing the great big new tax on carbon, and as subsequent election results, and prior political experience, shows when you go to an election promising to bring in a new tax, prepare to lose.

Not necessarily look at 1998 and the Coalition's proposal to introduce a GST (admittedly there were tax cuts to compestate for the introduction of the GST), in OTL Tony Abbott had three years to campaign to scrap the Carbon Tax that the Gillard government had introduced. In this TL Tony Abbott as little as three months (December 2009 to March 2010) to get the message across. Plus Rudd was popular with the voters, even if his party hated him. Juila Gillard was never popular with the voters.

yeah theirs no two ways about it, it would have been a close one. the bush would have balked at the idea of the carbon tax big time.

Long term though it wouldn't have been good for them because they where in no position to govern again so quickly after 07. Even if they won it would have been just (that goes the other way too, i think Labor wins about 78-83ish seats, so not a huge majority).

I would concede that Labor would win about the same majority or a few less seats than in they in 2007. However it would be still a convincing victory for the Labor Party and would shut up Rudd's opponents for a little while. I would argue even if Rudd had not been deposed in 2010, Labor would have won a narrow majority (around 78-79 seats), namely by retaining or lose just one or two of the seats Labor won in Queensland in 2007.

 

[Fred the Great]

Not necessarily look at 1998 and the Coalition's proposal to introduce a GST (admittedly there were tax cuts to compestate for the introduction of the GST), in OTL Tony Abbott had three years to campaign to scrap the Carbon Tax that the Gillard government had introduced. In this TL Tony Abbott as little as three months (December 2009 to March 2010) to get the message across. Plus Rudd was popular with the voters, even if his party hated him. Juila Gillard was never popular with the voters.

The GST is a completely different proposition by 1998. Howard has been in power for a term, the GST had been talked about for years and he was able to sell it - along with his government's general positive performance - against a weak opposition, and, most importantly, many seats in hand. Even then, he lost the popular vote on 2PP! Look at the 1993 election when the Libs had the GST as policy. Hewson failed to sell it and lost. The carbon tax is even harder to sell. It takes very little time to mobilise opposition to a policy. Much longer to sell one. As far as Rudd's popularity, it was well and truly on the slide by early 2010.

I would concede that Labor would win about the same majority or a few less seats than in they in 2007. However it would be still a convincing victory for the Labor Party and would shut up Rudd's opponents for a little while. I would argue even if Rudd had not been deposed in 2010, Labor would have won a narrow majority (around 78-79 seats), namely by retaining or lose just one or two of the seats Labor won in Queensland in 2007.

How on earth can you argue Rudd would have won a narrow victory, let alone that Labor would have won a double D in early 2010 on the issue of introducing a carbon tax, opposition to which had already brought Abbott to power and unified the Coalition on this point? Labor MPs themselves feared losing the 2010 election, which is always the major reason why you depose a sitting leader.

 

[Fred the Great]

The realism of the scenario aside though, I would agree with a probable return to Turnbull, though there might be an interim leader first, and with more social reforms being somewhat likely.