Malcolm Turnbull continues to keep alive the crazy brave idea that he could call the election the day after the budget is brought down in May.

While it seems a ridiculous idea, and the Prime Minister ­admits it is not his top option, it is no more far-fetched than a political party dumping an election-winning prime minister before the end of his first term, which both parties have done in recent years.

Turnbull could use a snap budget poll to fight an election over ­industrial relations laws and union corruption, while asking voters to approve tough medicine to fix the budget and clean out the crossbench causing deadlock in the Senate, especially if his tax package is not going to be the “big bang” previously suggested.

After all, Turnbull needs something to fight for.

It would set the scene for a campaign like no other and ­require passion, advocacy and vision from our leaders.

With key measures from the past two Coalition budgets stalled in the Senate, such an election would make the next budget into an election manifesto, and force the government to seek a mandate for everything the budget contained, including all spending cuts and tax ­measures.

If the Coalition were returned to power, the opposition and the Senate would be hard-pressed to reject any budget measure.

Turnbull said yesterday his ­assumption was that there would be an election in August, September or October, but it was “open to us to go to a double dissolution” if the Senate continued to block ­industrial relations bills.

He said this would be using the “deadlock-breaking provision of the Constitution because the Senate has blocked important elements of legislation”.

He is making it clear others would drive him to this fight. After Senate crossbenchers said last week they would not be bullied by his threat, he is repeating that he is prepared to invoke section 57 of the Constitution.

But there is a sizeable catch. A double dissolution cannot be held within six months of the expiry date of the House of Representatives, which is November 11, 2016.

That technicality means the last possible day to announce a double dissolution is Wednesday, May 11, which just happens to be the day after the budget. So after handing down a budget, does the Prime Minister want a window of just one day in which to strike?

While Turnbull needs to ­announce a double dissolution by May 11, the writs do not have to be issued until May 21 and polling day can be anywhere between June 18 and July 16. If the election is held before July 1, the Senate elected would be backdated 12 months.

That would mean another normal half-Senate poll within two years. Turnbull can avoid that by holding the poll on July 2, July 9 or July 16. Assuming he chooses July 2, it would be a 53-day election campaign — almost three weeks longer than normal. Selecting July 16 would take the campaign to a marathon 67 days.

This would mean a winter poll and only the second July election since Federation. The last was in 1987, also the last time the nation had a double dissolution.

John Madigan is the only Senate crossbencher up for re-­election this year but in a double dissolution poll all eight would have their jobs and $200,000 annual salary on the line.

The government still has time to change the voting rules, but even under the same system that saw some senators controversially elected by winning the political lottery with preference deals after a tiny primary vote, most would be ­unlikely to be returned.

An election campaign of 53 days would require an adjustment from the politicians and the media.

Hopefully it would end the non sequitur of having the campaign launch towards the end of the contest. The number of people casting their ballot before election day has more than doubled from 1.1 million to 2.5 million over the past three elections, a trend that is ­expected to continue.

The government would probably hold back a few big promises, which would be hidden in the budget under the category of decisions taken but not announced, but with most of its platform ­announced and funded at the start of the campaign, it would put Labor under pressure to move quicker to reveal its pledges.

This could turn the awful costings ­debate on its head. Instead of parties waiting until the final 72 or even 24 hours to fully release their costings, we could demand it much earlier.

And if we have a longer campaign then voters deserve more meaningful election debates. Rather than the charade in which the parties agree to just one debate at the start of the campaign, before key policies are released, we should have several debates — on issues including tax, industrial ­relations and jobs, health and education — to let the contenders for prime minister give us more than a rehearsed sound grab.

This weekend, the first window for an early election to be held before Easter closes. Over Christmas, Turnbull considered the option of calling the poll on Valentine’s Day for a March 19 ballot, but decided the government would first hand down a budget, tax plan and ­defence white paper.

Last Tuesday, as Turnbull told the partyroom it was a “live ­option” to have a double dissolution if the Senate refused to pass the legislation to revive the Australian Building and Construction Commission, The Australian published a Newspoll showing 71 per cent of people wanted the government to go full term. Only 21 per cent favoured an early election.

A double dissolution after the budget has many risks.

Quote:


You answered your own question already.

Cynik wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 6:55am:



That's a fence sit by the cowardly PM.
So I guess since his and the coalition's polling numbers should start diving very soon, then that's a no to a DD?

It's a fair dinkum question.

The cowardly PM fence sat on the GST, even though the GST would of replaces the $7 billion (four years) slashed by the coalition from health and education.
Now it's rumoured the GST has been dumped because the PM can't sell returning investment funding into these portfolios.

So is fence sitting by the cowardly PM, a sign of something that soom will be pushed off the table?

I can see why you're worried.

A DD will give the greens more of a chance to pilfer ALP seats.

____ wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 6:50am:



Abbott, election winning? 

the author of this article doesn't know what he's on about

Turnbull has in fact been utterly honest and consistent the entire way through. Most of you cynics dont seem to see it. He promised to look at the GST - something Labor refused to do - and has apparently decided not to go ahead with it next term. He has also promised to take it to an election if he does. Again, very consistent. His promise to go full-term is also consistent and the DD threat is also a consistency.

It is quite amusing to listen to you lot complain about lying, promise-breaking and inconsistency and then when someone does all the right things, you complain still.  Politicians cant win with you lot. Perhaps that is why so many now dont even bother to try.