CONCERN among Liberal MPs that Tony Abbott might call an early federal election was one of the factors that helped make Malcolm Turnbull prime minister.

There were suspicions that the beleaguered Abbott was considering a double dissolution as a way of heading off a leadership challenge.

Given the Coalition’s disastrous opinion poll ratings, it would have been folly. The possibility hastened the challenge and boosted Turnbull’s support.

Six weeks later, though, there is serious talk of the new prime minister going to the polls early.

And this time it is Labor MPs who dread the prospect.

Turnbull’s popularity has sent the Coalition’s electoral support soaring. Labor, for a while at least, is down and out.

Few at senior levels in the Opposition doubt that Turnbull would win an early election and win it well.

Turnbull’s plan, when he moved into the prime minister’s office, was to let Parliament run its full term and hold an election in the second half of next year.

That is still the position expressed publicly by ministers.

“We’re going to be having a full term. We’ve got lots to do,” Assistant Treasurer Kelly O’Dwyer said yesterday.

But behind the scenes they must be — and certainly should be — giving thought to a pre-Budget election.

Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese made sense yesterday when he nominated March 19 as a possible date.

It is not primarily about popularity. To borrow Bill Clinton’s old slogan, it’s the economy, stupid! Economic conditions are becoming so difficult that the nation can ill-afford an election Budget in May.

Tough decisions will be required, not sweeteners to attract votes. Getting an election out of the way first would make it easier for the Government to take necessary Budget repair measures.

Turnbull has adopted a positive, optimistic tone about the economy.

He has abandoned gloom and doom in favour of building confidence.

“This is a time of great opportunity,” is his message.

But the reality is that he and Treasurer Scott Morrison face major challenges.

Australians clearly feel more upbeat under new leadership, but the economic problems that caused concern under Abbott and Joe Hockey are still there.

China’s economic growth is slowing. People in business worry about the sluggish US recovery. Commodity prices keep falling.

Australia’s company profits are down. Wages growth is low. Sharemarkets are weak.

The Australian newspaper warned yesterday that the nation’s AAA credit rating is at risk if progress is not made in reducing the deficit.

Yet Government revenues continue to fall faster than Treasury expected, while spending has not been significantly restrained.

Action should not be delayed for another year.

There will have to be a new round of savings. Presumably lessons have been learned from the botched 2014 Budget, but there will still be losers.

One lesson that should definitely have been learned from 2014 is the need to avoid unpleasant surprises in the Budget. Abbott and Hockey failed to prepare the ground for their Budget nasties.

Holding an election first, and being upfront about problems and possible solutions, would give Turnbull a way to get voters ready for whatever needs to be done.

It would free Turnbull from promises made by his predecessor which have hampered the Budget repair process.

Assuming he wins, it would also provide him with an indisputable mandate, making it difficult for the Senate — or the Opposition — to play obstructionist games.

The alternative view is that Turnbull should produce a Budget first to show he has substance on economic policy.

So far, taking advantage of the national sense of relief stemming from Abbott’s departure, Turnbull has had to make few specific policy decisions. That won’t continue, however. For the moment he can get away with generalities such as yesterday’s statement that GST changes are “clearly in the mix”.

But eventually he will have to say how.

There are reports that a rise in the GST rate to 12½ per cent or even 15 per cent is on the cards, as well as extending coverage to fresh food and health services.

When that sort of detail starts to emerge, battle will really be joined.

And, irrespective of election timing, the economy will be the battlefield.

By LAURIE OAKES, NINE NETWORK POLITICAL EDITOR


heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/laurie-oakes/tough-times-point-to-malcolm-turnbull-calling-an-election-early/news-story/cefca1b00e303da4a4a3c95625e9e533

You could tell that article came from a Murdoch rag.

Economy growing more difficult, yeah, recessions are like that.

Revenues are falling, so they will cut spending.

The 2014 Budget failed because the ground wasn’t prepared??? It was harsh and unfair and hit the old, the sick, the poor and students. The one thing that would be lifting the economy right now, the NBN, has been killed, the MTM mishmash is crap, expensive crap.

Speculation about an election before they have to hand down a third botch of a Budget has been around before now. Probably they will call the election in March. MYEFO will be a pointer.

Action to lift revenues would be good. Cutting super, NG, FBT, CGT exemption etc etc would add tens of billions of dollars of revenue a year. I doubt international companies will have to pay much tax here for quite a while.

And that crap about mandates makes good fertiliser for your gardens  ;D

Early elections are difficult for reasons that I have already stated elsewhere.

To summarise:
* An election cannot reasonably be held before the end of February 2016 because electoral redistributions in NSW and WA are not yet finalised. If an early election were held before then, NSW and WA would have to go to the polls with the old electorate boundaries but the new number of seats and that will be messy.
* A double dissolution cannot be held after the second week of May 2016. Double dissolution elections also require triggers. A few do exist, but are they sufficient justification?
* A half-Senate election cannot be held before August 6, 2016.
* Early House-only elections have never been held without a good reason. The only two times it has happened were due to the numbers in the House being unworkable. One government lost confidence on the floor of the House in 1929 (necessitating an immediate election), and Menzies went early in 1963 because the 2-seat majority in the House was too small to be workable. A government with a decent House majority has never called an early House-only election.

Turnbull's best course of action is to see out the term and hold the election when it falls due, August 6 2016 or later. Calling an early election unnecessarily could backfire, as it did for Fraser in 1983. There is the small risk that the economy could slip into recession before then, but on balance it is a risk that Turnbull should take. Turnbull is good at handling risks, it is how he made a lot of money before entering politics.

If the economy does end up going into recession, the following election usually brings a change of government. If Turnbull's Liberals do win in 2016 and the economy ends up in recession after that, the 2016 election could well be like 2007 - a good election to lose.

Already discussed on other thread. But here goes

It depends on the economic data that comes out in Feb/Mar 2016

If it looks bad then Apr election - otherwise Budget then election

If the Syrian stuff escalate then it would be interesting to see what they do. I would say early election

Either way Shorten won't on 17% and heading further south

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 10:31pm:

You could tell that article came from a Murdoch rag. Economy growing more difficult, yeah, recessions are like that. Revenues are falling, so they will cut spending. The 2014 Budget failed because the ground wasn’t prepared??? It was harsh and unfair and hit the old, the sick, the poor and students. The one thing that would be lifting the economy right now, the NBN, has been killed, the MTM mishmash is crap, expensive crap. Speculation about an election before they have to hand down a third botch of a Budget has been around before now. Probably they will call the election in March. MYEFO will be a pointer. Action to lift revenues would be good. Super, NG, FBT, CGT exemption etc etc would add tens of billions of dollars of revenue a year. I doubt international companies will have to pay much tax here for quite a while. And that crap about mandates makes good fertiliser for your gardens  ;D

Why do you want Australia to be in a recession? You seem obsessed with it - it's just about all you talk about.

It would free Turnbull from promises made by his predecessor which have hampered the Budget repair process.

The promises were made because they were needed to win an election and they were supporter by the voters because they were good policy positions.

Breaking so many promises was not only politically insane but it was poor policies being implemented.

This left the senate in a terrible position of having no option but to block many of these policies. The senate is meant to block bad policy and it can not be easy for them to support lies either. When they are presented with both similtaniously I would think it a no brainer.

Quote:

Tough decisions will be required, not sweeteners to attract votes. Getting an election out of the way first would make it easier for the Government to take necessary Budget repair measures.

Also remove the political damage caused by a third consecutive failed budget.

Quote:

Yet Government revenues continue to fall faster than Treasury expected, while spending has not been significantly restrained.

Yes the Liberal mantra was to not spend what you don't have but the Liberals were  great at talking the talk but unable to walk the walk.

Quote:

Assuming he wins, it would also provide him with an indisputable mandate, making it difficult for the Senate — or the Opposition — to play obstructionist games.

Take out all the BS rhetoric in this sentence and the senate is still required to block poor policy.

Bam wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 11:15pm:

Early elections are difficult for reasons that I have already stated elsewhere. To summarise: * An election cannot reasonably be held before the end of February 2016 because electoral redistributions in NSW and WA are not yet finalised. If an early election were held before then, NSW and WA would have to go to the polls with the old electorate boundaries but the new number of seats and that will be messy. * A double dissolution cannot be held after the second week of May 2016. Double dissolution elections also require triggers. A few do exist, but are they sufficient justification? * A half-Senate election cannot be held before August 6, 2016. * Early House-only elections have never been held without a good reason. The only two times it has happened were due to the numbers in the House being unworkable. One government lost confidence on the floor of the House in 1929 (necessitating an immediate election), and Menzies went early in 1963 because the 2-seat majority in the House was too small to be workable. A government with a decent House majority has never called an early House-only election. Turnbull's best course of action is to see out the term and hold the election when it falls due, August 6 2016 or later. Calling an early election unnecessarily could backfire, as it did for Fraser in 1983. There is the small risk that the economy could slip into recession before then, but on balance it is a risk that Turnbull should take. Turnbull is good at handling risks, it is how he made a lot of money before entering politics. If the economy does end up going into recession, the following election usually brings a change of government. If Turnbull's Liberals do win in 2016 and the economy ends up in recession after that, the 2016 election could well be like 2007 - a good election to lose.

I think Laurie Oakes knows more than you. It is now sounding like good strategy to go to an early election. Get it over and done with before the next budget. The libs are a shoe-in to win and even possibly increase their majority. Shorten is dead-man-walking.

I think the idea is a good one.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:37am:

Bam wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 11:15pm: Early elections are difficult for reasons that I have already stated elsewhere. To summarise: * An election cannot reasonably be held before the end of February 2016 because electoral redistributions in NSW and WA are not yet finalised. If an early election were held before then, NSW and WA would have to go to the polls with the old electorate boundaries but the new number of seats and that will be messy. * A double dissolution cannot be held after the second week of May 2016. Double dissolution elections also require triggers. A few do exist, but are they sufficient justification? * A half-Senate election cannot be held before August 6, 2016. * Early House-only elections have never been held without a good reason. The only two times it has happened were due to the numbers in the House being unworkable. One government lost confidence on the floor of the House in 1929 (necessitating an immediate election), and Menzies went early in 1963 because the 2-seat majority in the House was too small to be workable. A government with a decent House majority has never called an early House-only election. Turnbull's best course of action is to see out the term and hold the election when it falls due, August 6 2016 or later. Calling an early election unnecessarily could backfire, as it did for Fraser in 1983. There is the small risk that the economy could slip into recession before then, but on balance it is a risk that Turnbull should take. Turnbull is good at handling risks, it is how he made a lot of money before entering politics. If the economy does end up going into recession, the following election usually brings a change of government. If Turnbull's Liberals do win in 2016 and the economy ends up in recession after that, the 2016 election could well be like 2007 - a good election to lose. I think Laurie Oakes knows more than you. It is now sounding like good strategy to go to an early election. Get it over and done with before the next budget. The libs are a shoe-in to win and even possibly increase their majority. Shorten is dead-man-walking. I think the idea is a good one.

I think the idea is a good one.

Not for Australia.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:37am:

It is now sounding like good strategy to go to an early election. Get it over and done with before the next budget.

Yay!!!!! then we get to see all the failed budgets again yay!!!!!

Do you think the Libs will miss an opportunity to do some old fashion boomer vote buying?

The next budget will have so much vote buying in it, it will make Howard/Costello wince.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 7:53am:

Do you think the Libs will miss an opportunity to do some old fashion boomer vote buying? The next budget will have so much vote buying in it, it will make Howard/Costello wince.

They don't need to. They already have labor in a vice. Polls are 53/47 and likely to rise to 55/45 by election time.  They are undefeatable.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:04am:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 7:53am: Do you think the Libs will miss an opportunity to do some old fashion boomer vote buying? The next budget will have so much vote buying in it, it will make Howard/Costello wince. They don't need to. They already have labor in a vice. Polls are 53/47 and likely to rise to 55/45 by election time.  They are undefeatable.

They don't have to but its Liberal party DNA. Every Liberal budget in forever has buggered over working class and vote bought boomers.

After the last two, I honestly don't think they deserve a third chance at a budget.

Kat wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:13am:

After the last two, I honestly don't think they deserve a third chance at a budget.

Don't worry, the next budget will be filled with competitiveness (Destroying wages, Workchoices), Innovation and the digital sharing economy (MTM FTTN) and will make the economy more agile (Workchoices). The libs are in Hackathons (Corporate meetings with business lobbyists like the Chamber of Commerce and Kate "Decapitated a teenage girl" Carnell) right at this very moment!

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:37am:

Bam wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 11:15pm: Early elections are difficult for reasons that I have already stated elsewhere. To summarise: * An election cannot reasonably be held before the end of February 2016 because electoral redistributions in NSW and WA are not yet finalised. If an early election were held before then, NSW and WA would have to go to the polls with the old electorate boundaries but the new number of seats and that will be messy. * A double dissolution cannot be held after the second week of May 2016. Double dissolution elections also require triggers. A few do exist, but are they sufficient justification? * A half-Senate election cannot be held before August 6, 2016. * Early House-only elections have never been held without a good reason. The only two times it has happened were due to the numbers in the House being unworkable. One government lost confidence on the floor of the House in 1929 (necessitating an immediate election), and Menzies went early in 1963 because the 2-seat majority in the House was too small to be workable. A government with a decent House majority has never called an early House-only election. Turnbull's best course of action is to see out the term and hold the election when it falls due, August 6 2016 or later. Calling an early election unnecessarily could backfire, as it did for Fraser in 1983. There is the small risk that the economy could slip into recession before then, but on balance it is a risk that Turnbull should take. Turnbull is good at handling risks, it is how he made a lot of money before entering politics. If the economy does end up going into recession, the following election usually brings a change of government. If Turnbull's Liberals do win in 2016 and the economy ends up in recession after that, the 2016 election could well be like 2007 - a good election to lose. I think Laurie Oakes knows more than you. It is now sounding like good strategy to go to an early election. Get it over and done with before the next budget. The libs are a shoe-in to win and even possibly increase their majority. Shorten is dead-man-walking. I think the idea is a good one.

Early election? Without any analysis as to what kind of election it would be, such a prediction is worthless.

You have not bothered to look into the detail. That's an obvious sign that I know more than you. I have form on predicting election dates. You do not. I correctly predicted the date of the previous election to within a week, two weeks before Gillard announced a September 14 2013 election (the exact date I predicted), before Rudd moved it to September 7 due to September 14 being Yom Kippur.

I expect the Parliament to go full term because there are no compelling reasons for an early election. The House has solid numbers, the Senate is easier to work with (Turnbull has found that talking to the Senators is helpful) and there are no other clear indications that an early election is necessary. I have already suggested that the next election will be in the first half of September or the last half of October but that was with Abbott as PM where I guessed that he would seek to delay the election as long as possible. Turnbull doesn't change that prediction much except to bring the four possible dates in August into play ahead of a November poll. Turnbull will go to the election earlier than Abbott would have done but the election will not be held before August 6 2016. August 27 2016 is my guess - it is just before the economic figures for the June 2016 quarter are due to be released.

there is no way the libs will hold the election after the budget. They can't afford to.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:04am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 10:31pm: You could tell that article came from a Murdoch rag. Economy growing more difficult, yeah, recessions are like that. Revenues are falling, so they will cut spending. The 2014 Budget failed because the ground wasn’t prepared??? It was harsh and unfair and hit the old, the sick, the poor and students. The one thing that would be lifting the economy right now, the NBN, has been killed, the MTM mishmash is crap, expensive crap. Speculation about an election before they have to hand down a third botch of a Budget has been around before now. Probably they will call the election in March. MYEFO will be a pointer. Action to lift revenues would be good. Super, NG, FBT, CGT exemption etc etc would add tens of billions of dollars of revenue a year. I doubt international companies will have to pay much tax here for quite a while. And that crap about mandates makes good fertiliser for your gardens  ;D Why do you want Australia to be in a recession? You seem obsessed with it - it's just about all you talk about.

I am merely pointing out that we are in recession now. Increasing unemployment and underemployment, falling hours worked, falling govt revenues, sluggish wage growth and so on.

I would've thought they would call it before MYEFO, once that comes out it will obliterate the illusion the Libtards are better economic managers.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:11am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 8:04am: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 7:53am: Do you think the Libs will miss an opportunity to do some old fashion boomer vote buying? The next budget will have so much vote buying in it, it will make Howard/Costello wince. They don't need to. They already have labor in a vice. Polls are 53/47 and likely to rise to 55/45 by election time.  They are undefeatable. They don't have to but its Liberal party DNA. Every Liberal budget in forever has buggered over working class and vote bought boomers.

You have a very poor memory as one would expect from a socialist.  More welfare had been granted by Liberal governments than Labor.  But we can't expect you know that, do we. Karl Marx didn't tell you how to think about our politics.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 12:44pm:

You have a very poor memory as one would expect from a socialist.  More welfare had been granted by Liberal governments than Labor.  But we can't expect you know that, do we. Karl Marx didn't tell you how to think about our politics.

If you consider vote buying policies that served nothing "welfare" sure.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:04am:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 7:53am: Do you think the Libs will miss an opportunity to do some old fashion boomer vote buying? The next budget will have so much vote buying in it, it will make Howard/Costello wince. They don't need to. They already have labor in a vice. Polls are 53/47 and likely to rise to 55/45 by election time.  They are undefeatable.

If they try to bring out a budget we may see the numbers reverse.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 12:44pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 8:11am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 8:04am: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 7:53am: Do you think the Libs will miss an opportunity to do some old fashion boomer vote buying? The next budget will have so much vote buying in it, it will make Howard/Costello wince. They don't need to. They already have labor in a vice. Polls are 53/47 and likely to rise to 55/45 by election time.  They are undefeatable. They don't have to but its Liberal party DNA. Every Liberal budget in forever has buggered over working class and vote bought boomers. You have a very poor memory as one would expect from a socialist.  More welfare had been granted by Liberal governments than Labor.  But we can't expect you know that, do we. Karl Marx didn't tell you how to think about our politics.

I think it was  Groucho Marks telling Tony how to think.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 1:23pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 8:04am: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 7:53am: Do you think the Libs will miss an opportunity to do some old fashion boomer vote buying? The next budget will have so much vote buying in it, it will make Howard/Costello wince. They don't need to. They already have labor in a vice. Polls are 53/47 and likely to rise to 55/45 by election time.  They are undefeatable. If they try to bring out a budget we may see the numbers reverse.

They already brought out two budgets which were not well received and where are the polls now?

53/47.

Learn from history for a change.

50:50 and will head south one Malodorous actually does something. The next  Budget will be a horror budget and entirely the wrong prescription for the economy.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:13pm:

50:50 and will head south one Malodorous actually does something. The next  Budget will be a horror budget and entirely the wrong prescription for the economy.

You are quite interesting (from a psychiatric point of view).  There is not a single fact you are not willing to alter so that it fits your beliefs and perspectives.

The only good news is that you did not breed.

If you read outside the Daily Toilet you will have realised the Budget the morons are dreaming up will be an austerity Budget which will only make the recession deeper.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 5:59pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 1:23pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 8:04am: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 7:53am: Do you think the Libs will miss an opportunity to do some old fashion boomer vote buying? The next budget will have so much vote buying in it, it will make Howard/Costello wince. They don't need to. They already have labor in a vice. Polls are 53/47 and likely to rise to 55/45 by election time.  They are undefeatable. If they try to bring out a budget we may see the numbers reverse. They already brought out two budgets which were not well received and where are the polls now? 53/47. Learn from history for a change.

yes, where is the guy that bought out those budgets ... remind us again deary?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Turnbull says federal election can be expected around September, October 2016

Quote:

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has downplayed the prospect of an early federal election, saying he "expects" it to be held around September or October next year. Some Coalition strategists had been weighing up the possibility of a poll in March to capitalise on the popularity of the new leader. But Mr Turnbull said he was in no rush. "We will be going to an election next year," he said. "I'm expecting it to be about this time, well perhaps November is getting a bit late, I would say around September, October next year is when you should expect the next election to be." There has been discussion about a number of options, including the prospect of a double dissolution election or a house only election to be held before the next federal budget is handed down. A proposed calendar for parliamentary sittings in 2016 suggests the Coalition is keeping the option open before the Easter long weekend. But other strategists claim Mr Turnbull needs more time to campaign on changes to Australia's tax system, with questions about whether there is a sufficient trigger for a double dissolution election to be called. Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop also downplayed the prospect of a poll being called on February 14, 2016. "I cannot imagine that we would be having an election on that day unless the Australian people are wanting to send a valentine to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull," she said. "I expect the Australian Government will serve out its full term and there will be an election later next year." The earliest possible date for a House of Representatives and half-Senate election is the August 6, 2016, while the latest possible date is the January 14, 2017.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 5:59pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 1:23pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 8:04am: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 7:53am: Do you think the Libs will miss an opportunity to do some old fashion boomer vote buying? The next budget will have so much vote buying in it, it will make Howard/Costello wince. They don't need to. They already have labor in a vice. Polls are 53/47 and likely to rise to 55/45 by election time.  They are undefeatable. If they try to bring out a budget we may see the numbers reverse. They already brought out two budgets which were not well received and where are the polls now? 53/47. Learn from history for a change.

To say that this isn't the silliest thing you have ever said would be difficult to believe in most cases.