The final paragraph was dynamite: "This assessment is related to whether replacing Rudd with Julia Gillard was a misjudgment. Those in Labor's senior ranks who think so point out that the government was ahead, not behind, the Coalition at the time of the leadership change.
"The last Newspoll under Rudd's leadership had a Labor lead of 52 percent to 48 per cent on the two-party vote." (Seen here)
The first question therefore is to ask, what is a double dissolution.
Wikipedia describes it as:
"Where the Senate twice rejects a bill passed by the House of Representatives, Section 57 of the Constitution allows the Governor-General to dissolve the House (of Representatives) and the entire Senate and issue writs for an election in which every seat in the Parliament is contested. This is the only occasion on which the entire Senate is dissolved.
A double dissolution is a procedure permitted under the Australian Constitution to resolve deadlocks between the House of Representatives and the Senate."
In this specific situation then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had his legislation on the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) blocked on two occasions in 2009 and could have called upon the Governor General to dissolve both Houses of Parliament and call an election to break the impasse.
All members of Parliament by both Houses of Parliament would have come together for a Joint Sitting to vote through the Legislation before dissolving the Parliament.
Alas, Rudd decided not to go twelve months early to the Polls and the rest is history.
What is of interest to me is that when Kevin Rudd was replaced by Julia Gillard the polls were significantly higher than what the Labor received at this 21 August Federal Election. In other words, Mike Steketee in The Australian, is pointing out a mathematical given.
What therefore might be the point of such an observation.
The first point is that it is very difficult to look into the future and make predications of any kind, whether it be politics, financial and market decisions, family and relationships.
A second observation is that what seems like a decision of ethical behaviour (Rudd not going to the Polls twelve month early – which he stated was one of his major considerations), was in reality, poor political judgement. The nation at that time was behind him, the Opposition was in disarray and an opportunity was lost. The reality is that ethics has many angles.
A third point of interest, is that it's difficult in any situation to go back and deal with a situation 'again'. Once the 'magic moment' has come and gone, rarely does such a moment in time arise again in that opportune and provident same way.
Theologically, this third point also has a place. The New Testament consistently speaks of such 'moments in time' when decisions might be made to follow Christ. Listening to the ABC Religious Television program 'Compass' recently, two gentleman reflected on listening to Billy Graham preach at the 1959 Crusade.
Both were 17 year old lads, the first pondered that 'moment in time' and went forward to receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and it changed his life forever. He becoming a missionary and years later in parish ministry. The other pondered the same question in that 'moment in time' and made a different decision and has never entered a church since.
Such 'moments in time' have huge impacts upon our lives.