I strongly believe Rudd will dissolve both houses of Parliament this year.
Given Turnbulls stance it is unlikely Labor can get its bill past the senate.
Lower house is no problem but the senate is.
Such an election can be called after the senate fails to pass government bills three time.
If Rudd put his bills that opposition will not pass together, and failed to pass them he would, in my view will call such an election.
After that election if Rudd is returned he can sit both houses together to pass those bills, only if his Numbers, both houses are in majority.
Not in each house but over all majority.
We are in crisis, truly much worse than most know, by 2010, election time it could be much worse.
Turnbulls throw of the dice will cost him, in my view Rudd will storm in such an election, and major party's, greens included are likely to take independents senate seats.

Over night actions both in Parliament and opposition speech's has not changed my mind, we very may well have such an election this year, will in my view.
And Rudd would win, not by miles , not controlling both houses but win.
America is spending 7% of its gross national income, we propose 2% of ours.
This bill may pass, conservatives are not the ones who hold the balance of power in the upper house.
Strange however in America, those who had power that was so badly misused, leading to this crisis are voting against Obama plans.
Is Turnbull following without a plan?
He still looks the best choice for his party but tends to take breath taking risks, his rope is not endless, he can be replaced.

Belly
I also think Rudd would win if an election was held tomorrow.

Turnbull would be mad to bring on a double dissolution (if that is indeed what he is planning). I don't think the public would thank him during this time of financial instablity. What the public wants now more than anything is stability and good policy strategies.

Rudd may be going a bit overboad on direct handouts which only serve as a blip in stimulating the economy but his increased spending on needed infrastructure will create and maintain jobs, which is essential for the economy.

Turnbull is just posturing but I think even he would realise that he risks committing political suicide if we ended up with another Whitlamesque outcome. A democracy depends on a good opposition that does not accept without question all bills put before it. There is room for negotiation.

I am not too worried Belly. The introduction of the never-ever GST did go so smoothly and I know you will remember the haggling and compromises made before being passed through both houses of Parliament.

You may be right Belly. I think it's all down to the Greens and Independents in the Senate. The question is do they feel "lucky" if they cause a double dissolution? Their "compromise Tanks" are full at the moment and maybe they're not prepared to run the risk of not passing the Bill.

Maybe Turnbull knows they will compromise an pass it, leaving him to do the old "told you so" later.

I think also that Mr. Rudd needs to produce something tangible before he can risk an election. He has made progress on some election promises but I think the public are sensing that those accomplished are at the Populist/Tokenism end of the spectrum. What do you think?

Belly,
Nah it won't happen over that...I think it will pass the minors have too much to lose to let it go that far and too much to win in horse trading.

An early election would be cynically received by the people in that he’s feathering his own nest the message would be “we are in deep hopeless do do” and he’s panicking. His image would suffer too much he’d lose seats in Reps (reduced majority) and finish up with an even less manageable senate.
Hardly what the country or the ALP needsat the moment.
In reality “Same ole same ole blustering”

I was thinking the exact thing last night while watching Turnbull on the 7:30 report. So I rushed off to read up about double dissolution elections - the trouble is that there has to be a 3 month delay between the bill being rejected twice by the Senate. In today's economic climate 3 months is like a lifetime, so I can't see how they can come back with the same bill in 3 months.

There are probably other bills they could bring back, but it would look sus to use them as the trigger when the problem is the stimulus package.

To be fair about the stimulus package - it's a bit like the bank nationalisations in the UK and the US government investment in their banks - nobody really wants it, nobody really likes doing it, but it has to be done. The private sector is reeling, job losses are mounting (we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg here) and the role of the Govt is to step in and take up the slack. Turnbull knows this, which is why I can only surmise that his opposition to the bill is purely political (which reflects pretty badly on his priorities I think).

Just my 2c

Turnbull is probably voting against the bill for a number of reasons.

1. He wants to keep sweet with traditional conservatives. The nodding heads on his frontbench at his announcement attests to that.
2. He knows that some competitive tension is needed to get a balanced outcome and the last thing he wants to do is fix up a big mess/hole if and when he gets into government.
3. He has said that some stimulus is needed and that $20 billion will perhaps be better than 40. So, there's room and incentive to horse-trade over the details.
4. If the Government's stimulus package fails, he will have positioned himself politically to claim that he was right all along.

Time will tell whether he or Rudd has got the superior position.

I can't see a double dissolution happening, but if it did, I'm sure Rudd would win comfortably.

Turnbull is definitely taking a political gamble by opposing this stimulus package. The overwhelming majority of expert opinion is in favour of it and it seems as though it's being welcomed by the general public as well. I agree with spindoc and Countryboy, it's a political ploy so he can later claim, when things deteriorate further as they most probably will, that had we followed the opposition's advice we'd all be better off.

I thought he came across very badly on the 7:30 report last night, obviously ducking a lot of O'Brien's questioning. As pointed out then, and here by Belly, the deficit is no more than the recommended 2% of GDP, and is not the enormously reckless trashing of taxpayer money that Turnbull, Bishop and Hockey would have us believe. Especially when you consider that the deficit will actually increase anyway, through reduced tax income, if they don't implement a big infrastructure spend to save jobs and maintain investor confidence.

I would have liked to have seen more of an environmental emphasis and a greater weighting towards low income earners, but on the whole I think the government's package is what's needed for the times. Parliament should by all means examine the detail but should not attempt to block its passage through either of the houses.

spindoc

"He has made progress on some election promises but I think the public are sensing that those accomplished are at the Populist/Tokenism end of the spectrum. What do you think?"

I agree entirely but I'm afraid I didn't expect any better. Rudd's a technocrat. He's never showed any real passion for delivering true social and environmental reform. His rhetoric has never inspired in me any real hope or possibility for a different future. This is becoming more and more evident I think as you contrast his style with that of Obama. Obama in a few weeks has set in chain more real change than Rudd has in over a year in office.

I do like the way Rudd is sheeting home the cause of the current financial meltdown though to the greed of Wall Street and the dominance of neoliberalism. He will definitely need to follow up his fine words with a solid regulatory framework, to ensure we don't end up in the same place another decade down the track. Whether he can withstand the massive amount of pressure the big end of town will exert in order to maintain business as usual remains to be seen. Interesting times ahead.

To answer my own question I think/know Rudd would win.
The next question is how and why, this turned out to be a very bad election to win.
However Rudd is not mucking it up.
Some who dislike him base it on every thing from his hair ,over seas trips, wifes Rich's, any thing but his performance.
He like Obama has new paths to take us on, and must be different to do it.
Turnbull, strange as it may seem to some in my view is the right leader but on the wrong path, his path is not unlike Americas Republicans.
Obstruction for the sake of it, remember this is not the first bill to be altered or held up.
2010 may well see a much worse time for Labor to have an election.
In this time of growing crisis, we truly do not know how bad it is yet, Australia must be concerned two independents could run our country.
I am both a cynic and a realist, if Rudd gets a chance this year he will put bills to the senate in preparation for such an election.
One alternative self interest may force a few to let such bills pass while saying its a result of the crisis.
Gambling that one day Turnbull can say we told you so is just as likely to be the ropes end for him. he is not winning support on this issue.

Dear Belly,

Who would win an election called now?

Rudd! No question at all!

He's doing everything right.

And the bill will get passed.

The Greens and Independants are waiting until
Monday to decide. I'm sure they'll support
the PM. He's already got the support of the
Lower House. And, I'm sure he'll get everyone's
support eventually. This package is necessary
to get the economy back on track.

Turnbull has changed his opinion in the course
of a day and as Julia Gillard said, for a man
who used to be a Merchant Banker Turnbull doesn't
seem to know what he's talking about. Even his own
party members support the PM. The Cross-Benchers,
the Greens, and the Independants will see that the
bill passes.

This is just another challenge that the PM will deal
with in his own efficient way.

Todays events further highlight Turnbull is following Americas Republicans.
Against the advice of many such as the international money fund and business interests world wide.
A betting man would say Turnbull has got it wrong, and that this increases the chance of an election for both houses this year.
The bills bringing on such an election need not be as important as this one is.
That betting man, me, is expecting the senate will pass the bills, not to is to very much deepen this crisis.

The ALP could well win control of both Houses if a double dissolution occurred soon enough. A double dissolution means exactly that, a full Senate election, not the normal half-Senate.
It is for that reason I don't think he will do it unless he is convinced he will win both Houses. He might hand the Greens more Senate seats that they would otherwise win- or even allow the Democrats to win a seat in SA. Keeping the minor parties in check is a bigger issue than winning government to major backers of both majors.

I am on record saying we will have such an election, I believe it
It would be the only chance Labor has of controlling both house for ten years, things move slow in the senate.
Such an election would remove family first, forever, the senator from SA may survive but Labor would be unlikely to win control of both houses.
It would be easy to dissolve both house and a wise move, much of Australia is not impressed with independents in that house watch this space we have time yet to see it happen.