What would’ve happened if Whitlam had lost the 1972 election?

Can’t resist (sorry, Mercurius).

Old farts like Frank Crean and most of those who would have been ministers in the Whitlam government would have given it away/been tapped on the shoulder while their contemporaries in the Coalition would have stuck around, creating an effect similar to the isolation that happened after Bracks and Beattie retired leaving Howard looking not experienced but just too old.

1973: oil shock creates economic “perfect storm” that wrecks Liberal reputation for prudent economic management. Though the McMahon government has completed its withdrawal from Vietnam, it has failed to distance itself from US failure in the war. The new Labor leader admonishes the young Trots who spit on returning servicemen, recognising them as working-class heroes on par with returnees from other wars, deserving sympathy and support. This attracts conservative voters to Labor without alienating their base. Leftists reconcile to this by viewing Vietnam vets as victims of Yankee imperialism.

At some point during 1973-4, with all those byelections, Bob Hawke enters Parliament and takes the fight to McMahon. The Liberals from NSW have proven themselves inadequate ministers, and the Vics are regrouping behind Malcolm Fraser after he reconciles with Gorton. Fraser challenges McMahon for the leadership 1974-5 - possibly wins, possibly doesn’t.

Hawke leads Labor to government as a Wilson-style social democrat, doesn’t challenge tariffs or fixed exchange rates (let alone, God forbid, centralised arbitration) and spends like a drunken sailor. 1979 oil shock buggers the economy again. Hawke embarrasses self, party and nation with booze/sex scandals.

The adherence to US/UK political cycles continues when the Liberals come back to government implementing Thatcher-Reagan-style policies, deregulating and privatising. No Medicare, no car industry either. Early 1990s: Labor comes back to office with a Blair/Clinton “third way” agenda, possibly including Medicare. We would now be governed by a Bush-style conservative government.

As I’ve commented elsewhere, it’s a matter of historical irony that it was originally the environmental movement which put the argument that Federal Governments could leverage the Corporations power to legislate pretty much as they saw fit, in the context of arguing for a national Environmental Protection Authority. Having noted that, it’s also worth remembering that just because Federal Governments can legislate about just about anything on the basis of a High Court ruling doesn’t mean that they will, that they will want to, or that they should. If a State or local government has good policy machinery in place to handle an issue which is bound within State or local borders, and is handling it competently, there is nothing to be gained by Federal involvement for the hell of it (funding is another matter with VFIs, etc.).

2) The 1998 ARIA award for No Aphrodisiac would’ve gone to The McMahons.

3) The first thing that visitors to the National Gallery usually say wouldn’t be “$2 million? I reckon I could paint that for twenty bucks and a slab!”

4) There wouldn’t be a statue of Al Grassby.

5) Jim Cairns and Junie Morosi could’ve conducted their affair as nature intended.

6) Mark Latham wouldn’t have had the patronage to get preselected.

7) Maybe half of currently serving parliamentarians wouldn’t have gone to university.

8. We wouldn’t have to listen to RWDBs carry on and on and on about the Whitlam years.

9) John Kerr would’ve drunk himself to death in peace.

10) “It’s Time” would’ve entered the lexicon, not as a winning political slogan, but as an ironic piece of Aussie slang, viz:

Reg: “Reckon It’s Time for a beer.”
Vic: “I can’t wait that bloody long!”

Mum: “C’mon kids, It’s Time to go home.”
Kids: “Yay! Mum said we can stay as long as we want!”

—-
Hat-tip to Paul Burns for a worthy thread derailment.

What counterfactual history does is enable you to sort the deeper, underlying trends from the short-term, transient and coinidental factors - puts Great Men in their place. That’s why I disagree with Ambigulous@2.

The strongest part of Mercurius’ post was the fifth paragraph (”Meanwhile … inflation low”). Rudd’s businesslike approach in articulating an alternative vision to Howard, in contrast to the passionless meanderings of Beazley, was the circuit-breaker. Hannah’s dad@3: Menzies was pretty much exhausted etc. by 1958, but history shows he had plenty more electoral victories in him.

If they had ever mattered, Keating would never have lost

Shorter version provided by Katz: “tricky little manipulator who was less competent than he was evil.”

Counter-factual above….?
Beazley may well have stumbled over something else. For example, China looked like invading Taiwan early in 2007 (how could you forget that?!!) I mean, if you’re gunna change the High Court decision, all bets are off.

Let’s play by the rules: there are none.

On the other hand Howard may have come across as the tricky little manipulator who was less competent than he was evil. The spin cycle on this counterfactual is not as clear as it may appear to be at first sight.

On the issue of judicial activism. Can a judge be considered to be a black-letter judge when she constructs a justification for a whole new IR regime based on a vast extension of the corporate powers provisions while at the same time ignoring a complete section of the Constitution which is specifically and explicitly devoted to establishing the machinery of Industrial Relations?