This tantalising election will have long-term consequences for our political system

A victory for Scott Morrison would be a remarkable "double miracle" for the Prime Minister. The government would have survived three years of national crisis and a huge number of its own scandals and mistakes. The man supposedly willing to change would in reality not have to change at all, but just keep "warming up". The Morrison-Joyce Coalition government would continue its established direction, feeling rightly super-triumphant and not inclined to change course.

Moderate Liberals would be faced by a resurgent right within their party. The Nationals would have held steady, largely unchallenged in their own safe electorates in rural and regional Australia, despite their own internal disruptions and splits.

Labor would be in absolute despair after losing to a severely weakened government. A loss would guarantee generational change after nine years of Shorten-Albanese leadership. That dire result would also challenge Labor's way of selecting leaders, and the party's ability to produce and give opportunities to younger talent.

Many progressive issue advocates would also be despairing. Climate action would have failed again as an election-winner, despite apparent popular support. Never again would it be trusted to make a difference to voter choice. The electorate would have spoken. The Coalition could claim to have correctly "read the room" on this issue. Integrity in government and a federal ICAC would also be casualties. Prospects for an integrity commission with teeth would be unlikely, while prospects for the Uluru Statement would remain opaque.

Conservative issue advocates would be partially satisfied, but they would know they still have work to do. Anti-discrimination legislation would continue to be divisive, and Liberal moderates would again take a stand. At the state level, the agenda would still be shifting way from social conservatives on issues like euthanasia.

A win for Labor after nine years in opposition, however, would confirm that it is their time again.

It would also show that offering a small target is one way to victory in a predominantly conservative country. Labor would have won without an imposing leader, overturning conventional wisdom among many academics and party members that a strong leader and a visionary platform are essential to a Labor victory.

An Albanese government would be solid, but unexciting. It has learnt the stern lesson of its 2019 loss. The campaign itself has elevated some of its future cabinet much higher in the national consciousness. Jim Chalmers, Jason Clare and Mark Butler would back up established good performers like Penny Wong and Tanya Plibersek.

A loss for the Coalition government would have many consequences, the first being a change of leader. Morrison would step down. The choice would probably be between Josh Frydenberg, the Treasurer and deputy leader, who represents centrist Liberals, and Peter Dutton, the Defence Minister, representing the Queensland right. But Frydenberg could either be weakened by the loss of moderate supporters in the election, or even defeated in his own electorate. If Dutton was the new leader, the Liberal Party would have moved further rightwards. Would a new opposition leader seek consensus, or try to blast the new Labor government from office as Tony Abbott did?

READ MORE:

The second consequence might be the loss of some moderate members to Labor and, importantly, to teal independents in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. The sitting Liberal members have used this possibility as a reason for keeping them in Parliament. They argue that a less moderate Liberal Party would be bad for the nation as well as the party.

If the Liberal moderates do survive, and the likelihood is that many will, then they must demonstrate they can make a difference. They would be a test case for exercising internal party influence, in contrast to the external influence promised by independents. They would have an ally in Frydenberg, but would face a difficult task under Dutton.

Whatever the major party result, all eyes should also be on the Greens, the independents, the United Australia Party and One Nation - and the Senate.

The Greens have flown under the radar, yet they threaten to break through. Can they double or even treble their one seat in the House of Representatives? Their inner-city challenge to Labor has taken second place in the media to that of the teal independents in Liberal seats, but success for the Greens, especially if Labor loses, would shake up inner-city Labor with other seats vulnerable.

The teals might reshape moderate liberalism if enough of them are successful because, once elected, they will be hard to dislodge. If enough are elected they will transform the crossbench into an even greater force, with long-term parliamentary consequences.

Success for both Greens and independents would increase the likelihood of a hung parliament, which is dreaded by some observers, but has a proven track record.

Clive Palmer and Craig Kelly have flooded the campaign with their big UAP spend. If successful, they would show once again that our system can be unsettled by big money.

One Nation persists when other parties fall. Whatever their outcome, they will be part of a Senate crossbench that will decide the future policies of whoever wins government. Can Nick Xenophon return? Can Jacqui Lambie add a running mate?

All of these possibilities make this Saturday's poll a most uncertain and tantalising prospect.