Well, he is charismatic and handsome, but in oz it's like it is in the US and europe. It's an exciting time for the wealthy global elite but the middle and working classes are left wondering why they haven't had a pay rise for 40 years, why the stable family and community life of their parents generation seemed to be there one minute and gone the next, and how did following the Nazarene become problematic.

The author is too optimistic about Malcolm Turnbull's future and too generous when it comes to assessing his policies. Yes, the government's policies are Turnbull's personal policies - by definition, they are, because they are the policies of the cabinet and party room which he leads.

If Malcolm Turnbull disagreed with those policies to the extend that he could not honourably support them, then the only honourable course available to him would be to resign his leadership... which of course he has not done...and of course we all know that Mr Turnbull is an honourable person.

Chat about internal divisions or crusty old right-wingers or the lingering Abbott policies is idle.

The Parliamentary Liberal Party elects its leader. If that leader no longer has the confidence of his party room (and vice versa) then it is time to revisit the decision made only half a year back.

I prefer the current PM to the previous one, but the task begun in February of last year when his party room very nearly tossed Tony Abbott out of office and continued in September (?) when Mr Turnbull was elevated hasn't been completed. If the internal party wrangles aren't resolved before Budget Night 2016 it will be too late for the Libs to recover. It will be Labor/Greens by default.

Malcolm and his preferred policies need to face the electorate and win a mandate for both, if only to stop the self destroying sniping coming from the extreme right(the three amigos) of the party! [South Australian Cory Bernardi, Tony Abbott, and that auspicious Senator from Tasmania, whose (spanish sounding) name temporarily escapes me, and who thoroughly chews his words before reluctantly rolling them off his polished tongue?] [And yes, he's correct, white is black, but only in the complete absence of light!]

Once Malcolm has that behind him he will surely be in a position to ease (boot) some of those (disendorsed) CRITICS out? For mine, Malcolm should have never been deposed and taken his electoral licking and any lessons at the last election?

And unlike Abbott and Rudd, not given to the widely reported, highly controversial abuse of delegated power, and captain's picks, that proved so problematic for those two former Leaders?

For mine, some of Mr Turnbull's most ardent critics are inside the tent; and given they will not become reasonable moderates in anyone's lifetime, need to be turfed out as expeditiously as possible.

Preferably before they can further harm a once great party or its and Malcolm's electoral prospects; or indeed, a once bipartisan, and less unruly parliament!
Rhrosty.

"we all know that Mr Turnbull is an honourable person", says John Bennetts. Do you live under the same rock as our author? Or are you just stupid.

Turnbull is about as honourable as Gillard when she promised no carbon tax. The only difference is he is trying to say nothing, & get elected without voicing any policy, or his true ideas. This is not more honourable, just more tricky.

We would expect some provincial academic to agree with the tripe that Turnbull stands for, they both love big government, & lots of tax payer dollars for their section of the community, just watch the flow of dollars to the financial sector, & the university sector if he gets up.

Hopefully Ozzies will have more sense & will kick the slob out at his first election

Turnbull is remaning true-to-form (when he was Water Minister under Howard) in venturing no policies that he needs to actually implement - because he doesn't want to split his lukewarm Coalition support base.

Turnbull knows Abbott is a greater Clear and Present Danger than Shorten as Abbott is having too much success in destabilising Turnbull.

What I predicted about Turnbull on 29 September 2015 is now true. Which was:

"1. 10 months to the next election (August 2016) is a long time in politics (only a usually unpopular Double Dissolution Before August)

2. Shorten could be replaced before August by someone (Tanya Plibersek?) more popular

3. Turnbull is still in his Honeymoon phase so assessments are distortingly optimistic about him.

4. Turnbull often has a please everyone do-nothing style when in power.

5. a drop in revenue means the Turnbull Govt needs to make unpopular financial decisions that will turn-off many voters

6. much legislation will be frustratingly stopped in the Senate due to ongoing Greens-ALP-Independent dominance

7. leadership polls that start to trend downward have their own momentum to oust leaders (even Turnbull)

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 29 September 2015 1:57:45 PM"

Here's the link to prove it http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17717#313299

Rhosty there is no such thing as a mandate in elections unless a party goes to the polls with only one policy, otherwise they get votes for what are seen to be the best option, but that may not include every policy.

People generally, or should I say 'open minded people' look at what each party has to offer, then decide which party or candidate offers the best option for them, so in effect while a party/candidate may hold a position on say ten policies, and you like seven of them, you will most likely vote for them, provided the others don't attract you more. So there cant be a mandate if there is more than one policy.

To the Author
I put it to you that in order for Australian companies to become innovators, many if not most will have to first up skill, because if they didn't they would already be innovative.

So, the problem here is that in order to up skill, chances are many of their current workforce would have to be replaced and there's the catch. IR laws don't allow for the flexibility required to replace less trained workers, with better trained, leaving the so called innovators caught behind a rock and a hard place.

Of cause the other issue is the constant threat of a return to a labor government which would reverse any changes made to IR laws, that's if history is any judge.

So please explain to me how Mr Turnbul's words are anything but words. BTW, I am a lib voter at the moment but I am very puzzled as while many suggest Labor is gaining, its actually a case of the libs slipping.