"Rudd has something of a Napoleonic complex", as does Turnbull.

It was not just their parliamentary colleagues who rejected these two, so did the rank and file and the public.

Liberal Party members despise Turnbull, he has not endeared himself at all, and his constant attacks on the party do him more and more damage.

It's interesting reading from posters on the ABC sites and other sources who are clearly ALP /of the left, voters who all love Turnbull. Who constantly declare that if Turnbull led the coalition he would romp it in.

Yet does anyone actually believe that if Turnbull were the coalition leader, they would change sides? No they just see in Turnbull someone they wish was on their side, who thinks the way they wish their own leaders thought.

We actually do not want the kind of authoritarian figure in the coalition that Turnbull is, and it is amazing that the ALP now have had 2 leaders who are completely authoritarian, and clearly they prefer that.

I guess that fits though, the left have always been control freaks, wanting to rule every aspect of your life, while the coalitions values are in the marketplace, that market forces eventually flatten out and people do not need to be nannied.

Probably why the community is rejecting the ALP style Australia wide, we've all had enough, it gets tiresome having governments who fiddle with every knob and lever.

When you say "Almost likewise, the Opposition would increase its vote if former leader (but not former prime minister) Malcolm Turnbull were to replace current leader Tony Abbott." you don't actually state if this is an opinion poll result, or just your opinion?

I've never heard of a poll stating that, maybe I missed it.

Abbot is doing a brilliant job. The ALP can't shut up about him, and so raise his profile and demean their own. It is his job as opposition leader, to oppose .. as he rightly does. I suspect the government dislike being held to account, it's "negative" hahaha.

Yuk- how sad that this is the selection we are supposed to be choosing our preferred leaders of the Majors from.

I mean, certainly if you were to put a gun to my head and ask whether I preferred Gillard vs Rudd, and Abbott vs Turnbull respectively- and pointing out they're all rubbish is not an answer; I would actually definitely pick Rudd and Turnbull, for the sole reason that Gillard and Abbot are both absolute jokes who clearly don't know what they're doing.
Having said that, the other two are both clearly corrupt, clearly bullies, are clearly only participating in politics purely to enhance their own careers outside politics, and between Rudd's "Big Australia" and Turnbull's numerous scandals (especially tax fraud while in parliament)- to suggest I would ever actually WANT to see either of those two running the country ever again would be far from the truth.

Hopefully people will now understand why I place these two parties last these days.

Certainly not Rudd, he is much more comfortable when he is sniping from the side. Put Rudd in a room full of mirrors and he would not be able to leave.
I think a better combination would be Turnbull and Combet.
Amicus, Gareth Evans had a foul and irrational temper, so did our Kim and of course Rudd himself. Foul tempers seem to be part of the rich mix of federal politics. Any talk of authoritarian Australian leaders should include Billy Hughes and Robert Menzies, both of whom had creditable achievements, as well as significant failures. Such are the realities of human nature.
Abbott believes in nothing except the knockout blow, then what? Not one of your creative types. He might however be alright in the SAS.
Bruce Haigh

Rudd and Turnbull? Instead of Gillard and Abbott?

Personally, I feel that Rudd should stay where he is. The job suits him to a tee. As for Gillard - she's in a very difficult situation and should be given the chance to serve out her full term and then judged on what was or wasn't done. As for Abbott - please, who in their right mind would even consider a man who simply attacks and condemns and desperately wants to be PM. We should let him have the job simply because he's good at behaving like a street fighter or a bar-room brawler? Turnbull? he certainly is more flexible, intelligent, a good communicator and will cross the floor on issues that he feels are for the good of the nation - like NBN, carbon tax - eventually the ETS, just to name a few. He at least is logical and has the sense to see further than simply following the party line.

But as they say we get who we deserve - but I for one certainly feel that I don't deserve Mr Abbott. BTW- I come from a Liberal voting family - it was Mr Howard that made me into a "swinging voter."

What strikes me as funny is how so many people associate all kinds of bizarre attributes to these politicians by filling in blanks or getting carried away in a bit of PR.

-Gillard does absolutely nothing but stand in front of the cameras and read lines- because of this she serves as a 'neutral' blank sheet that people try to fill in.

-Turnbull- basically he jumps on some popular movements the rest of the Liberals aren't too suss about- and pretends to support them (read, one single ambiguous speech) while sitting on his hands and never actually supporting it in parliament unless he can't get away with abstaining.
And plenty of gullible fools are hailing him as some new face of the liberal party, the return to small l liberalism (quite a funny label- as our famous examples of these said one thing (the occasional feel-good speech) and did another (extreme right-wing authoritarianism).

Basically, similar tricks that so-called 'ghost-mediums' use to pretend to their audience that they are communicating with spirits- say a few vague things, and the stupid audience fills in the blanks and believes what they are being told.

I agree that Rudd should stay where he is. He is as close to a diplomat as the ALP has offered for some time; furthermore, without the grandeur of being PM, he seems to be a lot less embarrassing when representing us overseas.

To be honest, the one federal politician I enjoy watching and listening to is Joe Hockey, but even he would be ill-suited to the prime ministerial role. He's like that guy who has risen a bit further up the corporate ladder than he should have. Clever, capable but not serious enough to rise any further. A great shadow treasurer, but not an opposition leader, a treasurer or a prime minister. Maybe one day we'll have some better options. What's Bronwyn Bishop doing these days?

GREEN'S HUNG PARLIAMENT THE MAIN PROBLEM

Never mind about Schubert's short, shallow, pretentious, article - "I have previously written about..." indeed.

The main issue before us is Hung Parliament. Not who is leading/led the Coalition or Labor - but the pack of Greens coming in on Friday (1 July).

The extremist attitudes (not "policies") of the Greens will deepen the disfunctionality of any Federal Government. Its only incidental which major Party shares power and incidental what leader heads each major Party.

Australians get the leaders they vote for (at electorate and Senate/State level) and therefore deserve. Too many Australians voted for Independents and Greens. That is why we're stuffed.

Pete

To dispense with the obvious, Gillard and Abbott are both clowns. Gillard is useless and Abbott is definitely dangerous. The melancholic and the psychotic.

Rudd is the alter ego of Alexander Downer and therefore as an egocentric ponce would be more suited for leading the Liberals while Turnbull as a confused bleeding heart would be ideal for leading Labor.

The indistinguishable political duopoly has got it's ying and yang mixed up.

The hung parliament says it all.

To be frank, I am disappointed with all four names discussed. I have no doubt that all four are very talented, able, intelligent, compassionate people. Any one of them could be a fantastic leader, if only they took time to set down their personal manifesto and then stuck, doggedly, to their beliefs.

I like Malcolm Turnbull. He is clearly an intelligent, capable dude. However, I can't believe his position on CAGW. He is well read, and thoughtful. He has the capacity to assess the evidence and form a view. The only explanation that I can come up with for his 'warmist' position is that he needs to retain Wentworth, and that is what he has to do. The only other alternative explanation (that I don't buy) is that his prior connections benefit greatly from the CAGW scare and CO2 tax.

Tony Abbott I respect. But clearly the spin merchants are snowing him with advice that says: "pretend to believe that CAGW is a major problem and we must deal with CO2" coz "Otherwise you will be out of sync with majority opinion."

The reality is that many politicians on both sides know the truth of the matter, but they are all 's..t scared' of the polls and pander to those.

A true leader would stand up (as Vaclav Klaus has) and say "Enough! Lets look at the science first." Hopefully it will be Tony Abbott. But Malcolm will do just fine too. I don't think that Julia has the foggiest clue what I am talking about. K Rudd does, but is so poll driven that he can't respond appropriately.

Australia is becoming too focussed on personalities and less on policies. There is not much difference between the two major parties - that is woeful in a democracy and other than the Greens very little to choose from.

Both parties are too weak to really make any real reforms to reduce wage disparity, (real) government waste (not the pretend to look like we are cutting government spending), percentage of foreign ownership, inequitable economic foreign policies, free trade and globalisation.

Whether it is Rudd, Turnbull, Gillard or Abbott is asking the wrong question

They are all for the "big Australia".

All their policy settings will lead to a rapid doubling. So they are all hopelessly internally conflicted to pretend to stop habitat and farmland loss.

Additionally, they all want to pour billions into growth infrastructure.......which is an investment in pollution.

Those billions should have been spent on emerging technologies, free tertiary education, health and family planning overseas aid.

This is the "opportunity cost", of their failed policies.

I'd like to see evidence of Julia's "incompetence" and Turnbull's "psychological issues".

Gillard may have trouble engaging effectively with the public but she is actually far from incompetent.

Turnbull is far more psychologically balanced than Abbott. Abbott offers nothing to this country but his desire to be PM.

I agree with those posters that say Rudd is doing a good job and should stay where he is.

And the Greens are only "extremists" if you're sitting on the extreme right.

I think the best comparison would be this;
We are comparing;
-an incompetent dud (Gillard)
-an incompetent psycho with strong streaks of religious fanaticism (Abbott)
-a slimy career politician bullyboy with a bad temper (Rudd)
-a slimy career politician bullyboy who puts on a convincing show to gullible voters- regardless who they are, they'll get the performance they want to see (Turnbull)

Thanks King Hazza

There is no hope for Australia.

Where are the people who have both a moral compass and the vision to read it?

For years I have been asking the question: why does our system of democracy produce 'professional' politicians rather than leaders with vision?

Only to be drowned out by the bogan barracking of the loony left and even more so by the rabid right when in reality there is not a zot between them.