One only needs to recall UteGate to realise that Turnbull was not perfect when he had the top Liberal job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utegate#Political_impact :

"The week after the events in Parliament, several opinion polls appeared simultaneously, all showing a drop in Malcolm Turnbull's approval rating, and a rise in Kevin Rudd's approval rating. According to Newspoll, published in The Australian, Turnbull's approval rating suffered the single biggest fall in the survey's 25-year history, while Rudd's preferred rating increased from 57 to 65 per cent. A Galaxy poll in News Limited newspapers also showed Turnbull's support falling.

Commentators attributed these poll results to the OzCar affair. "Malcolm Turnbull's darkest hours as Opposition Leader is upon him with a new poll showing his standing has been dealt a hammer blow by the OzCar affair," wrote Phillip Coorey, chief political correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald.[24] "The Coalition and Malcolm Turnbull have received a devastating blow from the OzCar affair," said Michelle Grattan in The Age.[25]

The polls also asked specific questions about the OzCar affair. According to Newspoll, voters, by a ratio of two to one, did not believe that Grant had received preferential treatment. 52 per cent said they did not believe Turnbull's claims, while only 24 per cent said they thought they were true. Newspoll also showed a large drop in the number of voters who thought Turnbull trustworthy, and an increase in those who thought him arrogant."

The only myth on display here is that the patently pro-Abbott Author is basing an argument on logic's rites.

Clearly when spun dogma and ideology replace reason and logic, this is the sort of risible rubbish merely masquerading as reasoned critical thinking, is arguably all we can ever expect?

If Malcolm Turnbull is a problem for the coalition, then a vastly less moderate Tony Abbot is its political death knell. I mean the lift in the polls was likely based on a belief in a leadership change?

Those on the far right will always prefer a strong man, or even a dictator, and find things like the notion of democracy, at odds with their personal views and preserving or expanding privilege, even where that continually contributes to endless irreparable contraction.

There's no imagination in this visionless motley crew, who put themselves ahead of the party, the party ahead of the state?

Whereas, the people and the national interest, invariably come last?

All created, it would seem, to serve their ends? And we the people created to serve them and or, the economy!
It's time we did a bit of reverse engineering and created an economy that would instead serve our needs as our slave!

We just don't have a spending problem, just a revenue collection problem; and created and continued, it would seem, just by trying to protect undeserved privilege!

There clearly is a fair and reasonable moderate middle, and that is where all our elections are decided!

Belittle them or it at your electoral peril!
Rhrosty.

'Blessed by brains and fortune,'

Just goes to show that those blessed with and without brains have swallowed the gw myth. I suspect its more about keeping many useless UN workers employed rather than reason or logic. So far it cost Rudd, Gillard and Turnbull their jobs all at the hands of Abbott. No half sensible person could not see that Gore and Flannery's prophecies have been complete duds even know their pockets have been lined.

I'll have to take your indisputable expertise on insensible people runner.

Got your 5c pieces ready for the plate on Sunday?

Rhrosty, we don't have either a revenue or a spending problem, we have a political problem. More fundamentally, we have an economic model problem, but since changing to a more logical economic model requires political will, see my first point.

We will, with no doubt whatever, be looking for new ways to think about human labour within a generation. As part of that, we will need to think about the meaning of money, which has, in the past, been seen as a means of allowing exchange between one form of productive endeavour and another, ultimately ending with the consumption of the products of that endeavour, with ability to consume based on ability to produce.

How will that model cope with a world in which nearly all productive endeavour is done by machines? what will provide the exchange mechanism between producer and consumer? What will take the place of capital's role as an enabler of development?

These are questions we need to be thinking about today. Details of the problems within the current model will rapidly be irrelevant.

Craig Minns, "we will need to think about the meaning of money"

You are onto something there. There is nothing to prevent individuals and groups from exchanging valued goods and services. There are examples already, although perhaps more come from colder climates for some reason.

However those who would rely on a collective to give them things they don't want to work for will find it much harder than the present system where they can get away with a lot.

The main inhibitor for most people, for instance in being able to afford a house, is their own unwillingness. Quite simply, only some are prepared to control themselves, to be 'masters of their own domain' (Seinfeld) and curb their discretionary spending.

On that it is interesting how generational jealousy would have the elders who have worked long and hard for their assets (and should be allowed to enjoy their short final years), relegated to a mean shoe-box flat. In order that the young who are unwilling to work and give up a few luxuries can take advantage of the elders' savings.

There always were people like that.

Well said Tim