This writer has missed the point. Turnbull is shrinking because he is a hollow man, inflated only by self-interest.

The writer also dismisses the achievements of the Howard government, which left the economy healthy and with a substantial surplus.

That situation was destroyed by Rudd's hysterical, vacuous and destructive spending on pink batts, Grocery Watch, Fuel Watch, open borders for 50,000 illegals - most of whom we are still paying for - the carbon tax, the mining tax, green loans, stimulus cheques to dead people and foreigners, more handouts to the spivs and charlatans in the wind and solar industries which were and remain unable to compete without subsidies, green loans, and over-priced school buildings.

The result was a massive deficit but no long-term benefits.

In two years, the Abbott government stopped the boats, killed off the carbon and mining taxes, negotiated major free trade agreements and began to prepare for welfare and superannuation reforms.

The process had at least begun.

The Turnbull government has achieved nothing. Nothing. Instead, we have had six months of waffle and confection.

And this writer thinks Turnbull can turn it all around merely by positive thinking and exhortations?

If the Turnbull government wants spending cuts, then here are a few suggestions: stop the wind and solar subsidies forthwith; get rid of the environment portfolio altogether, for that matter. We don't need to spend another cent on "climate change" because nothing that has been or can be done will have the slightest practical effect. Climate changes, every minute: there was no magical day back in the 1930s when the climate was perfect that we can use as a benchmark and bring back as the norm.

Reintroduce caps on Commonwealth funding of tertiary education places. Removing the caps was a particularly stupid Gillard thought bubble.

Acknowledge that the massive Commonwealth expenditure on primary and secondary education since the mid 1970s has resulted in falling educational standards. Cutting expenditures on education by increasing class sizes might have a beneficial result in that it would reduce the influence of the teachers' unions and the consequent donations to Labor.

I'm sorry Syd, I just don't share your "analysis"; and make the point, that courage of conviction, staying the course and arguing your case well enough to bring folks with you, buys a lot of political capital!

Malcolm's only problem is the extreme right and their determination to undermine him, a move back to the centre; and all that he stands for, even if that destroys a once great party?

Such is the power of entirely self serving individualism and completely unfettered personal ambition and self evident disloyalty/born to rule megalomania?
Rhrosty.

My sources inform me that Malcolm is a gentleman, playing at politics, on his way to becoming Australia's first white, male, non-LGBT President.

I don't know if that's true or not.

Sorry Syd, but you should give up commentary, if you can't learn to see past you left bias. You simply talk garbage when it comes from your current ideology.

You obviously made a typing error when you blamed Howard for our now locked in deficit. You obviously meant Rudd, but you should not deny Gillard her share of the fiasco. After all it was her, in her dying days that locked in the time bombs of Gonski & the National disability insurance scheme.

These & the ridiculous numbers of so called disabled we currently fund are our main problem. Then there is middle class welfare coming fast to catch up with the low life already costing more than we can ever sustain.

When I was a young bloke paying 7.5% income tax on the average wage, welfare including the pension was almost enough to rent a tent, & buy food. Now my old age compatriots, & you appear, to expect it to fund nice homes, cars, & an annual holiday. People are now paying over 30% tax, & we still can't fund the costs. Something has to give, & it would be nice if it were an orderly step back from the jaws of ruin, rather than the total collapse we are heading for. Things like this bit of fantasy will only make our situation more desperate.

Calwest wins the Bobbie prize for the most factually incorrect post not attributable to "runner".

Clearly your an Abbott fanboy so nothing anybody says is going to pierce your delusion, but for on lookers...GFC

I suspect that the first thing on Turnbull's to do list was to get a good team of ministers together. Maybe he has achieved that, time will tell. The innovation idea is great in theory but hard to put into fact - have you looked at their web site? a Government Department leading innovation? The idea is great, but it would need to be structured differently - far more adventuresomely with non public service levels of risk taking.

But overall I think that Turnbull's noticeable failure is his inability to inspire, to lead from the front. One gets the feeling of a competent manager stuck with staff not of his own choosing that he MUST work with. True, that is one role of a PM in our political system.

But the main role of a PM is to create National excitement, hope, a possible future. Turnbull may have this in him, but is he caught in his own PR machine? It is beginning to look so - does he(as the article says) believe his own staff's propaganda?

Cobber, I don't mind criticism, but I'd prefer it was literate:

"Clearly your..." doesn't inspire confidence in your abilities when you obviously meant "clearly you're..."

But let's get to the detail. These are matters of the historical record:

The Howard government left a substantial surplus.
The Rudd and then Gillard governments left a massive deficit.

The expenditures under Rudd, particularly, were hysterical and were in no way a remedy for the global financial crisis, as you imply. If you disagree with that, please tell us how the pink batts disaster, the over-the-top school buildings waste, stimulus cheques to dead people and foreigners, green loans, the squandered millions on wind and solar power generation and open borders welcoming 50,000 illegals we are still paying for contributed in any way to recovery from the GFC.

No, on second thoughts, don't waste our time. Selling coal and iron to China took care of the GFC. And the Rudd government tried to kill the mining industry.

As for Turnbull, well, we're yet to see anything beyond waffle from him, but feel free to hold your breath.

If Turnbull believes his own propaganda, he's outclassed by Gillard...Nah, she couldn't really believe it. Could she?

This from MPSF, the agency which manages speaking engagements for the Clintons and Julia Gillard:

Via michaelsmithnews.com

And who wouldn't get along to hear from this SuperWoman.
According to the notes, Ms Gillard
•built a national broadband network
•was central to the successful management of Australia during the Global Financial Crisis
•positioned Australia to seize the benefits of Asia’s rise
•reformed Australian education at every level
•created an emissions trading scheme,
•improved the sustainability of health care, aged care and dental care
•inaugurated Australia's first ever national program caring for people with disabilities; and,
•she also restructured the telecommunications sector

She leaves Turnbull in the shade.

Malcolm was stabbed in the back b Mr Abbott. Then Mr Abbott promised the earth to win the election with a little help from his friends, Friends like a leaky Rudd? And given the record, I can't see any reason for a similarly removed Abbott to complain?

If these two men Rudd and Abbott have just one thing in common, it is the abuse of power via entirely inappropriate delegation of authority?

As for Cal West's complaint, all those things he bags Gillard on, were started or put in train during her term in parliament?

For mine her only real mistake was her disastrous and entirely unnecessary alliance with the jobs destroying greens then allowing the tail to wag the dog so to speak!

That said, I go on the public record as having never voted for labor in the last 35 years! Any tenuous support, nipped in the bud by Treasurer Keating and the recession we had to have?

Even so, and given the hostile environment and due credit, the sheer amount of legislation actually passed by a Gillard led Labor Government, during a so called hung parliament, was nothing short of remarkable.
Rhrosty.

No, Rhrosty,

Don't try to rewrite history. Abbott rolled Turnbull because he (Turnbull) tried to reshape the Liberal Party into a Green-Left progressivist party. And that was against the background of massive opposition from within the Liberal Party and the broader public to what Turnbull was trying to do on a number of fronts, "climate change" being the most prominent. Indeed, Abbott was a reluctant challenger; he said at the time he would not have challenged if Joe Hockey had. And Abbott pulled the Liberals out of the ditch Turnbull had put it in.

Abbott was rolled because a bunch of nobody backbenchers conspired with Turnbull - they were stupid enough to think a Shorten opposition might win the next election and they'd lose their seats. Talk about no ticker.

Turnbull is now moving again to form a Green-Left progressivist party, with the assistance of Greens preferences.

Many of the things Gillard now claims as her own were in fact begun and completed during Rudd's term: the GFC, NBN (well, completed may not be the appropriate word, but Gillard had nothing to do with it) and so on. She was there, but far from "central" to most of the items in the list, her wrecking of the education system and her NDIS time bomb being the exceptions.

As for getting a lot of legislation passed in a hung parliament - well, it was hardly a hung parliament at all once she was in a formal alliance with the Greens and Oakeshott, Katter and Windsor had promised to support her.

Some people have very short memories.

lol. Abbott didn't roll Turnbull on his own; the Liberal conservatives did, and there was an expectation Hockey was going to be their front-man, unless Abbott throwing his hat into the ring at the last minute was a combined conservative strategy.

Rudd contributed to Turnbull's demise by repeatedly teasing Turnbull for taking a bipartisan approach in continuing the ETS support that Howard had initiated. That was the straw that broke the LNPs market-mechanism approach (shows them as pseudo-capitalists or mining-socialists). Thus Rudd contributed to his own demise, too.