Interesting piece, and I agree generally with your conclusions. People are waiting to see what a Turnbull Government will be about. So far it is hard to say what that might be. Hence the need for an election where he can outline it.

But I think the circumstances in the 1950s and 1960s (the Menzies comparison) need to take into account that Menzies almost always had a fiscal dividend to play with, and Turnbull has no money at all and a huge public debt. It is dealing with that which will be the key to his future.

Gidday Graham,I think Malcolm has had some good and worthwhile ideas, and indeed, clearly understands that winning any election is done by occupying the middle ground,and his best prospects a double dissolution, which will then put all the seats up for grabs.

And getting that done might just shut up the harmful sniping by the extreme right? Who still need to hold their places and are reliant on party goodwill for continuing nominations!

I would have thought Malcom's and the parties prospects would have been served by the retirement of Mr Abbott and with it, end those damaging leaks?

Disunity and division equating to a probable defeat?

Already Labor is working overtime, highlighting obvious division and disunity, and all over the shop!

Someone with the power to pull nominations, needs to step in and put a stop to this Political suicide; least we see a repeat of the disastrous Gillard campaign which looked a certain winner, only to be blown out of the water by unpolished turds and quite deliberate damaging leaks.

Malcolm is extremely intelligent and financially astute! And for a conservative, quite progressive, and should be given a (fair go) chance to not only win but remake the party as one that permanently occupies the middle ground.

Leaving Labor torn between swinging back to the left and traditional support and policies; or even further to the right and following the legendary whoslem bird, that flew in ever decreasing circles until it disappeared right up its own fundamental orifice.
Rhrosty.

Check your facts, Don: the Menzies government ALWAYS ran deficits, and they started with a debt of over 90% of GDP.

But in those days, they understood that the solution wasn't spending less or raising the tax rate; it was growing the economy.

An important feature about Malcolm is, as Graham points out, his perceived personality compared to that of Rudd.
Unlike K.R. who concealed an obsession with micro-management until gaining his powerful position, Malcolm is more even, balanced, and managerially experienced to the job.

It's been a long time since I worked as a fellow employee with Malcolm while he was completing his uni. studies, but I found him personable, resolute in his belief in political honesty, and a very practical man.

It's this personality which I believe drives him to a centralist position and recognising arguments for and against policies.

All that said, it would not take a great deal to be perceived as a more competent candidate than his predecessor.

I am thankful to have the ALA coming into to being. I will be able to cast a formal vote, in the Senate at least, and retain my self-respect as a Conservative. There is no way I can continue supporting the Liberal Party under Turnbull and his Left-wing shite. I'll still have a problem finding a lower house worthy in my electorate though.

Graham if I had to give the last seat at a dinner party to Turnbull, I'd cancel the dinner party.

I can't stand slimy people. Just seeing Rudd on the TV made me feel dirty from the slime he was pouring on us. Turnbull makes Rudd appear almost slimeless. It is nauseating to watch the slime & insincerity dripping off him.

I will never trust this egotistical bit of garbage. He has already proven he can't be trusted with anything, & I trust him less to even know what needs to be done, let alone actually do what is needed for the country.

He spends his time searching for a pat on the back. he will do anything to get the approval he desires, & we all know there are no pats on the back from most of the populous for doing what needs doing.

Abbott's problem was he kept recoiling from his good decisions & flip flopping, when faced with disapproval from the left & other idiots. Turnbull is never going to make a decision that gains such disapproval. Hence he is locked into inertia, & will never do anything good for anyone but himself.

He does have quite a few bad ideas he would like to inflect on us, if he gets the chance. Only those who can't be bothered looking closely enough to see the real Turnbull could ever support him.

Like ttbn, I am searching for somewhere to put my vote. The only thing I am sure of is that it will never be for a party led by Turnbull.

Hasbeen I'm amazed at your attitude. Like you I don't trust Turnbull to even know what needs to be done, let alone to do it. However I'd use the dinner party as an opportunity to tell him what needs to be done.

And how many current Federal MPs do you know of who aren't slimy?

I particularly pithy point is:

"As an aside, the right wing voter, whilst many regard Turnbull as possibly “the best Labor Prime Minister we’ve had”, seems to have locked in behind him for lack of anywhere else to go."

Turnbull has seized much of the center - thus snaring some ALP and Green votes and the Conservatives (many of them OLO commenters) have no-one else to vote for.

No-one else as:
- PUP is gone.
- Abbott is still in the Libs - and waiting-plotting to unseat Turnbull
Abbott will probably try it late 2016-early 2017.

On the Rudd comparison - Turnbull is also unlike Rudd because Rudd developed notable nastiness that turned off many voters, public servants, advisers and ALP politicians (who turfed him out) before Gillard.

So if Turnbull can organise a soft Budget that postpones the hard, necessary measures until 2017, Turnbull will win in 2016.

Double Dissolution Election MIGHT even occur in late April 2016 before the Budget?

The problem with trying to grow our economy, rather than focus on reducing debt, is that essentially whet we have done since 2007 is to take a debt free house, spend ten million on it in the hope of attracting better returns, however, the extension is worthless and has simply increased the debt and achieved little.

So to grow the economy we have to knock down the extension and have another go, but that's a huge risk to take because at some point the financiers will simply say No!

By far the best way to grow the economy is to find some way of making the non productive, productive, but that will take balls and cost votes, so nobody will dare go there. Heck, they wont even put a stop to welfare waste simply because the handout brigade is so huge now.

Until politician's focus returns to what's best for the nation, rather than how to secure votes, little will change. Of cause the 'set for life' pensions don't help as a second, third term make life after politics so much more attractive.

The best time to judge our current PM
will be after the election to see what
the real Malcolm Turnbull will do.
At present he is being cautious to make
sure that he will remain the leader of
the Coalition running for office in his
own right at the next election. After the
election will be the time to show us what
he's capable of - or eventually get turfed out.

"It could be the case that Turnbull has taken us back to an earlier paradigm of politics where government is actually won in the centre, rather than being a tussle for the working class conservative vote out on the edges."

Hopefully it will be over with them all - left, right and centre.
Let both those paradigms be consigned to history!

Thanks to the changes in senate-voting, we will no longer need to even mention or consider those old parties of the old paradigms in order to cast a formal vote. When will we be allowed the same for the lower house as well?

rehctub,
"The problem with trying to grow our economy, rather than focus on reducing debt, is that essentially whet we have done since 2007 is to take a debt free house, spend ten million on it in the hope of attracting better returns, however, the extension is worthless and has simply increased the debt and achieved little."
rehctub, if you're going to use the house analogy, at least get it right! The money spent on it prevented parts of the house from collapsing, and the extension certainly isn't worthless to the people living in the house.

"So to grow the economy we have to knock down the extension and have another go,"
No, the sensible thing now would be to add another storey. We don't need to knock down the extension, we need to build on it!

"but that's a huge risk to take because at some point the financiers will simply say No!"
Wrong again! We have unlimited credit because we own the bank. As long as we only borrow in Australian dollars (as has been general policy for over three decades and absolute policy for two) it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to run out of money.

"By far the best way to grow the economy is to find some way of making the non productive, productive,"
And that's something that the NDIS is designed to achieve, but still people oppose it and claim it to be unaffordable!

But we also need to run a more expansionary combination of fiscal and monetary policy so that more employers are willing to hire people. And we also have to focus on enabling productive people to be more productive. Improvements in education are needed, but the same people who oppose the NDIS are also unwilling to fund Gonski, even though there was a bipartisan commitment to both before the last election.

ttbn

'I am thankful to have the ALA coming into to being.'

I feel the same way although I have only looked at the surface at this stage. I like what I have heard so far. Can't wait for the abc to demonise them.

Come on Aidan, why would we agree to Gonski ridiculous spending? We are spending hugely more on education today than we did 50 years ago. We are spending more than double on a per student basis that we did back then, & what has it got us?

In the 50s & 60s most kids left school at 15, with an intermediate certificate. In my school only 15 of us went on to matriculate at 17, to gain university admission.

Those 15 year olds had a better math education than those 17 year olds today. Few today can handle an electrical apprenticeship without remedial math training. In the 60s most kids had no trouble with that math, & remedial math courses did not exist. Hell even universities are running remedial math for kids accepted to do science degrees today.

It is a real fact that we do less well educating our kids every time we increase the money spent on education. Just one of the advantages brought to us by feminists.

Foxy you surprise me. You are saying Turnbull is lying to us about his policies, but that is a reason to vote for him. You will vote for him because of what you hope he will do if elected, is what you are saying? I find this amazing. I'm afraid you need to wake up & see these people for what they are, rather than what you would like them to be.

An insightful article Graham.
I particularly liked your take on why there has been a swing of some labor/green votes to the Coalition since Turnbull took over the top job.
"When you look at the reasoning of those swingers you find that there are two major reasons for voting for Turnbull. One is a belief that he will change the Liberal Party to be a party more in line with the voter’s views of life. The other is that Malcolm Turnbull is more likeable than Bill Shorten, and certainly more likeable than Tony Abbott. He brings a calm and civility to the political debate that has been missing."

Certainly if Abbott was still at the helm today, Shorten would have much more of a chance at the top job after the coming election. I do believe the Coalition will win this election, but maybe not by as much as originally thought.
Shorten has alienated too many people with his stance on negative gearing and the housing market.

One thing I am incredibly sure of though is that the mad group calling themselves the Australian Liberty Alliance, and their paranoid "No Islamization of Australia" rants, won't get within a bull's roar of the main political parties. They will be down the bottom of the voting sheets with shooters&fishers, Australian Sex Party, Australian Christians and Family First, and other fringe groups.

Has anyone else read the list of crazy political parties? Lol!
http://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/party_registration/Registered_parties/

Be sure major media and especially ABC news will hold aloft their chosen leader and party.
As usual the public will be informed of whatever will turn the view or not turn the view toward the chosen one.

Pre-election time will again be wasted with media waffle about how much money for roads and schools and hospitals, that should all be properly funded anyway.

As for government expenditure, surely the focus should be to invest in newly productive industry, especially newly productive industry capable of producing product for export that in turn will urgently generate new income and revenue for Australia.

Living off the sheep's back is over. There is need to replace lost industry with innovative and productive new industry. Export industry especially.

Rudd was not interested in genuine opportunity of substance, Abbott did however publish relevant opportunity in the Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper, but now Turnbull seems to have trouble answering his email. The Turnbull robot-generic replies do nothing except discredit the Turnbull leadership and team.

If lack of communication with government is occurring in general then the country will go nowhere, as it has been doing. Going downhill in other words, as evidenced by the state of economy, reducing spending, less business, less employment. How absurd.

Turnbull should be on bended knee praying for a continuation of the awful Queensland Labor government led by the disastrous Annastacia Palaszczuk.

Queensland doesn't reward slick populist politicians like Turnbull, who do not have spine and sell-out on important institutions like marriage, just to look good on the ABC - that the exasperated taxpayer is paying for and for Turnbull as well.

Speaking of the ABC, why the dead silence on the advice of ABC Managing Director, Mark Scott, who finally acknowledged publicly that millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted annually though ABC and SBS duplication and redundancy? Examples being doubled-up programming, infrastructure, management and talent.

Hey, but it is only taxpayers' money, right?

The problem for Turnbull is that Australia will reward a committed statesman, but he cannot fill those shoes.

strangley with masses of women and children being raped at the hands of muslim immigrants throughout Europe daily you would think the likes of feminist Susie would be the first to support the ALA. Then again she just represents the hypocritical privileged white class feminist that knows that they are only about themselves. Wasn't she one of the loudest screamers about Pells cover ups. Go figure.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/cologne-is-every-day-europes-rape-epidemic/news-story/e2e618e17ad4400b5ed65045e65e141d

Runner moans about Islam and feminists on a thread about Turnbull. Go figure.
Where do you stand on the actual topic Runner, or is that too difficult for you?

Aiden, at present I can buy a piece of automated machinery for $20K and write it off instantly. In fact, I can buy ten of them and write them all off instantly, yet, if I employ staff instead, I risk having further disruptions placed against me like domestic violence leave.

Employers should be rewarded for employing, not punished with the likes of additional super, ridiculous leave schemes and pay roll tax.

Of cause the ever present threat of a labor government always exists as well.

rehctub, it is good for the economy to encourage businesses to invest in equipment that lowers the cost of production instead of hiring more people who could be more productive if they were doing something else.

We have two choices: we can opt for the third world solution, where low productivity businesses are kept afloat by cheap labour. Or we can opt for the high productivity solution where businesses employ fewer people to get more done, and the people are paid more. I'd much prefer the latter scenario; wouldn't you?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

runner, most Muslims regard their religion as prohibiting sex outside marriage. I don't think Germany having a law enforcement problem justifies discrimination in Australia.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen, the alleged adverse link between funding and results certainly isn't a cause and effect situation – there's no credible mechanism for that. A more likely explanation for the situation you've described is that people who are good at mathematics are nowadays more likely to go to uni than learn a trade.

Regarding university remedial maths, I think the courses you're referring to are designed for those who did single maths in year 12 but are studying something that requires greater mathematical knowledge.

No Aidan these are people who had report cards declaring they were very high achievers in math A & B, & high achievers in math C, but could not handle the math involved in a simple architectural course. From what I've seen, most of them could still not make change for a bus ticket without an electronic calculator.

Today it has got so bad that we have people, particularly girls, coming out of uni clutching a Bachelor of Science degree, in environmental science, who could still not achieve 50% in a high school year 10 business math exam. These people are now infesting local councils & state environmental departments.

but Aiden, there is nothing else to do. So many either cant find a job, or cant get enough hours, yet you want to encourage businesses to incur more debt, and employ fewer workers, then pay them more.

But hang on, won't that just broaden the gap between the haves and have nots?

Are we not trying the reduce this gap?

Has been, the level of math in particular is atrocious especially in the filed of percentages. Whats more, the government has now changed arrangements so that the employer has to not only try to train these people (as well as do some of the schools' work) but we now have to pay the fees for training as well. Go figure!

The end result, fewer apprentices not more.

Of cause the other problem is that especially in my field once these apprentices do their time, usually three years (remembering, they only need to prove they can perform a task, not perfect it) they struggle to find work once qualified, simply because they are not up to scratch.

Then of cause we have the likes of Gonski throwing money at something that is broken.

rehctub, the problem of there being nothing else to do is one that the government can solve very easily.

When Malcolm Turnbull was opposition leader, he rightly criticised the government for having one foot on the accelerator and one foot on the brake: fiscal policy was speeding up the economy, but monetary policy was slowing it down.

The Abbott-Turnbull government is doing pretty much the same thing, but with crossed legs.

We need a government that's willing to put both feet on the accelerator until everyone can get work.