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.

Yes there is a mandate, given anything less would turn our "DEMOCRACY" [by the people, for the people, of the people,] into pure farce.

And Malcolm needs a crystal clear mandate from the people, to stamp his Authority on the government, and perhaps enable him to exert some influence on any and all upcoming preselections?

Disagree all you like, but in the imortal words of Robbie Burns," facts are cheils tha' dinna whinge."

Malcolm need the people's mandate, if only to get rid of oafish whiteanting trouble makers with a purely personal problematic power hungry agenda!

Even so, for some democracy is just a joke or to be sneered at as an inconvenience that subverts the will of the born to rule ultra arrogant Autocrats, Dinosaurs, Misogynists, Troglodytes, knuckle dragging netherendals and other pretenders!

Who invariably say anything, promise anything just to get elected. Or Trump democracy!? And the obvious pun was intended.

Or actioned in another way. Dastardly diabolical deals done in the dead of night to usurp/subvert the clearly expressed will of the people! And yet present terrorism as the worst threat to democracy!

We are not a communist or fascist country ruled by self appointed Autocrats! Leastwise, not yet!
Rhrosty.

I agree that innovation requires up-skilling and that this means replacing, over time, an unskilled workforce - and perhaps an unimaginative managerial culture. But I disagree with Rehctub’s approach to political argument.

In reminding us why the concept of a mandate is a myth he says most thinking people will vote for their interests. True enough, but they are also free to vote for a party whose policies they believe are best for the nation, that is, for the community as a whole, even if it is against their own interests because, for example, they have to pay more tax.

Politicians don’t have this choice. They are paid to serve the interests of the public, and have no right to use their power to advance their own interests or those of their friends or supporters. This truth rests on community values, including fairness, which imposes a duty on government to treat all citizens as having equal value - it must treat us with equal concern for our interests and equal respect as citizens of the same community.

I do not believe Rehctub would deny this duty, because shared values are the only foundation for rational political argument. Without it we are simply dogs fighting over a bone. It means, however, that IR laws must not only aim to free up skills, they must do so without unduly harming current employees. This argues for gradualism and perhaps compensation, quite apart from the need for more investment in education and training.

How to achieve this balance between productivity and fairness is a central problem for first-world nations, and Turnbull appears to see this more clearly than most. However that may be, the aim of the article is to challenge critics to explain what they would do in his place. They will, however, need to argue the case from community values, not just cite their own opinions, preferences and interests.

Max Atkinson

Max perhaps you could justify your obvious belief that if I give you a job, you can leave any time you choose, but I must continue to employ you for life, even when you are no longer of any use to me.

Hassbeen that has always been the unfair part about the whole unfair dismissal laws, but because there are more workers than bosses, the workers always win.

Rhosty, if governments do have mandates when the win office, why then do we have a senate. Shouldn't the peoples choice (your mandate) just be made law?

Sorry, but if a voter likes four policies out of six, but still votes for that party, it is not a mandate unless the change is made immediately after the election is won, without any form of debate.

That would be a true mandate.

calling someone who constantly undermined their elected leader as honourable is in line with regressive theology. The only runs on the board at all for the liberal party is stopping the illegal boat trade (saving billions and making country safer) and scrapping the idiotic breathing tax. Both these were done by Abbott. A close look at how Turnbull made his millions is not pretty. I seem to remember he supported his mate taking nude shots of 13 year old girls and then defining it as art. This man should be leading the regressive Labour party. Shorten and Malcolm have much in common. Unlike Max I believe private philosophy always works its way out in public policy. Malcolm is just waiting. I just hope the Liberals have enough sense and backbone to get rid of him before its to late.