Another loopy Compton fantasy.

The malodorous Angela Merkel and the boy bimbo Justin Trudeau are "the only genuine leaders left in the entire world"? Merkel, the woman who has single handedly destroyed Europe and Trudeau, the fanboy of the murderous dictator Fidel Castro? They're "the only genuine leaders"? God help us all.

Not-for-profit organisations are, in Compton's view, going to replace both government departments and private companies, which are characterised by "greed, corruption and incompetence". Nice smear. No evidence provided. And he hasn't noticed that private enterprise has been the engine of jobs, profit, growth and a pretty stable economy over the entire history of this country since colonial times.

Compton says: "We must face the unpalatable fact that we have to pay more tax to get our debt and deficit into order and make funds available for the a vast program of infrastructure that has been neglected for decades. This will create jobs and make our industries competitive and it must include drought proofing the continent." Our industries become competitive via higher taxes? Good grief.

So, no chance of reducing, let alone stopping the hysterical government spending that has characterised the governments of Rudd, Gillard and Turnbull. Hell, what's another billion dollars gifted to despots, dictators and tyrants in third world countries to "stop climate change"? That money will go straight into their back pockets, thank you very much, Australia.

And perhaps the most loopy proposition of all: we can remove "the scourge of inequality" by caring more. A bit light on for detail there, Everald.

Any idea how "caring" is going to fix the problem you identify, when inequality has been characteristic of every human society since forever? Maybe we should squeeze our eyes shut and "care" a bit harder.

But Compton did make one valid point: nobody is listening to Turnbull's waffle any more and he is beyond redemption.

Justin Trudeau a true leader ..if you believe this I must read the rest of this article a lot more critically ..what initially seemed somewhat sensible will now be viewed more sceptically! About all Justin Trudeau lead in was the fulsome praise of the tyrant dictator Fidel Castro! Bah humbug Evan! I won't spend time justifying my comments. It's Christmas and more important things to do than remonstrate with sheer ignorance!

Now we know the man's problem - Scotch whisky.

Touche, ttbn!!

There is no doubt that Malcolm is One Nations best weapon. As long as he clings to the spot he won by treachery One Nation will grow in influence and numbers. How ironic that more can now be achieved through Malcolm than Tony on immigration and the gw scam. That is because as I have stated before that Malcolm is the head and Pauline the neck.

You are right there Everald, Turnbull is past it, but mate, I think when it comes to Turnbull & you, the race for being past it was a dead heat.

Your suggestion that the lady who welcomed a million Muslim economic invaders into her country is a great leader, leaves me wondering if you missed your last medication.

Time to put the pen down mate.

I listened before he flipped flopped all over the pace, on climate change, negative gearing and marriage equality!

Now it seems he has gone cold on a republic anytime soon? Given we seem to be waiting for a foreign queen to kick the bucket as a sign of (unspoken) royal consent? The other, a trifle difficult under said circumstances?

That said, he is clearly the most able mind in the coalition and stands out even more so among the assorted Troglodytes, who form the balance in the melee, trying to act as an united coalition?

So, who in the alternative government would be more able or resolute or willing to look at or try new ideas/original thinking! And that's where the carousel (thinking within a fixed circle of very limited ideas) and the music stops!

And think Everald, it's all downhill inside the (tin ear) descending spiral, merely masquerading as competent government, from here!
Alan B.

I am confused, when did the music start?

Alan B,

One of the myths of Australian politics in recent years has been the one in which Turnbull is always the smartest guy in the room. Yet there is no evidence to support that. On the contrary, he has a tin ear for public (and Coalition) opinion and has flip flopped on numerous issues. Income taxing powers for the states and more recently, the kite floated about the reintroduction of an emissions trading scheme are just two examples.

His voting record over the years has been incredibly inconsistent and contradictory: http://www.openaustralia.org.au/mp/malcolm_turnbull/wentworth

No wonder nobody is listening any more.

My original post analysing Compton's proposals missed a glaring contradiction.

On one hand, he says we are all going to have to get used to (probably very large) tax increases "to get our debt and deficit into order and make funds available for the a vast program of infrastructure". That would be hundreds of billions in extra taxes, apparently to come from ordinary citizens.

On the other hand, he reckons that (implicitly all) private enterprise companies are characterised by "greed, corruption and incompetence" and that they need "constant tax cuts, incentives and handouts for them to survive."

So they don't pay taxes, then? And none of them report profits?

Clearly, then, they are in no position to pay any of those increased taxes.

Poor old Everald. A stranger to reality.

This slew of "comments" only goes to prove that we are doomed.
The "usual" suspects have jumped in with their usual cries of disbelief that anyone could be so crass as to not believe their screams of hate for any criticism of their heroes ideology. They are after all born to rule and are the only ones that have the brains and ability to get us out of the mess that Labour have caused.
The fact that labour has been mostly so quiet that they could be accused of being asleep on the job and have not been in power for three years, does not strike a chord with them.
Sorry guys but it is not going to matter who is "in".
The system is at fault.
What is the better way to run this country? I do not know but it is never going to be any good all the time the really stinking rich and the big corporations are able to buy the politicians of their choice to enact the rules they want to squeeze even more loot from the proles.

The people doing most of the squeezing of loot from the proles are the likes of Shorten - who sold out his own union members to fatten his union's coffers at their expense - and the criminal enterprises like the CFMEU, now facing up to fines of millions of dollars for their standover tactics, threats and intimidation.

Strangely, though, none of what you say rings true: the comments on this article have uniformly dealt with critiques of the content and arguments put forward.

Only you, Robert LePage, have regaled us with you deep knowledge of "the stinking rich and the big corporations" who are allegedly able to buy politicians. Any evidence for that? Or is it just a pose?

Calwest: I well remember when Lance Hancock, took iron ore so pure, two chunks could be wielded together, to many Australian Government!?

To be met with comments like, mountains of the stuff? And you want startup capital? Fair dinkum!? LOL. Oh my aching ribs!

Eventually he was forced to concede we lacked any pragmatists inside (surprise surprise) conservative politics!

Leaving him with no other choice than to sell to a foreign mining company or risk losing his leases?

A Large Canuk mining company duly arrived, replete with as it turns out, a virtually worthless letter of credit? Backed by Chase Manhattan? Who reportedly, were trading while insolvent?

Only had their irons pulled from the fire, ten minutes to midnight, by new mexican oil finds?

And it was that reportedly, virtually worthless document, that levered the entire start up funding from our own banks? With mining machines constructed here by vickers ruwolt of melbourne and most of the skilled staff, sourced locally!

In other words, the real outcome was, all the finance and expertise, was sourced locally!

Since then hundreds of billions have flowed offshore as monumental repatriated profits and massive avoided taxes?

But I guess that's OK Dilbury, given not so much flowed as virtual rivers of gold, yesterday? Is that your carefully considered judgement Mate?

Remove the foreign miner and his virtually worthless letter of credit, from the scenario; and all those billions in repatriated profits and avoided taxes could have stayed! To be reinvested here in myriad, fail safe, cheap, clean, safe energy projects!

Think, with pragmatists at the helm, where and what could we be now! Certainly not an almost failing economy with record exponentially expanding foreign and domestic debt!

I'm not against private enterprise by any stretch CW, just rank stupidity, and the highly flawed notion we need foreign capital! But particularly that which comes with debt laden, controlling, foreign speculators attached to it!

What's your problem mate? Could it be patriotism and pragmatism are dirty words where you come from?
Alan B.

"Malcolm Turnbull has reached rock bottom and few now listen to anything that he says. No matter whether people are left, right, centre or swingers, they are utterly unanimous in this view and highly unlikely ever to change their minds."

But was not Everald barracking for Tony Abbott to be knifed in the back by Malcolm Turnbull?

Alan B.,

I have no idea what you're rambling on about: I didn't mention foreign investment.

Your Hancock example is a bit odd, though. If the iron or deposits were so vast and of such good quality, why couldn't he raise capital from Australian banks, which, if you are reporting accurately, is essentially what the government of the day was telling him? Why should any government back any such startup when others, perhaps with less to offer, would then expect similar support? Why should governments risk taxpayers' money? Why do you think politicians and public servants are qualified to assess such investment propositions, anyway?

That also gives shakey start-ups the incentive to capitalise profits (i.e., keep them) and let taxpayers pay for any losses.

That's not lack of "pragmatism" on the part of the government(s) which rejected Hancock's approach, it's political common sense. Private enterprise should be, well, private: privately raised capital, private ownership and private profits. Governments these days are far less cautious and shovel money at all sorts of dumb and dodgy propositions, such as Tim Flannery's failed "hot rocks" escapade and the vast solar and wind farms which would not be bleeding ordinary taxpayers dry if governments didn't subsidise them through the Renewable Energy Targets, to take some obvious examples.

That'd be iron "ore"...

Let's not rewrite history. When Tony Abbott became so on the nose that even the LNP party rooms realised how badly he smelt, he very nearly lost a leadership spill to an empty chair! The parties' consensus was that he would be given 6 months to improve his leadership.

At the end of that time, Turnbull moved a spill of all positions for which the party room voted. In the following leadership ballot, Turnbull was elected leader, and hence PM. The RWNJs realised that Abbott was electoral suicide and transferred their support to Turnbull.

If this was an ambush or an assassination, it must be the slowest, most open and most expected one of all time.

Unlike Malcolm Turnbull who went within a whisker of losing the election, Tony Abbott would have trounced Shorten & Co, and not performed as badly as Malcolm in the Senate.

Election campaigning is an Abbott strength. Unlike Malcolm, for a start he would have hammered Shorten’s infamous union links.

Unlike Malcolm, Abbott would not have frightened off conservative supporters.

Malcolm is a muddler. As an election campaigner he is a wimp. He lacks substance, thanks to his preoccupation with political correctness.

As a believer of man-made global warming and associated Green-Left dogma, Malcolm is acting contrary to the national interest by embracing rapid conversion from cost-effective, reliable coal-fired energy to high-cost, unreliable, renewable energy, thereby influencing industry disinvestment and associated job loss.

Given Malcolm’s poor performance since becoming PM, it is not surprising that this is reflected by the unfavourable opinion polls.

Calwest "That's not lack of "pragmatism" on the part of the government(s) which rejected Hancock's approach, it's political common sense. Private enterprise should be, well, private: privately raised capital, private ownership and private profits. Governments these days are far less cautious and shovel money at all sorts of dumb and dodgy propositions, such as Tim Flannery's failed "hot rocks" escapade and the vast solar and wind farms which would not be bleeding ordinary taxpayers dry if governments didn't subsidise them through the Renewable Energy Targets, to take some obvious examples."

So you would be totally opposed to the government giving $1,000,000,000 to Adani?

Raycom "Election campaigning is an Abbott strength. Unlike Malcolm, for a start he would have hammered Shorten’s infamous union links."

Why are Shorten's union background any different to any LNP members relationship to private/public corporations?

Turnbull was a part of the Macquarie Group "millionaire factory" and yet that is seen as somehow a job qualification?

you summed it up accurately Raycom while the regressives refuse the fact that Abbott votes went to Hanson not Labour.They are stuck in their false narrative which is why they throw tantrums when Brexit and Trump events catch them by surprise.

I am disappointed in Turnbull as I thought he may pull it off.
However things have changed in the world with Brexit, Trump, One Nation
and similar situations in various countries.
Maybe the wheel has turned and Tony Abbott might be a better fit with
the current world mood.

It was astonishing that Malcolm campaigned as if he had forgotten the reason for calling the double dissolution election – he gave little prominence to it.

On the other hand, Abbott would have made the most of the findings of the Royal Commission on union corruption, including evidence that Shorten had disadvantaged AWU members while negotiating on their behalf.