"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?