We used to hear about this guy who was a great operator, intelligent, multi rich and dedicated to improving our lives as Australians. Right. Appears we forgot he wanted to be a politician.

Since he's been elected what have we seen?

Arrogance. He's intolerable with his condescending dismissal of most people. He appears to be one of these people who thinks making money makes him some sort of messiah.

He ain't.

What else have we seen?

A gutless wonder who fronts the PM and then slinks away to obey orders. He's a coward, plain and simple. As are all Howard's lackeys.

Will he lead after Howard loses? Who really cares as they will be irrelevant for about a decade. That's how long governments today seem to last. Or longer as in the CLP in the NT. 25 years they were in power. They lost 2 elections ago and now have 3 seats. Much like the Libs in QLD, State Government. They don't have even a handful of seats and are useless.

That's Turnbull's future.

Of course there is one slight hurdle. He won't win Wentworth anyway so he can go back to just being rich instead of avoiding responsibility as the Anti Environment Monster.

I have no doubts this man is one of the more sane and able Liberal politicians in the country. This may have something to do with being an actual liberal, rather than a dry Tory or Christian Right control freak.

But "Turnbull has to get re-elected in his Sydney seat of Wentworth first." There lies the rub. If he loses Wentworth, which is likely, he'll be even farther in the wilderness than the "conservative rump" remaining in each of Australia's parliaments. If he makes a comeback after losing Wentworth, I'd expect it to be in State politics or the Senate rather than a trimphant return to lead the Liberals in the House of Representatives.

On the other hand, if he does retain his seat, I can't think of a better candidate to follow in the footsteps of Kim Beazley as the long-term leader of an ineffectual opposition :-)

I think people are being a bit harsh on Our little Malcolm (money bags) Turnbull.

He is a lovable little teddy like Big Ted Beazley. No substance but lovable.

When people wanted a Republic he took control and stuffed it up... Yes what a brilliant achievement that was. Malcolm knew best and played right into the hands of Johnnie (I'll manipulate any process) Howard and the monarchists. You all realise that by losing the Republic plebiscite he actually allowed David Flint to have a win. How embarrassing!

And who could forget that he was found to rent a townhouse from his wife in Canberra subsidised by the Govt. If his wife stays in the house with him is the rent still paid by us taxpayers? or is that a question that shouldn't be asked?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21283681-2,00.html

If Turnbull is to be the saviour of the Liberals he'll have to pick up his game rather quickly. So far poor Ol' Malcolm isn't doing all that well.

What utter garbage. Turnbull and Barnes made a hash of the republic campaign, thank God, and now Barnes wants them to make a hash of ther Liberal Party, Heaven forbid.

Malcolm refers to "our magnificent young Liberals" in his maiden speech.

Those young Liberals, during their convention in Melbourne in January 2007, stated that:

1. Prohibition on tobacco advertising is an insult to everyone;

2. The age pension should not be accessible until the age of 70;

3. The federal government should not take any action to address "alleged" man-made global warming until there is conclusive scientific evidence;

4. The movement supports the construction of new coal-fired power stations and nuclear reactors.

Are these young Liberals tomorrow's political leaders?

Malcolm denounces the whale hunts because of "our love for the animal."

However, Australia's unethical policies to achieve "high productivity" and "economic growth" includes the barbaric cruelty performed on factory farmed animals and the abominable export of our live animals.

Malcolm brags that his team has been responsible for a reduction in CO2 emissions, however, industrial pollution is increasing.

Regional towns are being contaminated with heavy metals and hazardous hydrocarbon emissions; citizens are becoming ill from industrial fall-out and having to abandon their homes to re-locate and cancers in industrialised areas are on the increase. Results are being covered up by senior bureaucrats.

Malcolm's party is rewarding pollutant industries to burn waste oil as a fuel for their operations.

Waste oil in other western countries is deemed "hazardous." Not so with our federal government who thinks that incinerating this unregulated, dioxin laced and carbon-based muck (containing other unknown substances) over unsuspecting communities, is a good way of recycling!

Our heavily polluted eco-systems are choking on unregulated hazardous emissions from industry whilst Mr Turnbull and his party remain silent.

"Given the extent to which climate change and water scarcity will be high-order issues for a Rudd government, it will be useful for the Liberal opposition to have as its leader someone who has a firm grasp of policy in these areas."

Mr Barns, has it not yet occurred to you that the Liberal Party's unjust market place policies are seriously flawed, ecologically unsustainable and detrimental to our environment?

"Think globally - act locally," Mr Barns!

Hooray.For once Greg Barns has written something that is intelligent.He has a very strange psyche waxing to the ridiculous and sometimes waning to the sublime.

Greg is right,the Coalition must keep their nerve and minimise the loss of seats so they are in striking distance when Labor will inevitably stuff our economy.They have far less talent than the Gough or Keating eras and it won't take long for them to trip up.

The electorate are about to do a Japan,we are about to send in our "B" side,in anticipation of winning the Rugby World Cup.

I hope for the sake of Australian democracy that Malcolm Turnbull does manage to turn the Libs away from their disastrous embrace of middle-class welfare, nanny-state moralism, their addiction to expensive yet worthless security panics, and their combative approach to federalism.

They would deserve to be returned to government if they could scratch away their ideological fleas.

If they fail to do so, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the re-emergence of a third party that is actually a liberal party.

BTW, you commenters can jeer at the failure of the republic referendum if you wish, but in fairness you should also give them an equal measure of praise for having a go (it's an "Australian value" - 'having a go', remember?).

Malcolm Turnbull's own work says all that needs to be said, both about him, and the acceptance accorded him by the Parliamentary Liberal party. As Federal (gee, can we properly use that word in connection with him or any of his colleages?) Environment Minister, he has been responsible for Clause 2 of the National Water Initiative Agreement. That clause asserts that title to the rainfall upon my roof vests in the Federal government.

My house relies upon tank water. Its my roof, and my water.

Its not just me that says this, however. More importantly, Section 100 of the Constitution does. (The reasoning behind this is set out in these two posts to another current OLO discussion, see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6375#94425 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6375#94469 )

But Malcolm Turnbull, and the Parliamentary colleagues that have been prepared to embrace him, evidently consider themselves above the Constitution. Their claim as to title to water is clearly illustrative of this failing, a symbolically most significant one.

If the opinion polls have basis as indicators of genuine lawful voting intention, the Liberal Party faces not defeat, but annihilation. Why should anyone directly responsible for what led to that annihilation be seen as having anything relevant to offer by way of future leadership?

What Greg Barns, John Howard, and many other Parliamentary members have failed to pick up on is that, to the extent that it is genuine, polled voting intentions may not be so much an endorsement of Labor, which is offering nothing but more of the same white-anting of the intent of the Constitution, but a rejection of their joint attempts to circumvent what the people have already rejected at referenda.

Australia needs a sabbatical from both these political lots. The Governor-General could quite properly grant the people of this nation that sabbatical completely within the bounds of Constitutional propriety. He could send both these lots to the people on an equal footing. All he needs is proper Constitutional cause. That cause may well already exist.

It is pitiful to get Malcolm Turnbull's junk-mail claiming to be more "gay friendly" than anyone else in Parliament. This is, of course, just a political ploy to win the "pink vote". The problem is, there is no "pink vote". The issues he raises like gay marriage are not the primary issues for gay people. Health is the number one issue and the liberals will do little to help in the AIDS epidemic. They have, under Howard, lowered the number of HIV medications from the PBS leaving HIV pensioners without the ability to afford them without help.

Do people in Tasmania and Queensland know that Malcolm Turnbull claims to be the number 1 advocate of gay marriage in Australia? He says so in his junk mail.

As for claiming his laurels on green issues, the man is a dud.

He has to win Wentworth but the people of East Sydney are savvy, clever and can see through him like a sheet of glass.

The others are Royalists, and they are not his friends.

Wentworth?

I think the Mayor of Woolahra, George Newhouse has a better chance of winning Wentworth than Malcolm Turnbull at the moment.