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.