If Turnbull has enough sense to avoid backing KRudd's carbon trading fiasco, he has it made. There is now just so much evidence showing what a pack of cards AGW is, I am amazed KRudd is going ahead.

When the con, collapses in the next couple of years, the electorate will carry anyone, wise enough to call the con early, into office on their sholders.

Unfortunately, I don't think he's smart enough to see through the rubbish yet, & if he doesn't, he'll be berried with the other fools.

Let us hope that a few wise people appear in the near future, we sure need them, right now

Hasbeen, I think you need to have a closer look at the diminishing amount of Arctic ice before you dismiss AGW so lightly.

David

David, have a look at the growing Arctic ice mate, the ongoung cooling, & ice growth in the antarctic, & the cooling oceans in general.

Even that hot bed of conservative thought, the Canberra Times is now questioning the validity of the so called science, of the IPCC

Nothing in Bruce Haigh’s list of qualifications gives him the right to decide what Malcolm Turnbull, or anyone else, has to do to get elected. Voters will tell Turnbull what he needs to do; and maybe, he is quite happy to go with the Howard doctrine. Howard was just past it, personally; there was nothing wrong with his ideas, apart from the fact that he never stood by his “we will decide who comes here” promise, resulting in an anything-goes policy with illegal entrants, soon to be further softened by Rudd Labor.

I would have thought, though, that Turnbull would have been wet enough for Bruce. It seems that Tony Abbott is the only politician in Australia talking the talk that will get the Coalition back.

Despite Bruce’s assertion that: “The electorate passed judgment on that brand of degraded politics by voting Howard out of office”, he has absolutely no idea why individuals voted the way they did. I suspect that, as usual they voted on matters concerning them directly, and not on such ideas as “John Howard’s rapidly thinning policies and congealed prejudices.” I believe that Howard did lose the election, and as he lost his own seat, it was because of him, not his policy. He was a tired old man starting to believe his own legend without having the resolve to live up to it.

Instead of standing back and presuming to tell other people what to do, perhaps Haigh should have a go at politics himself and have some of his wacky ideas truly tested.

Howard's legacy is a nation now largely owned by overseas corporations and with massive personal debt levels, generated in part by a manufactured belief that everything would be fine as long as he was in power.

I suspect that the real reason for his "narrow" defeat was the gradual public realisation that not all was as well in the electorate as he was making out.

People were sick of being told how well-off they were at the same time that homelessness, poverty, bankruptcies, youth suicide and all the other negative social indicators were also at record levels.

Gratuitous exploitation of the workers was only the final straw in a long list of divisive policies.

The favoured political tool of the conservatives has always been to "use the wedge" - divide the community up into internally warring groups and distract attention from the policy makers unless it suited them and Howard was a master at this.

The last time this happened was under Fraser. Remember Hawke's catchcry? Social reconciliation? Some people have short memories.

Watching his performance on "The Howard Years" showed him conceding that pure luck had as much to do with his political success as his well-promoted partnership with Captain Smirk.

As for the previous crippling overseas debt, more money now flows out of our economy now as a percentage of GDP in the form of dividend payments to those overseas owners of the public assets that we used to own, and all we have in return is a crumbling infrastructure and a list of missed opportunities.

I think that at some point, the public decide they don't like what their society is becoming, look for change and Howard's time was up.

Mac “Do you still think that private debt is harmless? Less ideology and more reality. Ask the Americans. Of course Labor will get the blame for Howard's legacy.”

No one with a private debt can blame anyone else for that debt, as the borrower they were not forced to accept the money, they have had the benefit of the money which was advanced to them, they freely chose to encumber themselves with the responsibility.

Of course private debt can be harmful if you overextend yourself but that is a matter of personal discipline.
I have my own private debt and have deliberately maintained a tight reign on what I spend to keep any debt within my capacity and desire to finance

I have a mortgage facility which is 25% utilized (75% undrawn)
I have a credit card with a huge limit but which is paid off every month.
And I usually get offers of two or three more credit cards a month if I wanted them.

The benefit with my private debt versus a socialist government borrowing like the intellectually retarded in a toy shop is

I can control the interest I am liable for and will have to pay on my private debt

But

I have no control over how much of my taxes will be used to service (pay interest) the debt a profligate government will run up on my behalf.

I explained the Howard legacy, if Krudd and Co had inherited the debts and the deficit which that slob, Keating ran up, they would not have had the 10 billion lying around to buy votes with.

And now we hear how a federal government “deficit budget” is “OK”. . .

"OK", my Arse…

It is like mortgaging our childrens’ future to pay for our present.
another Socialist lie to cover the excesses of their perverse

“Socialism by Stealth” agenda.

Wobbles “the public decide they don't like what their society is becoming, look for change and Howard's time was up.”

Well I hope you are happy as we sell out our children to become a “banana republic”