Costello didn't have the ticker to challenge Howard, he didn't have the ticker to take on the task of opposition leader after Howard's defeat and I doubt if he's got what it takes to be Prime Minister. I just wish the Victorian Liberals would see this and pre-select someone else to run for his seat at the next election. I don't think they can afford to pander to his self-serving behaviour and refusal to use his talents for the benefit of the party and those who want see an effective opposition taking the fight to the Government.

I thought Malcolm Turnbull would perform a lot better.In our most dire time of need ,we seem to have a leadership void.If the Libs don't consolidate soon,they will lose the next two elections.

While labor is running rampant, I think Costello has made a wise choice to let someone else assume point position and take all the hits, especially during labor's honeymoon phase.

When chickens come to roost after labor's wild spending frenzy and interest rates hit the roof again, Costello as the fiscal conservative will be able to step in with "I told you so" and offer a alternative leadership that the public will understand.

In the interim, all the new first home buyers can expect to lose their shirts when the economy recovers and the debt pushes interest rates to levels of about 17% as per previous labor administrations.

Wattle,
While Costello & Co didn't single-handledly cause the GFC, their actions certainly contributed to our vulnerability.

As well as selling off much of our public assets (mostly to overseas owners) and gold reserves, they increased the total national debt to over a trillion dollars.

This was mainly due to them embracing Greenspan's economic theory of keeping downward pressure on wages while providing access to lots of cheap credit so people were encouraged to borrow to fill their consumption gap while being fed the line of never-ending prosperity and growth.

Costello was just copying what the US was doing while riding a resources boom - hardly an economic genius.

If he came back to the front bench now he would have to explain the consequences of these decisions.

17% interest rates when interest rates were high across the globe?

As I recall this was because the economy was growing too fast, not because of debt.

Better not mention them being 22% under Treasurer Howard during the 80's.

Peter Who?