Turnbull is probably voting against the bill for a number of reasons.

1. He wants to keep sweet with traditional conservatives. The nodding heads on his frontbench at his announcement attests to that.
2. He knows that some competitive tension is needed to get a balanced outcome and the last thing he wants to do is fix up a big mess/hole if and when he gets into government.
3. He has said that some stimulus is needed and that $20 billion will perhaps be better than 40. So, there's room and incentive to horse-trade over the details.
4. If the Government's stimulus package fails, he will have positioned himself politically to claim that he was right all along.

Time will tell whether he or Rudd has got the superior position.

I can't see a double dissolution happening, but if it did, I'm sure Rudd would win comfortably.

Turnbull is definitely taking a political gamble by opposing this stimulus package. The overwhelming majority of expert opinion is in favour of it and it seems as though it's being welcomed by the general public as well. I agree with spindoc and Countryboy, it's a political ploy so he can later claim, when things deteriorate further as they most probably will, that had we followed the opposition's advice we'd all be better off.

I thought he came across very badly on the 7:30 report last night, obviously ducking a lot of O'Brien's questioning. As pointed out then, and here by Belly, the deficit is no more than the recommended 2% of GDP, and is not the enormously reckless trashing of taxpayer money that Turnbull, Bishop and Hockey would have us believe. Especially when you consider that the deficit will actually increase anyway, through reduced tax income, if they don't implement a big infrastructure spend to save jobs and maintain investor confidence.

I would have liked to have seen more of an environmental emphasis and a greater weighting towards low income earners, but on the whole I think the government's package is what's needed for the times. Parliament should by all means examine the detail but should not attempt to block its passage through either of the houses.

spindoc

"He has made progress on some election promises but I think the public are sensing that those accomplished are at the Populist/Tokenism end of the spectrum. What do you think?"

I agree entirely but I'm afraid I didn't expect any better. Rudd's a technocrat. He's never showed any real passion for delivering true social and environmental reform. His rhetoric has never inspired in me any real hope or possibility for a different future. This is becoming more and more evident I think as you contrast his style with that of Obama. Obama in a few weeks has set in chain more real change than Rudd has in over a year in office.

I do like the way Rudd is sheeting home the cause of the current financial meltdown though to the greed of Wall Street and the dominance of neoliberalism. He will definitely need to follow up his fine words with a solid regulatory framework, to ensure we don't end up in the same place another decade down the track. Whether he can withstand the massive amount of pressure the big end of town will exert in order to maintain business as usual remains to be seen. Interesting times ahead.

To answer my own question I think/know Rudd would win.
The next question is how and why, this turned out to be a very bad election to win.
However Rudd is not mucking it up.
Some who dislike him base it on every thing from his hair ,over seas trips, wifes Rich's, any thing but his performance.
He like Obama has new paths to take us on, and must be different to do it.
Turnbull, strange as it may seem to some in my view is the right leader but on the wrong path, his path is not unlike Americas Republicans.
Obstruction for the sake of it, remember this is not the first bill to be altered or held up.
2010 may well see a much worse time for Labor to have an election.
In this time of growing crisis, we truly do not know how bad it is yet, Australia must be concerned two independents could run our country.
I am both a cynic and a realist, if Rudd gets a chance this year he will put bills to the senate in preparation for such an election.
One alternative self interest may force a few to let such bills pass while saying its a result of the crisis.
Gambling that one day Turnbull can say we told you so is just as likely to be the ropes end for him. he is not winning support on this issue.

Dear Belly,

Who would win an election called now?

Rudd! No question at all!

He's doing everything right.

And the bill will get passed.

The Greens and Independants are waiting until
Monday to decide. I'm sure they'll support
the PM. He's already got the support of the
Lower House. And, I'm sure he'll get everyone's
support eventually. This package is necessary
to get the economy back on track.

Turnbull has changed his opinion in the course
of a day and as Julia Gillard said, for a man
who used to be a Merchant Banker Turnbull doesn't
seem to know what he's talking about. Even his own
party members support the PM. The Cross-Benchers,
the Greens, and the Independants will see that the
bill passes.

This is just another challenge that the PM will deal
with in his own efficient way.

Todays events further highlight Turnbull is following Americas Republicans.
Against the advice of many such as the international money fund and business interests world wide.
A betting man would say Turnbull has got it wrong, and that this increases the chance of an election for both houses this year.
The bills bringing on such an election need not be as important as this one is.
That betting man, me, is expecting the senate will pass the bills, not to is to very much deepen this crisis.