Just a reminder Gentlemen, Mr Abbott and his
government lost over 30 news polls in a row.
The facts speak for themselves as to what voters
felt.

As for Mr Turnbull?

The following link says it all:

http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/malcolm-turnbull-our-most-popular-prime-minister-in-five-years-newspoll/story-fnsOjze1-1227537974418

G'day there PAUL1405...

I don't think anyone of them deserve the trust the electorate places in them at polling time ? During electioneering, you see the band of hopeful incumbents out and about with promises of this and that, shouting aloud how accessibly they'll be, if only you'll vote for them, and their Party ?

We all know the 'bunkum' they'll tell us, yet inexplicably we still cast our vote in their favour, why ? And of course they'll continue to betray our trust, as do the media with their distortions, half truths and outright duplicity ?

Mr TURNBELL has not yet been Prime Minister for 168 hours, yet the Polls have revitalised in the LNP's favour. The markets have surged, and Mr SHORTIN has all but disappeared as preferred PM ? But the sun continued to rise in the east and set in the west ? The bloke's done nothing yet, nothing at all, squat, zero !

Are we now so fickle as an electorate, we vote purely on a politician's personality, the timbre and resonance of his voice and his urbane 'good' looks alone ?

God we're a bunch of dopes, we really are, don't you think Paul ?

Dear o sung wu,

I'm afraid you have neglected the 'anyone but Abbott' factor.

We might question if the electorate knows at this stage what they really want, but what they are very sure about is that they don't want any more of Tony.

You say you liked the bloke, well fair enough, in fact out of he, Rudd, Shorten, Gillard he is probably the one a good chunk of us would be happiest having a beer with. Some of us might not align directly with his politics but it is not hard to think he would be the most convivial.

Sadly this does not mean it makes a person a good or even competent prime minister. Abbott was very far from that.

In Abbott's case it wasn't the " the timbre and resonance of his voice and his urbane 'good' looks" that got him the job, instead it was his assurances he would lead well and get things done. He failed and if Turnbull doesn't live up to his claims the electorate will judge him equally harshly.

Fox, "The facts speak for themselves.."

Facts like Qld's Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk refusing to end Labor's affiliation with the CFMEU;

and,

Premier Palaszczuk urgently instituting a 'review' to deep six the highly successful Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment (VLAD) Act, or 'anti-bikie' legislation.

So Foxy, are you now suggesting you didn't support Rudd and Gillard while they were respective pm's? This was all I was pointing out.

Doog, can you tell me how much of that 110 billion you mention was due to pre commitments left in place by the previous failed labor governments.

Once this is established we could have a serious debate about the Abbott governments own spendings, don't you think!

Paul, John Howard was somewhat if a dud when he came to office, then went on to be a very successful PM. I thought Tony Abbott deserved the same amount of respect and time to justify his appointment into the top job.

You see I don't vote for personalities so perhaps that's where I'm different. I also think TA Had some good policies, it's just that the same people who willingly took the free handouts are reluctant to repay them and would prefer to leave the debt to future generations.

My faith in him took a dive when he gave his captains pick to Prince Phillip and when he refused to distance himself from Bronwyn Bishop.

STEELEREDUX...

While it's true Tony ABBOTT wasn't a popular figure, not popular at all to be honest, he tried damn hard to correct the excesses of six years of Labour, but couldn't get many of his economic initiatives through a hostile Senate ? The same could be said of Joe HOCKEY, some of his ideas were so repugnant with the electorate at large, his second budget was a much more conciliatory and less stringent than his first, again blocked by the Senate.

How can anyone govern with a Senate blocking many of the better measures needed to correct the huge deficit ? Tony ABBOTT had the world, and some treacherous 'slugs' in his own Party, against him, it's little wonder he couldn't succeed.

Look STEELEREDUX, I once admitted to POIROT I have no knowledge of the internal machinations of politics, generally speaking I end up copping a decent admonishment ? I do like Tony ABBOTT, but I recognise his leadership was fundamentally flawed ? As perhaps anybody's may well have been, whenever confronted with a wholly hostile Senate, a partially dysfunctional and disloyal Party, and a hateful Parliamentary Media pack ?