The Liberal party is so divided over key issues such as work choices, climate change and whether the party should be dry, or schizophrenic like the Howard days, where they talked dry, but acted wet, that Malcom can’t put out a message because he will upset someone. No one in the Liberal Party really wants Malcom, because he represents a radicle change, a thing that conservatives utterly abhor. And one must never forget that Dollar Sweetie is there as the spoiler to keep them all off balance and muddy the message even more.

But one thing puzzles me. People keep telling us how clever Malcom is. What’s the evidence for this? What has he really achieved. He has accumulated a lot of wealth, but you don’t need a big intellect for that as many of our CEO’s adequately demonstrate. Malcom’s approach to his current job suggests an intellect not much different to that of his predecessor, who’s vision was limited to bashing unions, bashing the public service and bashing any minority group that the shock jocks could win him votes with. Malcom has worked out that his predecessor’s approach was past it’s used by date, but he hasn’t come up with anything useful to replace it yet.

Half joking.

Here’s another perspective altogether - Turnbull’s audience target was Oakbarrel’s generally Liberal small business voting public, not the ALP folks or swinging vote on Sunrise Sunday concurrent (eg Riley Diary). Similarly with Turnbull cross referening in the Oakes Sunday 9 interview his piece in The Australian:

I have a greenie friend from a Liberal Party leaning family -religously buys The Australian in Sydney, not the Sydney Morning Herald even with it’s now censored Eco pages (censored since you know what killed about 210 people plus).

So Turnbull was scaffolding his pitch to the Liberal Party over the leadership and crowding out the Costello high profile earlier in the week. It was all in house Coalitiion leadership business. You guys! You all missed the main play. You get paid for this, as well as AM last Saturday misconceiving the wet lettuce attack on Rudd “personally” for being a hypocrite or “corrupt copper” (derr he’s a politician) was really an attack on Costello, to say , chest beating I can do ALP hating like Pete too. And I’ve got balls, always have had. This was why he took on LO, as ‘unproductive’ as it might seem.

Credit where it’s due - Laurie Oakes led the interview with the squeezy “elephants” of Liberal Party leadership. So BK might do as well to take the veteran at his word. It was about Costello. It was about ownership of the Liberals. Selling nuance to the general public had little to do with it. It was branch land he was worried about.

At that point they might explain it to the leaders of the rest of the Western World along with all the central bankers. If they need assistance they should call up Vladimir Putin - he seems to have a handle on it. Closer to home, John Key sounds like he has already started reading “the Austrians”!

As for the PM’s wife - I believe she is a fair target as is the Opposition leader’s. Both are as capable of handling themselves as their respective husbands. Probably better actually!

After reading the piece in The Oz, i thought to myself, surely these arguments will have some traction. But in the back of my mind, i wondered if the ‘Therese’ thing would make the front page as it’s such an easy story.

Again, my low opinion of the media, our politicians, the the voting public turned out to be true.

I would read much into that mate.