What The People Want

Surely "cares for people" covers all aspects of governing Australia?
The 'economy stupid' worked for Howard, but now we see his 'policies' coming home to roost eg asylum seekers, terrorism legislation, pensioners forgotten for 12 years!

Cover the care of the people and employment, social services, infrastructure, climate change and even the economy will be covered.

Could Turnbull be trusted to 'care for people'?

It is interesting having recently voted in the local council elections, where a lot of people want to elect a mayor who is or has been a successful business man. This is in the hope that our rates don't get "wasted"...I, for one, have pretty much has the same feeling about my taxes....

Good idea Jim. I'll try to run these questionnaires more systematically in future.

It's early days everyone, give the climate time to stabilise.

Graham, run this exercise on the anniversary of Malcolm's ascension next year.

Hi Graham, The interesting thing about this is what Rudd has forgotten to do now he is in the business end of the listening process.
He has forgotten to inform us that when you listen it takes time to undertake the the planning and implementation processes to establish the change needed. He has forgotten to do the up dates of the issues he and his government said they were listening for.
Secondly, the age $ issues is crucial and necessary but has been a distraction to the change issues the government was elected on.
The North Territory issues and the non listening by government to the indigenous communities and to find a way together. The betrayal in this has i believe made many younger voters worry about the real nature of the Rudd government.
Finally, the economic issues are cutting deep as well and people are nervous about the labor party being able to manage this downturn and loosing the gains we have made as a community not realising the world wide nature of this situation governments should be able to fix things! their question is will they? and if not Why not?

Grahame, I do apologise for my comment earlier today. If I had thought I should have realised for myself. All I thought about was making people aware of the article in last Thursday's Aust. Financial Review. It is NOT the most sold paper in Australia.
I will be more aware next time.

Since the elections, the media has been totally against Labor up till now, but watch as we get closer to the next elections, they will turn against Liberals. Even Hitler said, "what luck for leaders that people forget'.
By reporting against labor for months after an election then turning as we get closer to the elections as they always do, they can say that they are not biased. It is not what they say but when they say it that is important. Getting closer to the elections they will have a barrage of stuff against Liberal, Turmbull or whoever is in the job, they have done this for many elections now, a cunning move and until we wake up to this and denounce the media for not telling it as it is we will continue to get bias reporting.

Bill Hartigan said "When will the media start attacking the government policy and make them accountable".
Ah silly me! There was I thinking that it was parliament that was supposed to hold the Government accountable and the media's job to report on what was done.

Turnball is good with the do-godier spiel and running down the labor party, something he has always aspired too. At present he is short on substance. I wonder if in the long run Turnball is just another Howard painted with the same paint brush but dipped into a different can of paint. I call him brush with arogrance, just like Howard was.

Sometimes more is learnt by listening rather than by drowning out everyone else with the sound of your own voice. Turnbull has done himself no favours with his 'bull at at gate' attitude. It will take time to see if there is substance behind the bluster.

Get rid of the seat warmer, and put another one in, then get rid of him and put another in, then do the same again, eventually we will get rid of these old seat warmers and start getting fresh blood...
Nothing makes the country better than a regular change of government...It would give a few new people the chance to chase office and get rid a few of the old buggers that need removing...
In fact we should have a system of a single term, would stop the corruption and give younger people the chance to get in without needing a huge backer just to survive the in house corruption thats embedded itself within our system...

This smacks of the big poppy syndrome that apparently thinks it would be good if all our politicians were "average"
I suppose staistically that there is a bell shaped curve that sees our politicians gathered around average and it is just as well that there are people like Turnbull to offset the effect of those that fall within the negative third standard deviation.
Bill Hartigan

I agree with Geoff I think Turnbull will have the media's measure which was a problem for Nelson and he definitely did not get a fair go.
When will the media start attacking the government policy and make them accountable, but wait is there some real policy out there, you wouldn't know by watching the 7.30 report.

I believe it will be necessary to give Malcolm Turnbull at least another month before we will be able to properly assess his value as Opposition Leader. And. of course, we now have his selection of a Opposition Front Bench.
The Poll taken last week-end is a good reason for a fair delay before appraising anyone. The figures provided can really only be tentative, at best.
But it would be good for Australia in general if those in the media would stop denigrating Malcolm Turnbull for his wealth. His working background is surely good enough to provide the reason for his ability to gain that wealth and, as some folk have already said, "He didn't have to marry it to get it"
And TV/Radio people who run their programmes, including the news, really ought to be instructed NOT to make political comment that make clear their personal political leanings. It denigrates the TV/Radio ststion concerned to be labelled in that manner.

A longitudinal study to trace how the same respondents change their views or otherwise would be interesting; even more, a large enough sample to split into 2, one as a control, the second that comes face-to-face with Turnbull and Rudd and analyse what differences and when those differences in opinion occur would be very telling.