Oz Idol... sigh haven't we run out of talent yet??

Tonight a new series of Australian Idol starts. As is often the case with such shows, my interest has been on a steady wane since Series One. I expect this will be the case for MasterChef as well - while the next series of it will be almost as popular as the first, when it comes to looking back in 5 years time, I'm guessing it'll be the first one that resonates the most.

The first Oz Idol was a massive cultural event that took everyone a bit by surprise - not the least me. I had no interest in watching pop wannabes. I'd hated "Popstars". I mean really hated it. Every single season I hated it more. And so I expected Idol to be no different. And yet it was. For some reason I started watching, and then kept watching. And yeah I know it's all a bit facile - a glorified karaoke contest, but when it is good, it is well beyond that. Watching Idol I think allows you to indulge in the fantasy of being a record company exec (without the stress of wondering what to do about all the pirated downloads).

In the first season, Cosima De Vito belted out a cover of Cold Chisel's "When the War is Over", and I remember thinking someone somewhere should be signing her up to put that out as a single right now. And indeed it was released and it went number 1, and I was able to think, gee I sure know how to pick them.

I also thought this Rob Mills bloke is a complete idiot. Though that may have been a rather easier thing to pick.

The format is thus great for the teen girls who want to write the performer's name on their pencil case, and for those of us a tad older who want to pretend we have an ear for music.

The main reason that the first season of such shows as this are the ones that seem to be the most remembered is because if they are no good, there is generally no second series. And such shows need a defining moment. In Masterchef for example it was the moment that Julie stayed in the contest despite serving up a "puddle pie" - because it was the moment we all knew the fix was in.

In Season 1 of Oz Idol the big moment came in the Top 3 week. Guy Sebastian, having ripped out a great version of Frankie Valli's "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You", came on and did a rework of The Sound of Music standard "Climb Every Mountain". After hearing it you knew that (a) he was going to win the whole thing, and (b) this was a real singing contest for artists - not mere cover singers.

As the years have passed, I've gotten more cynical about Idol; I hardly watched last year's version. And while some will say Anthony Callea belting out "The Prayer" or Damien Leith doing another version of "Nessun Dorma" (a song that should be banned from being sung in any reality/singing show) were big highlights, for me the peak of Idol will always be Guy Sebastian letting rip the high notes (and Marcia Hines getting all excited afterwards!).

AFL Power List: Round 19 (or does anyone actually want to finish 8th?)

Well Essendon and Lions draw, the Bulldogs lose, so does Geelong, and then Port. So much for it all being nice and orderly. The Pies’ win over the Crows nearly got them bumped up to 2nd, but to be honest, the game was there for the Crows to win, and they kicked it away, so I’ll keep Collingwood at third.

But really, I’ve got no idea what’s going on (obviously – Taylor Walker finally gets a game for the Crows, and he has a shocker), but let’s break it down: 

For the last spot in the Top 8:

Port plays Carlton (?), Brisbane (L), North (W), which puts them on 10 wins and 1 “maybe”.

Essendon play the Saints (L), Fremantle (W), Hawks (?), which puts them on 9 1/2 wins and 1 “maybe”.

Sydney play Geelong (L), Collingwood (L), Brisbane (L), which leaves them on 8 wins.

Hawks play the Crows (L), Richmond (W), Essendon (?). Which puts them on 9 wins and 1 maybe.

Port are completely useless, Essendon have forgotten how to win, Sydney are dreaming, and the Hawks are a basket case. Does it really matter anymore who gets there?

For the top 4:

Collingwood play Richmond (W), Sydney (W), Bulldogs (?), which puts them on 15 wins and 1 “maybe” – safe for third.

Bulldogs plays Brisbane (?), Geelong (?), Collingwood (?), which puts them on 12 wins and 3 “maybes”.

Brisbane the Bulldogs (?), Port (W), Sydney (W), which puts them on 13 1/2 wins and 1 “maybe”.

Carlton plays Port (?), Melbourne (W), Crows (?), which puts them on 12 wins and 2 “maybes”

Crows play the Hawks (W), Eagles (W), Carlton (?), which puts them on 13 wins and 1 “maybe”.

The Pies are safe for third, the Crows really needed the Lions to lose; a draw did them no favours. At this point I think the Lions will finish 4th, the Crows 5th, Bulldogs 6th, Carlton 7th. 

That would mean the first week of the final would be Saints-Lions; Cats-Pies; Crows-Port; Bulldogs-Carlton.

Though I am sure all that will change by this time next week.

	Rank	LW	Team	Record	Comment
Safe
	1	1↔	St Kilda	19-0	Even with half their side out, they were twice as good as the Hawks.
	2	2↔	Geelong	16-3	After threatening to do so over the past month, the Cats finally lost, and seem to be in a lull. A lot of teams would fancy beating them now.
	3	3↔	Collingwood	13-6	I think the score line flattered the Pies, but let’s be honest, so long as Collingwood don’t win the flag, most people will be happy.
	4	5↑	Adelaide	11-8	The Crows wasted almost every opportunity they had to beat Collingwood. A costly loss. Must beat the Hawks this week, or forget the rest of the year.
	5	4↓	Bulldogs	12-7	How quickly the season can go pear-shaped. That loss will have cost the Bulldogs a top 4 spot.
	6	6↔	Brisbane	11-1-7	Well they did well to come back, and the draw; whoever loses out of them and the Bulldogs this week will miss out on 4th.
	7	7↔	Carlton	11-8	No idea about how to tip Carlton, but as they meet Melbourne in a couple weeks, they’re definitely in the finals
Need	some	wins
	8	10↑	Essendon	8-1-10	The Bombers should have won, but now at least they don’t have to worry about percentage.
	9	8↓	Port Adelaide	9-10	Being a Port supporter this year is not something you’d wish on your worst enemy (which is usually what Port supporters are).
	10	9↓	Hawthorn	8-11	The Saints did all they could to give the Hawks a leg up but they were found to be completely legless.
No	chance
	11	11↔	Sydney	8-11	Sydney keep their mathematical hopes alive for another week.
	12	13↑	West Coast	6-13	The Eagles did some damage to the top of the Premiership table, and have demonstrated that wining sure beats the hell out of being accused of tanking.
	13	12↓	Richmond	5-13-1	The Tigers will do well not to be lapped by Collingwood this week.
	14	14↔	North Melbourne	5-13-1	In the traditional Melbourne derby, North beat the City team by… nah I didn’t care either.
	15	15↔	Fremantle	5-14	With Melbourne and Essendon still to be played, the Dockers could finish on a sort of respectable 7 wins.
	16	16↔	Melbourne	3-16	Great tanking by Melbourne. Kudos all round. Kudos.

Coming Soon: A Golden Six Months?

2009 is turning out to be a fantastic year for Australian film. After the dire state of last year, this year, top quality films done by Aussies seems to be a custom honoured more in the observance than the breach.

We've had the great success of Samson and Delilah - which this week should top $3m in box office; Adam Elliot's follow up to Harvie Krumpet, Mary and Max, which while it has only done a bit over $1m will hopefully find an audience internationally; the adaptation of J.M Coeztee's Disgrace staring John Malkovich, and the rediscovery of the 1971 film, Wake in Fright.

But the next couple of months shape up as being the cream. This week we have Rachel Ward's debut directing gig of Beautiful Kate, the trailer of which seems to convey an overwhelmingly haunting feel (and a great score by Tex Perkins). It will do well to get over $1m, given it's a very adult type drama - not for kids - but it looks fantastic, and top quality work by all involved - and we're talking some of the best in Australian film:



Then next week we have Balibo coming out (13 August) - the preview of which I showed a few week's back. Given the box office of Robert Connolly's The Bank, the excellent profile it has been getting (and will get), not to mention the astounding reviews and Anthony La Paglia's involvement and profile, I'll be stunned if it doesn't go well over $3m.

The week after, a funny little film (which is actually an Israel-Australian co-production), $9.99 opens. It stars Anthony La Paglia, Ben Mendelsohn, Geoffrey Rush, Barry Otto, and Claudia Karvan. The catch is, it is done in stop animation (geez, wouldn't you love that cast in a "live" film?). I'm not sure if it will find an audience, but it certainly is unique. (Can't embed the trailer).

Then we get back into safer territory with the release on 3 September of Charlie and Boots. Haven't heard of it? Don't worry, you will, because it stars Paul Hogan and Shane Jacobson, and those two know how to sell a film better than just about anyone in this country. Jacobson's Kenny made around $8m at the box office. Now I doubt this will make that much, but Hoges's last outing, Strange Bedfellows, (which was done by the same director, Dean Murphy) did $4.8m, and I think this film looks more accessible and has a bigger potential audience. So I have a good feeling about this making at least that much:



Then on 1 October comes Bruce Beresford's adaptation of the big selling memoir by Li Cunxin, Mao's Last Dancer. The trailer was released yesterday. It looks amazing. A friend of mine has read the script, and has been eagerly waiting for a long time for it to finally be completed. The film will be shown at the Toronto Film Festival, and I suspect they'll make a big run for possible Oscar nominations. It has Art Direction and best Costume nominations written all over it, but if the film gets an audience in the US, and some critical acclaim, with Beresford's name attached to it, it could really take off, and we could be starting to talk about bigger categories. Here's hoping.



And to finish off the year, we have Jane Campion's film about the poet John Keats and his muse, Bright Star. It got rave reviews at Cannes, and will be another going for a run at the Oscars:



That's some great films that cover the full breadth of cinema. With luck the next six months may go a good way to killing off the current feeling of trepidation when someone tells you a film is Australian.

Nah, the economy doesn’t need to see a Doctor

You know those annoying guys at work who get a bad cold and yet keep coming to work and end up giving everyone else in the office their cold? They’re they type who say, “Doctors? Pah! Bloody rip-offs, I don’t need to see a Doctor.” And then he gets so ill that he’s forced to go to visit the GP; it turns out he has Bronchitis and gets put on antibiotics – more bloody money wasted. After 2 days he feels better, so no need to keep taking those damn pills, and back to work he goes…. for 2 days before he is back home bedridden and back on more antibiotics after another visit to the doctor.

Well let me introduce you to the Liberal Party of Australia.

Last year the world financial system caught a bloody bad cold. The ALP decided not to wait till the economy flat lined, and introduced a range of stimulus measure – some short term, some mid-term, some long term.

They worked. Retail sales stayed strong, as did housing prices. After a dip in GDP growth, it went back up (no one saw that coming), and unemployment? Well it stayed remarkably firm – not rock solid, and still pretty damn brittle in parts, but a sight better than expected. Today in fact the figures came out at 5.8% – the same as last month. Again well ahead of expectations – and showing an increase in employed persons (due to the increase in part-time work more than offsetting the decrease in full-time labour).

So what was the response of the Liberal Party? Here’s Andrew Southcott:

"Given that we are going to have to pay back the $77 billion that they are spending on stimulating the economy, it's really important that they reassess whether all of this is necessary," he said.

"What this does is really call into question the Government's assumptions about the size of their stimulus package.

Now before I relay his final comment, try and remember what the Liberals have been saying about the Government's stimulus? Yep, that’s right, it’s been a sugar hit – a one off thing that has no long term impact; a “cash splash” (a phrase the Liberal and National Party MPs have used in 92 speeches/questions in the House of Reps this year). Ok, here’s Southcott again:

"The maximum impact of the stimulus payments will not be felt for another 12 months."

Yep a stimulus which was all a sugar hit, is now not going to be felt for 12 months (sounds pretty long time to wait for the sugar to hit, must be that low GI stuff they spruik in the Milo adverts…) and thus the Libs believe Government should wind back the stimulus because errr it stimulated the economy even though it won’t be felt for 12 months…

No one with any nous is suggesting things are all smiles and sunshine for the economy. In fact here’s Malcolm Turnbull on 3 June in Parliament after the positive GDP figures were announced:

So for weeks he [Rudd] goes around the countryside appearing in a hard hat. We do not know whether he is seeking to impersonate Bob the Builder or audition for a part in the Village People—it is hard to say. But, whatever it is, he pops up there in his hard hat. And this process of impersonation is obviously appealing to him because today he decided to impersonate somebody else. He turned up in the press conference for his ‘mission accomplished’ moment. All he needed was a bomber jacket and an aircraft carrier and he would have been impersonating the former President of the United States.

(am I the only one thinking it’s weird that a Liberal Party leader would mock George W Bush, I thought only Mark Latham did that…oh wait he’s the Liberal’s Latham, I keep forgetting that)

So Turnbull thought there was more to be done. What about Joe Hockey? Same day, same line:

However, the weak state of the economy in early 2009 is evident when extracting the external sector, which added 2.2 per cent to GDP in the quarter. Domestic demand fell one per cent. Non-residential construction was down 4.3 per cent. Housing investment fell 5.6 per cent. Equipment investment was down 9.6 per cent. The government say that everything is okay—mission accomplished, they have done it all. Yet the fundamentals behind the headline figures are a major ongoing concern.

So there you have it. Back in June the Libs were criticising the Government for saying the job’s finished, now they telling them that the job is finished and they should stop spending money because the spending of the money is working even though it will only work in 12 months time and thus the Government shouldn’t spend anymore in case the spending of money which was working even though it hasn’t will errr keep working?

I don’t get it either.

All I know, is after spending time trying to keep up with the convoluted and inconsistent logic of the Liberal Party’s economic policies, I need a Bex and a good lie down… I feel like I could be coming down with something.

The Bowels of Despair for Turnbull

Today the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) handed down its report into the OzCar Affair.

Short version - Rudd and Swan given complete exoneration; Godwin Grech has a few questions to answer; Turnbull, completely duped.

Prior to the report coming out Grech gave an interview to The Australian (from a psychiatric ward!) in which he revealed he had faked the email at the centre of the affair, and that he had shown the email to Turnbull and Senator Abetz prior to the Senate hearings into the matter.

First let's look at the Report. Here are the key parts:

Treasury’s response to the various representations varied markedly, from not responding to the representation to providing extensive, ongoing assistance to aid the dealer secure ongoing wholesale floorplan finance. The variability in Treasury’s response did not reflect any instruction on the part of the Prime Minister or his Office, the Treasurer or his Office, or senior Treasury management that some representations were to receive more favourable treatment than others.

(my emphasis).

With respect to John Grant, the mate of Kevin Rudd who was targeted by the opposition, the ANAO found:

Concerning the issue of whether preferential treatment was given to Mr Grant’s case, the Treasurer spoke briefly with Mr Grant, at the request of the Member for Oxley. Treasury was aware that the dealer was acquainted with the Prime Minister, but there is no evidence that the Prime Minister was aware of the representation, or that the Treasurer or his Office applied any pressure on Treasury to give this dealer more or better assistance than others.

The ANAO looked at the 11 dealers who made representations to the Treasurer's Office. Here's what they found:

• five of the representations received very little or no direct assistance from Treasury;

• in another six instances, Treasury provided directly or indirectly a moderate level of assistance (one instance related to the second representation on behalf of the particular dealer, after Treasury did not respond to the initial representation). Principally, this involved providing information on the operation of the SPV and/or referring the dealer to possible alternative financiers. The representations in this category included Dealer 6, Ipswich Central Motors/John Grant Motors; and

• one dealer (Dealer 7) was provided with significantly more assistance than any other dealer, over a longer period of time. Mr Grech, on behalf of Dealer 7, sought to negotiate new wholesale floorplan finance with a number of different financiers, and persisted when initial attempts were unsuccessful (which was different to its approach to a number of other dealers). He also assisted the dealer with advice on options for rearranging the dealer’s finances to assist it obtain ongoing finance. Email correspondence originating from Mr Grech indicated that the Representations to the Department of the Treasury in Relation to Motor Dealer Financing Assistance preferential treatment given to this representation was motivated by, amongst other things, the personal circumstances of the dealer principal and Mr Grech’s understanding that the dealer principal was a supporter of, and donor to, the Liberal Party of Australia, with other records made by Mr Grech stating that ‘I am Lib’. Senior Treasury management were not made aware of the full extent of assistance provided to this dealer and there is no evidence that senior Treasury management were aware of the motivations indicated above.

Yep, the only dealer who got preferential treatment was a dealer who was known to Grech as a Liberal Party donor. Not quite the finding the Liberal Party would have been hoping for.

The report also, I am pretty sure, breaks the ANAO record for the most number of times the phrase "bowel obstruction" is used in one of its reports - it appears Grech is in pretty poor health and a lot of it has to do with his bowels, poor guy. The problems for Malcolm Turnbull are a lot less intestinal, but the end result is still him sitting in the poo.

Turnbull came out this afternoon after the report was released and dumped everything on Grech - claimed he'd been duped (which no doubt he had been), avoided questions about why he trusted Grech - ie refused to say that he had received information from Grech in the past (which it seems pretty clear he had), and when it came to examining his own actions in the matter, he said he wished he hadn't ever met Godwin Grech - ie, don't blame me, I did nothing wrong.

It was a remarkable press conference - Turnbull with all his usual bluff and bluster tried his level best to sound like he was the victim; that Godwin Grech had manipulated him; that he had no reason to doubt Grech, and that he had done nothing wrong or improper.

He kept up with his line that he only based his calls for Rudd and Swan to resign on the basis of Grech's "sworn testimony" before the Senate hearing (forgetting for the moment that such evidence is not actually under oath). This is patently bullshit. Grech (as Annabel Crabbe pointed out in the press conference) was nervous and unsure in this testimony, and put many caveats on the email. Turnbull said he just assumed that was because Grech was under pressure.

Basically Turnbull is trying to make us believe that he didn't believe Grech's email and statements until Grech said them before the Senate committee, but that he also did believe them the whole time and was duped, but that he only acted on what Grech said before the Senate committee and that he believed what he said even though he wasn't very convincing not because he had spoken with Grech before hand but because he just thought Grech was under pressure.

Yeah.... right.

The whole thing stinks. But the thing that stinks the most is this statement from Senator Abetz during the Senate committee hearing back on 19 June (I've taken out the interjections):

Senator ABETZ—A person, a journalist in fact, has suggested to me—That there may have been a communication from the Prime Minister’s office.—Allow me. It was along these lines and I want to know whether it is familiar to Mr Grech: ‘The Prime Minister has asked if the car dealer financing vehicle is available to assist a Queensland dealership, John Grant Motors, who seems to have trouble getting finance. If you could follow up on this as soon as possible, that would be very useful.’ This is what has been suggested to me by somebody, and there is of course the suggestion in today’s media that such a document exists.

This is patently false. Turnbull and Abetx have now admitted that Grech met with them in Turnbull's wife Lucy's office in Sydney on 12 June (7 days before the Senate hearing), and at that meeting Grech showed them a copy of the email (he also gave them a list of questions they should ask at the hearing and during Question Time).

Given that Abetz, Turnbull and the entire Liberal Party were after Swan and Rudd to resign because they lied to Parliament, the fact that Abetz lied during a Senate hearing is of particular import I would think. The ALP and the Greens tried in June to get a hearing into the conduct of the committee, it was voted down by the Liberal and National parties, and Senator Fielding. There should be absolutely no reason for such a hearing being voted down again, and if it is, Fielding (and the Liberal and National Parties) really should be held in contempt by every voter.

OK, the upshot of all of this? Turnbull will stay as leader. There is no one else, and he doesn't need to resign because he hasn't misled Parliament, he's just been incredibly gullible and shown to be lacking in judgement (or at least lacking in the amount of judgement required to be PM). And no one else wants the job anyway. No one volunteers to be Captain of the Titanic after it has hit the iceberg.

The Liberals will now spend the next 18 months hoping that they can get enough MPs into lifeboats, and that not too many Ministers in marginal seats will go down with the ship. Turnbull himself will have to live with the ignominy of being leader by default, and after the election will be asked to resign and fully support either Joe Hockey or Tony Abbott as leader.

Then he'll probably leave politics, and his place in Australian politics will be in the "losers corridor"in Old Parliament House, where the photos of all the leaders of the opposition who never became PM are placed.

AFL Power List: Round 18 (or it’s starting to get tight at the top)

Maybe that was the closest the Saints will get to losing; or maybe it’s the start of things closing up. Geelong and Adelaide could have gone either way, and the way Collingwood beat the Lions suggests they have to be close to being considered the 2nd best side in the comp.

Third and fourth place are still anyone’s, 8th spot, seems now down to 2… or 3… or 4!

Let’s break it down: 

Essendon plays Brisbane (L), Saints (L), Fremantle (W), Hawks (?). Which puts them on 9 wins and 1 “maybe”.

Port plays Fremantle (W), Carlton (?), Brisbane (L), North (W). Which puts them on 11 wins and 1 “maybe”.

Hawks play the Saints (L), Crows (L), Richmond (W), Essendon (?). Which puts them on 9 wins and 1 maybe.

I said last week whoever won out of Port and the Hawks would come 8th. I’ll stand by that. Port to make the finals.

For the top 4:

Bulldogs plays West Coast (W), Brisbane (?), Geelong (?), Collingwood (?). Which puts them on 13 wins and 3 “maybes” plus a good percentage.

Collingwood play Adelaide (?), Richmond (W), Sydney (W), Bulldogs (?). Which puts them on 14 wins and 2 “maybes” plus on ok percentage.

Crows play Collingwood (?), Hawks (W), Eagles (W), Carlton (?). Which puts them on 13 wins and 2 “maybes”.

Brisbane plays Essendon (W), Bulldogs (?), Port (W), Sydney (W). Which puts them on 14 wins and 1 “maybe”.

Carlton plays Geelong (L), Port (?), Melbourne (W), Crows (?). Which puts them on 11 wins and 2 “maybes”

So the big games this week are Crows-Pies and Brisbane-Essendon. The Crows must win if they want to be top 4. If the Pies win, they’ll finish no worse than 4th, if they lose it’ll all come down to the Bulldogs-Pies game in the last round (and the Crows-Carlton game… oh and the Lions-Swans game… look the whole last round is going to be interesting!).

The AFL site has a fun predictive ladder to muck around with. You’ll quickly see no position is set in mud, let alone stone. For instance if results go their way, the Swans could make the finals on 10 wins! Hawthorn, Sydney and Port all have a percentage around 92%. Essendon have a percentage of about 100%, but I can easily see them only finishing on 9 wins. Lets give the Hawks 10 wins. If Port loses to Fremantle at Subiaco (not that impossible), and get beat by Carlton and then Brisbane at the Gabba, it will come down to their last game against North to see if they get to 10 wins.

Sydney has 7 wins, and plays Richmond and (big gulp), Geelong, Collingwood and Lions. OK. A huge ask. But the Geelong and Brisbane games are in Sydney. As the Saints if that was an easy win…. Let’s say they get 2 of those finals three, they’ll be on 10 wins (with a win over Richmond) and will be sweating on Port’s match against North.

All in all, it’s a great season.

	Rank	LW	Team	Record	Comment
Safe
	1	1↔	St Kilda	18-0	They kept their perfect season alive, and now have to get past the Hawks before the easy run home of Essendon, North and Melbourne.
	2	2↔	Geelong	16-2	Geelong rode their luck, and the helpful umpiring to beat the Crows by two points (no I’m not bitter at all).
	3	3↔	Collingwood	12-6	Collingwood saw off Brisbane – if they beat the Crows they can lock in a top 4 spot (and perhaps 2nd on the Power List).
	4	4↔	Bulldogs	12-6	Mid-way through the second quarter, the Bulldogs led by 30 points. And after that it was all even – not a great sign.
	5	6↑	Adelaide	11-7	The Crows won some respect, but they needed the 4 points more.
	6	5↓	Brisbane	11-7	In a tale of 2 halves the Lions were strong, then pathetic.
Need	some	wins
	7	7↔	Carlton	10-8	The Blues did all they could to lose, and yet got up. They would not be inspiring too much hope in any Carlton supporter.
	8	10↑	Port Adelaide	9-9	Port did enough to keep on track their hopes of losing in the first round of the finals.
	9	8↓	Hawthorn	8-10	The Hawks now look no chance to make the finals – unless a lot of results fall their way (which they sort of seem to be).
	10	9↔	Essendon	8-10	The Bombers look to have decided that now is a good time to forget how to win.
No	chance
	11	11↔	Sydney	7-11	Oh so close, and you wouldn’t believe it, but they are still a chance to make the finals. (though I wouldn’t put any money on it).
	12	12↔	Richmond	5-12-1	The Tigers actually want to win – and for that reason alone I hope Rawlings gets the job at the end of the season.
	13	15↑	West Coast	5-13	The Eagles put paid to any talk of tanking. Well done.
	14	13↓	North Melbourne	4-13-1	The Roos, as they always do, tried hard and failed. Nine points in a row? No wonder Buckley turned them down.
	15	14↔	Fremantle	4-14	Fremantle lost, as we all knew they were going to, but not by as much as we thought they would.
	16	16↔	Melbourne	3-15	Have Demons fans ever been more thankful to lose after the siren?

Malcolm's Vision of Australia

Malcolm Turnbull sits down at his desk to write an essay for The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald setting out why Australians should vote for him to be Prime Minister
***
OK... how to start... hmmm a tough question, after all this is a big moment, this is my moment in the sun, my time to show the nation (no the world!!) that I, Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, Rhodes Scholar, winner of all I have touched (well except that Republican thing, but my time will come... err the nation's time will come... when I am PM), the most vibrant, intelligent, over-achieving member of Australian's Parliament ever to set out my vision. It has all led to this, my life till this point has led to me becoming Prime Minister as I rightly deserve to be, and will be, and will ever be (and yes I shall be the greatest PM this nation has ever seen).

Time to set down some thoughts - that pip-squeak, IQ deficient, Mandarin-showing-off nobody of a public servant Rudd needed 6000 words, I only need 7 days to create the world ... (no not yet, keep those thoughts to myself, must not give away my omnipotence), no I only will need 3000 words (must remember to tell Matthew Franklin of The Australian to say it is only 2000 words - heck I'll get him to call it a "streamlined 2000 words", yes that will sound excellent).

What to do - should I start with a Biblical passage? No been doing that in parliament, hasn't seem to have caught on...Plato? No don't want to come over as some sort of philosopher... Maybe quote some Australian poet - show me as a man of the people...hmm Lawson? Judith Wright? John Laws??.... no... need to use my own words (after all they are better than anything anyone else could write, especially that verbose, verbiage devotee Rudd - see, I too can show off my perspicacity! Not like that Bloody Rudd! That little, bloody, fuc... no, no Malcolm. Must remain calm.)

Now, how to start...

I should be succinct and to the point.

I should outline my vision, intelligence and great worth for all to see.

My prose should be poetic and visceral; Hemmingwayesque with a dash of a Shakespearean flourish.

And because that might be a bit of a struggle, I'll also write only one sentence to each paragraph.

Alright, time to get to it, time to take my fountain pen in hand, and with Jeffersonian-like brilliance I shall set out my vision of Australia. I need to find the right words to start.... need to make sure the populous knows where my focus always is....aha! I've got it!

Kevin Rudd's latest manifesto acclaims the years ahead as "the building decade". So far, all the Prime Minister has built is a mountain of debt.
***

Sigh. Alas that is it in a nutshell for Turnbull. Yes, he may have used half the words that Rudd did last week (to which I ask, so?? - since when did being able to write 6000 words become an evil thing - surely having a PM - or opposition leader - who can write is a damn fine thing), but he offered a hell of a lot less than half the vision. All he could focus on was Kevin Rudd and debt.

Let's break it down. Turnbull wrote 3068 words (not sure what Matthew Franklin was on about with his 2000 words line). Of those words, I shall be generous and say 34 were on policies that the Liberal Party would put forward in government. Here they are:

Drawing on what we have learned, we have proposed a number of measures: tax loss carrybacks, fairer insolvency rules, better incentives for hiring apprentices and an assault on bureaucratically imposed regulation and compliance costs.

Yep, the small business measures that he came up with late last year, and which he put forward in his Budget Reply speech that had everyone thinking, huh? that's it?.

Thirty four words, or 1.1% of his essay on positive reasons why people should vote for the Liberal Party.

By contrast he wrote "debt" 26 times! He wrote "Rudd"31 times and "Prime Minister" 7 times. He is more focused on criticising Kevin Rudd (whom he mostly just refers to as "Rudd" - like he is some impostor who doesn't deserve to be called by his title) than outlining his plan for the future.

The reason for this has been obvious to all to see for some time now - Malcolm Turnbull's only vision for Australia is that he be Prime Minister, because he should be Prime Minister.

Lindsay Tanner has rightly pegged the essay as "a rant". It truly is, and contains only one sentence of any worth:

Australians are not gullible.

Given that Rudd leads Turnbull as preferred PM by 66% to 16%, I can say I fully agree with him.