International Monetary Fund rains on the Coaltion's parade and other Turnbull woes

Peter Martin said it first and said it best in his post Stop laughing:

This is serious
So says the IMF, consigning the Australian Opposition's proposed recovery program to the dustbin of "neat idea, but..."
Australia's Treasury isn't keen on some of the Opposition's claims either

The International Monetary Fund has given the Australian Government the green light to spend even more to fight recession, taking a swipe at the alternative of tax cuts proposed by the Opposition, declaring its effects "not so dramatic".

In a detailed analysis released in Washington overnight IMF staff find that direct government investment of the kind included in the Rudd government's stimulus packages can boost the economy by as much as $3 for every $1 spent.

By contrast income tax cuts of the kind proposed by the Opposition would boost the economy by just 30 cents for each $1 spent.

Which didn't say much for Malcolm Turnbull's chances of having the Australian electorate take his economic policies seriously either.

Then Crikey's Bernard Keene came forth with a dissection of Turnbull's interview style which exposed a little more political Archilles heel:

Turnbull does a lot of nuance. His economic message on the stimulus packages -- support for the first package then criticising its impact, opposition to the second package but support for a smaller package of tax cuts and infrastructure investment in the event the Senate blocked it -- has more nuance than, well, Nuanced Jack McNuance, winner of this year's Mr Nuance competition.

Malcolm Turnbull and his alternative government hardly fared any better in the mainstream media, with his latest essay in The Weekend Australian pointing to the Prime Minister's so-called hypocrisy and snidely congratulating Rudd and Rein on their wealth (while conveniently ignoring his own wealth generated from the same economic free-for-all climate) thudding dully onto the ground without an iota of critical acclaim and little impact in the latest Newspoll which sees him trailing Kevin Rudd by a massive 40 points as preferred prime minister.

To make matters worse for the Member for Wentworth, former federal treasurer Peter Costello is also reported to have a two to one advantage over him when it comes to who Australians might prefer as prime minister and:

On the question of who would make the better Liberal leader, Mr Costello heads Mr Turnbull by 45 to 38 per cent, according to the latest Newspoll survey conducted exclusively for The Australian last weekend.

The Piping Shrike points to another facet of the Rudd-Turnbull contest for hearts and minds:

The main problem with Turnbull’s response is that while it is largely correct on the past, it has nothing to say about what needs to be done now.

But this still doesn't fully explain why is he faring so badly when his principal opponent is a prime minister (with all the charisma of a box of Wheet Bix) saddled with the global financial crisis and half-baked climate change policy?

Is it only the fact that the coalition Turnbull fronts is still in disarray after its morale shaking electoral defeat in 2007?
Or is it the fact that Malcolm always comes across as a man who plots his policy positions as the after dinner port is past around and is only playing at being a politician while he waits for the next 'great opportunity' to come along?