Had Kevin Rudd not had the good fortune to make an advantageous marriage, then we can probably assume that the considerable wealth of his would-be nemesis Malcolm Turnbull could be more of an issue in public discussion than it is.

As things stand, Mr Turnbull’s rumoured $130million fortune and its occasional gain-seeking peregrinations are only sometimes the stuff of open debate. It would be awkward, after all, to call the kettle gilded when we are the jewel encrusted samovar. All that said, the politics of what might reasonably be thought to constitute “envy” sometimes raise their head … as they did yesterday, when treasurer Wayne Swan poked at Turnbull for some quick exits the Opposition leader made in the past fortnight from certain property based investments under pressure.

“Mr Turnbull, on the one hand, was saying the global financial crisis was over-hyped and, on the other hand, he was moving his own funds out of the system,” the Treasurer told Sydney radio 2GB yesterday. “That tells you something about Mr Turnbull’s double standards.”

If Turnbull’s wealth, or for that matter Rudd’s, is any sort of political point then it should only be to their credit. It speaks volumes for the character of such high net-worth individuals that they are prepared to sacrifice the earning capacity of private enterprise for the more meagre returns of public service. Politicians willing to make that sort of sacrifice should be treasured not pilloried. One imagines that many, particularly on the conservative side of politics, wish that there were more in their ranks prepared to follow in Turnbull’s footsteps and forego earnings in favour of a tour of political duty. We’d all be the richer of they would. Cop that Michael Kroger.

“Malcolm Turnbull’s election as Liberal leader has dramatically cut Kevin Rudd’s leadership advantages and restored the Coalition’s credentials as economic managers at a time of global financial crisis.”

Wow. It’s not until the seventh paragraph that we learn that despite this romping return to form “the primary vote did not change outside the margin of error”. It isn’t until midway through the piece that we discover the vast bulk of voters – 61% – who think Malcolm Turnbull is an arrogant tosser.

Great to have Shanahan back in the game.

Good lord what can they mean? It’s been one of those weeks in which the politics of politics resolutely becomes the story. But here, with this little effort, The Australian has gone to the head of the class. What they mean, of course, is that Malcolm Turnbull has reclaimed the natural ascendency that conservatives have when it comes to the discussion of serious things like Economics. Regular readers will recall the doggedness with which the paper held to the notion through last year that whatever the headline polling figures might say, John Howard’s edge as “preferred economic manager” would see the Liberals through.

Yup. This headline says some troubling things about the quality of our political discussion. The fact is that the only economic debate that seems to count in this country is the meta-chat about who said what in talking the whole thing down, about where inflation came from and under whose watch. There is no particular difference in actual economic approach between the two major parties. There is no discussion, other than the sort of cheap inward looking talk that follows an overlong examination of competing navels.

We’d be better served if the discussion got real. People are poor. Kids sleep on the streets. Houses are expensive. Hospitals struggle to cope. Teachers are paid a pittance. Rivers are running dry. The Australian economy bobs like a cork in a turbulent global pool. Regional communities are dysfunctional and in decline. Malcolm Turnbull has reclaimed nothing.