This is bad, because a lot of policy statements are made which subsequent events show are poorly thought through (Rudd’s never ever deficit, for instance? The Victorian desalination plant?) Rather than recognising that sometimes one has to rethink ones’ positon, changes are always referred to as backflips or backdowns and so to change ones policy has come to be seen as undignified. This can only further ossify government and society.

Consider for example, Keating’s vicarious agitations for Howard and Costello’s tax cuts to be re-directed to superannuation. Evidently, he was right. Australia’s super funds, of which Andrew Robb on the Insiders program (30th Nov 2008) so fondly spoke of as a source of economic liberation, with some regulatory tweaking, was a far-sighted piece of public policy and an economic mitigation scheme du jours.

The problem is however, that both the Government and opposition have drifted into what may best be described as “howzat! I caught you out, Howzat!” mentality, to borrow an old 70’s pop lyric-come de facto sporting creed.

Where are the creative thinkers? And moreover, where is the policy engagement by politicians? The extraordinary world events of late; the chaos and mass hysteria, require talented, visionary and most importantly, forward-thinking people. Against the backdrop of a world in disarray, people look to our leaders to replace order and structure back to their lives. Alas, a cursory scan of the faces of the opposition benches reveals a line-up of blasé, apathetic and horrendously jovial faces. On the other hand, look at Minister Penny Wong speak about a water issue, or the uneasy countenance of Wayne Swan as he makes a commentary on an economic event. Their faces appear sombre, their hearts heavy, their brows furrowed, reflecting the seriousness of their respective portfolio areas, and yet they offer poise and the re-assurance of the most elemental grasp of their brief. They engender a feeling that “Hey, I’m on top of it”, or “I’ve been working on this all night..”. No clever jibes, or thin-veneer of humour to divert lack of ability, just plain no-nonsense deliveries.

Incidentally, the so-called gaffes and slip-ups which the Liberals are peddling, show me essentially that these people are human. Howard did it when he couldn’t recall the name of a Tasmanian liberal colleague. Rudd allegedly did it in sniping at Bush, and Bishop really did it when she couldn’t recall the official interest rate of the period. There are, after all faux pas, minor errors, or outright blunders.

When either Keating or Costello (excuse me mentioning the latter in the same sentence), attacked someone, there was an underlying respect or dare I say it quite perversely, a certain affection for their unfortunate target.

With minor exceptions, the opposition ranks, are bereft of anyone remotely formidable in their area. Dr Nelson, a bright star on the team was given a celebrity makeover with a done-over variation. Equally, Kim Beazley, an intellectual giant given a Work-Choices-esque voluntary redundancy, and who could forget Peter “the amputated spirit” Costello?

The Bishop agitations have highlighted more than anything else I think, the over-abundance of unintelligent, slow to comprehend, rapid-fire drivel front-benchers of the opposition. The liberals are caught in a rip, a vortex shedding gravitational drag pool of talent. She occupies a position, whose occupants were a colossus, and despite a palpable erudition, it is difficult to see and any economic policy coming from her.

Turnbull seeks to end Bishop bashing

I LOL but probably shouldn’t. I suppose it’s better than “Turnbull seeks to end Monkey Spanking” but not much.

Does anyone know what it was about?

If we must compare her to Gillard (and whatever is the point of that, except that they are both women, which is of course the only thing about them that most male journalists can register — they’re women and therefore they must be the same, right? It’s the obvious basis for comparison) then perhaps we could start with the fact that Bishop can’t think her way out of a Harrods bag and Gillard has a mind like an embroidery needle.

Bad idea, making a token appointment to such an exposed position. The Libs should have given it more thought. Bishop got deputy because she’s a woman. Gillard got deputy because she’s Gillard.

One of the most toe-curlingly embarrasing moments I’ve seen in Parliament.

Takes a bit of mental adjustment to think of her as a feminist.

As far as I can see he has not made one policy error, has sailed his ship dead on course through stormy seas, and, to continue the metaphor, has left his opposite numbers, both in parliament and in television debate, floundering in his wake.

What does the poor sod have to do to convince people of his exceptional abilities? True he does not have film star looks, but neither does he resemble a dead fish like his current counterpart (the eyes, the eyes), and his monotone delivery has substance, unlike the empty thought bubbles emanating from his previous treasury rival, the leader of the opposition.

Any opinions?