“It’s a so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no-one.” Tony Abbott.

Sometimes one can use too many double negatives and try to sound far too clever by making a statement which when it fails to be analysed is all right but because of the overly complicated nature of the said statement one suspects that the person who made the statement didn’t not ask someone else to look at it and tell said person that it was clever.

Or to ask the obvious questions:

1. Why is it a “so called market”? Are things not bought and sold? In what ways does this fail the test of being a market.
2. If a substance is one which is not delivered, and it’s not delivered to “no-one” does that mean that it IS delivered to someone? Or does it mean that it IS delivered to everyone?
3. Are we to presume that the fact it’s invisibility somehow makes it somehow less real? Are we to apply this standard to other invisible things and dismiss them because no-one can see them? Australia’s borders, honesty, carbon monoxide, God, radiation, the Internet, friendship, Liberal policies, love, the intelligence of Andrew Bolt fans, family, and so on?
4. Will we see an opinion poll taken in the days after that comment?
5. Has the several billion dollar cost (variable depending on which Shadow Minister was talking) been factored into the Liberal’s alternative budget, given they were saying that it’ll leave far too big a hole in Labor’s budget?
6. How long will it be before someone asks Turnbull why the “inventor of the Internet in Australia” hasn’t taken his invention overseas?
7. Three weeks ago you could get odds of 10-1 about Labor to win. Now it’s less than 2-1. Has Abbott backed them and is he deliberately throwing the election? If this were Racing, the stewards would be launching an inquiry.

Without Peter Costello, Tony Abbott really is starting to look like one of The Three Stooges. (No offence to The Three Stooges intended). Cheers!