And I have little sympathy for him and the government when it comes to facing a hostile Senate and the state of the economy.

After the events of 1975 and the denial of supply to the Whitlam government and John Howard’s fudging of the unfair dismissal laws when he got control of the Senate, the conservatives have no right to complain, I reckon.

So far as the economy goes, all sorts of figures are thrown around in the media and, as most of us are not economists, it is hard to know who to believe.

But there are some basic philosophies I think we can base our opinions on.

Generally, the conservatives are not known for bringing in major policies with a view to the future, other than financial, with some benefiting more from them than others.

They also seem to have a belief that if you make the pointy end of town wealthier, then there will be some sort of wonderful trickle- down effect that apparently will benefit the rest of us.

Labor, on the other hand, usually has tangible visions for the future and then tries to implement them without considering how to pay for them.

Its supporters also seem to have a general distaste for the wealthier among us and don’t seem to concern themselves with worrying about killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Neither party seems focused on providing support to the real potential economic powerhouse in this country — small business, especially in regional Australia.

The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments had to face a global financial crisis — which people now don’t seem to think was a big deal — but still managed to have a AAA credit rating with the three major organisations that provide the ratings. That, I am told, was the first time this has happened in our history.

The figures in relation to debt as a percentage of GDP were also handy compared with just about every other country.

One of Labor’s big problems was the reduction of the revenue it was banking on to fund its big programs.

But I am told (and no doubt someone will tell me if I am wrong) John Howard would have missed 10 of his budget outcomes if he had the same revenue available to him that Labor had.

The Howard government went 50 consecutive months with negative current account figures.

Now, as I said before, I’m no economist but that meant that for more than four years, we were importing more in dollar terms than we were exporting — in the middle of a mining boom.

As to how responsible a government is for that I don’t know but both sides always seem to keep a close eye on the figures and look to bash the government in power if they don’t look good.

But I reckon both sides are missing the point.

And, at the risk of sounding like a worn-out record (for our younger readers they’re the vinyl things that look like oversized CDs) the future of this country lies in agriculture and regional Australia.

But both sides of politics, which are mostly city-centric except for the Nationals, don’t seem to realise that and we never seem to hear about a vision for the future that includes massive infrastructure for regional Australia and agriculture and using manufacturing to value-add to our products before we ship them overseas.

Apparently governments have to spend all our money in cities when it comes to infrastructure, rather than spending it where it can to the most good for our country.

But why?

If you choose to live where the roads are choked, public transport is a joke and your environment is horribly polluted rather than enjoying a wonderful lifestyle in the bush then that’s your problem.