There's a word for people too worried about their egos and not the people they serve

Ditto the Labor Party. Whether you're a full-on climate change dramatist, a denier or somewhere in between you ought to be able to grasp the fact that arguing about a target is not the main game.

Investing in things that work is what's important.

It's called getting the job done. Climate change policy is littered with big announcements. Delivery of effective outcomes just hasn't had the follow-up it should have had. In any policy area, the cabinet decision and the policy announcement are just the beginning. The twinkle in the eye. It's a long way down the road until that baby is born and becomes a useful citizen.

Within the Liberal Party the policy argument seems a vehicle for leadership ambitions. Do these guys not realise how deeply shallow they look? Do they understand that what voters see is a few guys who put their own not inconsiderable egos and ambition ahead of being a team player. The appropriate term rhymes with banker.

Voters understand the need for working as a team. That's what they have to do in their workplace. They just shake their heads at people who, on the public purse, put their own interest ahead of the team. Not only at work but in sports, voters see what damage someone who puts their own interest ahead of the team can do. No, they are not happy with their taxes paying for that.

Not only can voters spot the would-be wunderkinds masquerading as saviours, they have other concerns as well.

We all know that everyone, almost every voter, has their own set of challenges to deal with. They battle on, handling life. They may be being bullied at work, their small business might be struggling to survive through bad debts, maybe they have a chronically or terminally ill parent or child, their marriage is falling apart. The list could go on. People just knuckle down and cope with life.

Understandably, against that backdrop, seeing politicians pretending to be altruistic as they peddle their self-interest gets a very low mark.

For voters, battling with some harsh realities of everyday life, a few guys thinking that a climate change target for a quarter of a century from now is important is ridiculous.

We've all seen policy commitments made in one term of government having to be curtailed or cancelled in the next. Who knows what science will tell us over the next six years let alone 25? What would you say about a tax cut promised for 2050?

Without focusing on getting practical results, you probably won't get very far. If we could add up how much climate change money has been wasted by poor project choices and management we would be devastated.

Remember, your views on climate change in this argument don't matter. It's whether you think effective policies are more important than grandiose if hollow announcements.

What we should be looking at is the cost of a policy compared to what it delivers. The cost isn't always in money, although it may be.

A project to plant trees, for example, may be a good idea. Unless you plant the wrong trees for that area, which are so thirsty they drain the water table. Wind farms should be judged not only by what they produce but what they cost in dollars, in mining to produce them and in disposal costs. Ditto solar panels and add to that concern the cost of ripping out so much valuable agricultural land.

Effective policy making and implementation are worth discussing and arguing about. A target 25 years out is a joke.

If one wanted to show that one was an ideal future leader, you'd behave like one. Instead of being a wrecking ball on your own team, you'd take a bat to the other side.

You might highlight how they've dug themselves into a policy hole and they're dragging us down with them. Slowly, the wheel has turned. The UN Secretary-General is still waxing lyrical about emissions and targets. He, like Labor, is slow to catch on.

Not so Bill Gates. He has changed course and is over climate alarmism. He wants economies to be strong so they can, in fact, help those most in need. Our Labor government needs to be hounded into facing reality. They need to change course. That's one attack position.

The other is that even if they refuse to change course their current policies are just a mess. They should be held to account for that. It would be child's play.

Just pick up a couple of their climate policies that aren't delivering and pursue the government over their failure. Keep asking when the policy was approved, what warnings were given, what reporting and follow-up mechanisms were put in place and what was done as soon as warning bells began to ring. Government is about much more than mere announcements.

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Policy stuff-ups are just that. Stuff-ups. No one intentionally messes up. Sometimes ideas that sound good turn out to be sound. Like the reintroduction of wolves to Yosemite National Park. The result is a spectacular regeneration of the park because the natural system has been given a chance. In stark contrast, there is Chairman Mao's decision to include sparrows in the four pests to be obliterated in the 1950s. Messing with nature went badly and millions of human deaths are attributed to that well-meaning, but in the end ludicrously stupid decision.

To be fair, a coterie of Labor acolytes attempt to portray any person who queries the effectiveness of climate change policies as being a climate change denier. It's a weird twist because if you are a believer, you want an effective policy. But that's just how low we've sunk in terms of our capacity to engage in meaningful debate. A would-be leader would happily shoulder that burden. A good leader would turn the tables right back on them as being profligate spenders to build their image rather than to achieve decent outcomes.

READ MORE AMANDA VANSTONE:

You may not be an AFL fan. (I'm a Port Adelaide member). But imagine your team hasn't had a great run. You work together to sort new strategies. Then on game day, you decide at one point to go down the side rather than through the centre. It's tough going. Then some would be, could be star grabs the ball and goes for running it down the centre. Not for him, the team play. He wants to be a star. Seriously, that's what you're looking at. Some whackers whose egos are just out of hand.

Yes, the National Party jumped ahead and made their decision. Big deal. Short-term publicity never wins out over serious policy development in any event. But the Nats big policy is about a target in 2050. Whoopee. How brave. It only shows how out of touch they are. It's no surprise the ABC describes this abysmal incapacity to see the real issues as "taking the lead".

The choice is Ley and a team committed to proper, inclusive policy development, or a few people want to jump the gun on a target for 2050. I know which horse I'd back.

Understand this. People have real lives, and for everyone, there are problems and heartache to handle. For them, a politician spending time putting themselves ahead of the team is the last person they ever want running the country. For Aussies just coping, maybe really struggling with what life serves up, politicians squabbling in Canberra within and between parties is a cruel joke.