TONY Abbott’s proposal that the taxpayer pick up some of the cost of nannies for wealthy working mums is part of a strategy to make the Liberal leader appear more “woman friendly”.

It doesn’t matter that most of his front bench disagrees, that it would be impossible to administer, that it’s expensive, wasteful, middle-class welfare and wide open to systematic rorting.

All these objections are mere fripperies beside the essential imperative: to create for Tony an acceptable image among women voters.

It has dawned on the Coalition that while Labor is deeply vulnerable, the one great impediment is the man who leads them. Women don’t like him, so the plan is to push ahead with his “Rolls Royce” maternity payment and anything else they can think of to burnish his appeal to the fairer sex.

Nice idea. But along came Germaine Greer on the ABC’s “Q&A” program with her admonition to Julia Gillard to abandon her fancy jackets and come to terms with her ample bottom (to put it more politely than Germs).

Greer got her laugh and there it should have ended. But then Abbott made the mistake of jumping delightedly on the Greer sneer. Just couldn’t help himself. And in a single unguarded moment he undid all that earlier posturing.

In fact, I think it’s a much more serious mistake than he – or the Liberals – realise. You see, what totally escapes them is that every woman in Australia over 16 thinks her bum’s too big. It’s one thing for someone of their own sex to use it as a throwaway line, but quite another for a man to say it. And for Abbott to revel in the put down was just, well, insupportable.

Now I don’t expect a sudden reversal of the polls showing the Libs losing their election-winning lead based on a silly remark. But I’d lay odds that Abbott’s personal popularity continues its downward slide. And this must finally focus attention on the elephant in the Liberal Party room: when will Malcolm Turnbull make his move on the leadership?

At the moment, because of his stand on climate change, he is regarded as the one “man of principle” in the party and perhaps the entire Parliament. But the fact is that he is prepared to remain in the shadow cabinet while he disagrees with some of the most fundamental policies Abbott is actively promoting.

Climate change is the most obvious one and Abbott is basing his entire campaign on an attack on a policy to which Turnbull is totally committed. Another is gay marriage – Turnbull and Abbott are diametrically opposed. Another is Abbott’s Rolls Royce maternity leave. Turnbull thinks it’s nuts. Another is foreign investment – Abbott wants tighter conditions; Turnbull favours the status quo. Another is protection posing as “food security” – Abbott is for, Turnbull against.

But the real clincher is the NBN, which Abbott ordered Turnbull to “destroy” when he put him in charge of the shadow portfolio. What a joke. Turnbull has attacked it with all the concentrated political artillery of a broken popgun. He actually believes in it.

Perhaps the real point is this: how long can you call yourself a “man of principle” when you’re prepared to fight an election on policies you abhor?

robert@robertmacklin.com