Prime Minister John Howard has shown today that despite all the recent bad publicity, he is still an exceptional politician by splintering Labor on the issue of Queensland's council amalgamations.
According to the polls Mr Howard has been under fire for being 'out of touch'. He's been advised to take the initiative off Labor Leader Kevin Rudd by targetting the under-performing States.
In one move he has addressed both issues.
Mr Howard has placed a wedge between Mr Rudd, who supports voluntary council amalgamations, and Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, who is in the act of forcing unpopular mandatory council mergers upon the people of Queensland.
What has galled many rural residents is the fact that their promised referendum on the issue has now been banned by Mr Beattie.
Enter Mr Howard proving he is still 'in touch' with voters concerns, promising to pay for the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct plebiscites for councils who wish to hold a vote.
But for all the clever politics, will it make any difference?
Mr Beattie thinks not, arguing that his legislation has banned such referenda, meaning Mr Howard may in fact be guilty of aiding in the conduct of an illegal act.
Even so, the move will expose Mr Beattie to the true level of discontent at the amalgamation policy, while also allowing Mr Howard to show the value of having a political counterweight to the dominance of Labor at state level.
What do you think?