Mark Blumsky’s crocodile tears about the tribal nature of Parliament leaves me absolutely gobsmacked. What planet did this cretin drop from? Before he agreed to stand as a candidate someone in the National Party should have explained to him that politics is a dog-eat-dog business, a sometimes torrid contest of ideas, where only the fit and the able and the committed really prosper. And, yes, it is tribal, because we have a philosophical divide that the health of our democracy depends on, and on each side of that divide there is a ‘common culture’ linked by social and philosophical ties, which pretty much defines what tribes are, doesn’t it? Didn’t Blumsky know this in advance? Was he the target of a great confidence trick? Can it really be true that after two years in Parliament, during which there have been some robust debates about the role of the state and the future of the planet, and social issues like family violence, drinking laws and the future of our education system, all Blumsky has to say about Parliament is that there’s lots of security guards and machines, and that Parliament is its own bubble. What sort of selection system unearthed this impostor?