What a dilema for anti-Labor

I can't be the only person who's enjoying the obvious schizophrenia (in the common, useful, albeit mistaken sense of the word) that is happening to Andrew Bolt and the other anti-Labor columnists re the Abbott government.

One minute, he is taking the small government, anti tax, IPA line that the budget is a problem because it doesn't really cut spending at all;  next he's going with the line that "the Liberal's cure hurts" but is warranted.

Can someone give him a nudge and tell him that these aren't exactly consistent positions?  Or does he take the line that cutting down on welfare benefits is always warranted, regardless of it not having an effect on the budget bottom line? 

The funniest thing of all, though, was in Annabel Crabb's column on the obvious casting about for something positive to say that about a budget that's gone over about as well as the plague.   She noted this about Alan Jones:

Increased petrol taxes? And no tub-thumpers angry? Surely Alan Jones would stay strong. If Julia Gillard had hiked fuel excise, Alan Jones would instantly have recommended firing her into space, and hang the expense.

But on budget morning, when the Prime Minister reported for his Jonesian rub-down, he received nothing but approval for pricier fuel.

''There are legitimate reasons around the world for this,'' avowed Jones sternly. ''One is to stop the guzzling of a scarce resource.''

Hilarious.