Don't Risk Howard (& Costello)?

Even though it's yet to be called, everyone knows that the federal election is not far away. It's clear that campaigning is now fully underway, as not only have policies (to a greater or lesser extent) been released, so the mud is being slung.

While the behaviour of a number of politicians right across the spectrum has been particularly abysmal lately, I had to have a chuckle at the Nationals' 'Don't Risk Rudd' campaign. Not because of what they're trying to say, but the way they're trying to say it. 

The assumption that change=risk (so that one can minimise or even eliminate risk by minimising or eliminating change) seems to be behind this fallacious slogan. Even leaving aside that great rewards are hardly ever won without great risk, there are times that small change (or even none) is more risky than great change. Of course, whether not that is now the case is the subject of many and varied opinions. 

Though change may seem risky, not changing (or at least attempting not to change) may actually be more so. Just ask the coalition front bench.