On the surface it was another political ''gotcha'' - Tony Abbott uses morning radio to lambast Julia Gillard for ''swanning'' around New York ''talking to Africans'' about her bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council when she should be in Jakarta talking border security with the Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

Cue the acting Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, to point out that President Yudhoyono is in New York at the UN meeting as well. Snap.

(The two leaders don't have a formal, scheduled bilateral meeting - but ''gotchas'' aren't really reliant on such finicky details - and they are attending several events in common.)

Just another mistake of the kind that happens to politicians of all persuasions, amplified, and then quickly discarded, by the 24-hour news cycle? In part.

But the normally disciplined Coalition leader is making more of these kinds of blunders, in part because his simple, slogan-style - and to date very successful - political messaging isn't as well suited to more nuanced debate.

It's a particular problem when his policy is seeking to appeal to both sides of an issue at the same time.

The opposition spokeswoman on foreign affairs, Julie Bishop, confirmed yesterday that in principle the Coalition supports Australia seeking a seat on the Security Council, but in practice opposes the way Labor's campaign has been run and its timing.

Handled deftly, this is a Coalition position that avoids appearing inward looking or isolationist. It ducks a tricky debate about the general wisdom of making the bid but allows the Coalition to criticise the cost and the diversion of aid and diplomatic effort to the African nations whose votes we need, to the dereliction of our Asia-Pacific ''backyard''. It means the Coalition can avoid being blamed if the bid fails, and can happily continue with the rest of the time on the council if the bid succeeds and the Coalition wins the next election.

Handled ineptly … well it winds up exactly where the Opposition Leader found himself yesterday.

Similarly, in a speech in China, he inflamed the foreign investment debate, including the one inside his party, by stating it would ''rarely be in Australia's interests to allow a foreign government or its agencies to control an Australian business''.

It took weeks of clarification, finally smoothed over by a foreign investment ''discussion paper'' that allowed the Nationals and rural Liberals to argue they would be tougher, while everyone else in the Coalition pointed to the fact that the ''national interest test'' against which investment bids are assessed would remain the same. But any time a Chinese investor looks at Cubbie station or Tasmanian dairy concerns, trouble can again arise.

Even Abbott's original political battering ram of the carbon tax is getting more complicated.

Last month he was cornered for saying BHP Billiton's decision to defer the expansion of its Olympic Dam mine was the fault of the carbon and mining taxes, when the company had said it was not - and then for saying he had not read the company's statements, and the next day saying he had.

By yesterday's close, Abbott's office was saying he had been making a point about ''prime ministerial priorities'', which sounds like a Coalition government would not deem a bid for a Security Council seat - even one well handled and well timed - a priority.

Another Gotcha Moment For Gunslinger Abbott