The term "spearhead" used to really annoy me, until I realised how revealing it is of those who use it.
For a start, "spearhead" is not a verb. It is a noun, an inert and senseless object which has no force and no sense of direction until it is given these qualities by someone else. It is passive, it is primitive, it is limited in what it can really achieve by itself or in concert with others.
I agreed with Scott Prasser in his critique of Wyatt Roy and the fools who made him possible, until he came out with this:
"Now I think this [preselecting a candidate for a marginal Labor-held seat] is an opportunity for the LNP to recruit people of experience, so they can go into Parliament to play the bigger game of spearheading attacks on the Government and developing policy.
Spearheads don't develop policy, and you don't have to be terribly sophisticated to see this bunch of, er, spearheads coming at you and take appropriate action.
This kid is a spearhead: wording crafted by others is tumbling out of his face without any appreciation of what a well-run hospital is, as opposed to a badly-run one; or whether hospitals are all there is to the public health? He doesn't appear to know what it means to say that Tony Abbott is "authentic", which is another way of saying both a) that Tony Abbott does whatever the hell Tony Abbott wants, motherfucker, and b) that being nerdy can't possibly be authentic. Is Wyatt Roy as "authentic" as Tony Abbott?
Is he any more of a spearhead than a trivia-quiz-answer like Don Cameron? Is he a more effective spearhead than Peter Dutton, who might have won both preselection and the seat itself?
Do you want a spearhead representing you in Parliament? If not, what are your options?