This quote -- in various forms -- is usually attributed to Keynes, though it actually seems to originate with Paul Samuelson:

"DR. SAMUELSON: ...Different editions of my textbook have been quoted. In the first edition I said a five percent rate is tolerable. Then I worked it down to three percent and then down to two percent and the AP carried a wire “Author Should Make Up His Mind.” Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?"

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/22/keynes-change-mind/

I'd rather have a peck of rationality from our politicians than a bushel of consistency.

You assert some of these people ideas are unhinged but I think your opinions are debatable.
What's wrong with renationalising public utilities?

Let me ask you everything sold to the Chinese do you think they'd sell it back?
Do you think things in our country could actually belong to Australians again?
Fat chance, they aren't going to sell any of it back, we're tenants in our own country now.
What side are you on?

Ron Paul never opposed the Civil Rights act, He opposed the Fair Housing Act which is part of that legislation.
Honestly I think home owners have the right to choose whoever they want to live in their home.
If they don't like or trust someone, for whatever reason, they have the right of refusal because its their house.

And why shouldn't states have the right to succeed from the Union if the Federal Government tries to overreach in its powers upon the states?
The United States was formed yes, as states first, and the Federal government has no right to infringe upon states rights.

Lincoln wasn't so much interested in slaves as he was in saving the Union, and the southern states had all the wealth and power.
He also suggested deporting slaves to new British Colonies.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

He was killed because he issued the Greenback and stopped interest going to Private Central Banks.
Which is pretty important in a way since Ron Paul is the only one who wants to Audit the Fed.
Which is why people are willing to walk across the country for him.

He says a lot of intelligent things to be honest and I don't see that same level of wisdom in your article.
Being consistent on these issues is right and just.
If he flip-flopped then he'd just be another bought-and-paid-for quisling like the rest of em.
Its not actually his consistency, its his integrity first.

Sure consistency isn't always the best policy for when situations change but when they don't change its the right thing to stand your ground for the principles you believe in.

Politicians are one trick ponies. If they try to vary the trick, they end up floundering. Of course, they never try anything new, innovative, or a trick outside their ideological comfort zone. The tired old party dogma is all they know. But, it seems to fool the voter-drones all the time.

There was a study in a US management journal that claimed that female managers were not as ethically consistent in their decision-making as male managers. When this issue was probed further it was found that the female managers were actually considering a larger number of ethically relevant issues than the male manager, and this led to them making different decisions in cases that seemed to be alike if only a narrower range of ethical issues were considered.

The same is undoubtedly true in politics. If politicians judge all issues in terms of a small range of simple criteria, they will display more apparent consistency than if they consider a wider range of criteria. A simple example: Minister X approves Project A that will create 100 jobs but doesn't approve Project B that would also have created 100 jobs. If one thinks the only relevant consideration is the number of jobs created then Minister X could be criticised for inconsistency. However, if we learn that Project B would emit high levels of a hazardous waste and project A would not, the charge of inconsistency doesn't hold.

The author asked the wrong question. If we truly expect our politicians to be leaders and managers, we would not choose the ones we do.

A quick review of the 7- or 10- or even 25-desirable qualities of good managers is relevant. My guides to this are the top half dozen hits of a Google search.

Consistency scores few if any mentions. It is irrelevant.

Here are ten:

Superior communication skills.
Transparency and honesty.
Supporting employees with clear and achievable direction.
Embracing technology.
Motivating with positive feedback and recognition.
Expertise in the field.
Mediating with productivity and calmness.
Promoting cross-level and cross-functional collaboration.
Creating a productive and lively work environment.
Trusting the employees.

Consistency might be desirable but is not essential. It comes from application of the top ten - any top ten.

British Labour's current leader is not the only politician who fails the Top Ten Test of managers.

Some examples:
Tony Abbott
Kevin Rudd
Joh Bjelke-Petersen
Clive Palmer

A good memory is needed to find pollies who would pass the test.
About 50% of Independents. (That's why the major parties dislike them)
Ted Mack
Tony Windsor

Why do we consistently get it so wrong?

The author citing examples from the UK and the US, to argue his case, is unconvincing.

The result of the latest IPSOS-Fairfax public opion poll demonstrates how unpopular political inconsistency is in Australia. Here's the proof http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/voters-expected-more-poll-20160417-go8b73.html .

Turnbull is being caned and canned, with sinking popularity, due to his inconsistency over tax policies. The public takes a dim view of Turnbull touting a bright tax idea (1. GST, 2. State income tax?) one week then shying away and cancelling the idea the next.

It depends on what kind of consistency we're talking about. Australian politicians from all sides of politics have rightly been lambasted for making seemingly absolute commitments to implement certain measures, or not implement them, then doing exactly the opposite once elected. Sometimes, this is for good reason – circumstances change, or new information is unearthed. But more often, it seems either that they never intended to keep their promises in the first place, or abandoned them when this became expedient.

Often it’s because they are trapped by the media or their opponents into making absolute promises they know they can’t, or shouldn’t, deliver: like “no new taxes”.

There’s also a fine line between sticking to one’s principles, and the compromises and accommodations necessary to actually get things done in government

Cognitive dissidence is very powerful.
All of us have it whether we acknowledge it or not.

Re phooey:

Ditto, self-pleasuring.

But we tend not to do it in public. Politicians might be the exception,on both scores.

I think its more an reluctance to change our conditioned beliefs and values even in the light of overwhelming evidence.
What's more we do not tolerate those who can transcend this negative tendency.