The Prime Minister is on Top of Things.

Now it might just be me, which typically it usually is, but I am growing a tad tired of Kevin Rudd’s increasing tendency towards providing a running commentary on things that are so fundamentally irrelevant to his primary role of running the country.

While many people are worried about where their next pay packet is coming from and whether they can afford to pay the bills and feed the family, our little “prince of politics” is fannying about positively glistening with feigned outrage over matters that are usually constrained to the rightful domains of women’s magazines.

The little tit-for-tat exchange between Tracy Grimshaw and Gordon Ramsay earlier this week for example, was, apparently, of significant national importance to warrant the Prime Minister’s intervention in news bulletins that are currently making headline news around the world with peach cheeks declaring Gordon Ramsay “a new form of low life.“

Even the Deputy PM, Julia Gillard felt it necessary to voice her disgust in the escalating national security drama of “the chef and the show host” by adding:

“I understand from the publicity that Gordon Ramsay is a good chef,” Ms Gillard said. “I think perhaps what he should do is confine himself to the kitchen and make nice things for people to eat rather than make public comments about others.”

“Nice things to eat?” Well said Julia. Thanks for your contribution to this signficant issue of international current affairs.

As perhaps the nation’s two most important officeholders, I’m glad to see that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have their attention firmly focused on the issues that matter.

Sadly however, the matter doesn’t rest there.

In another startling revelation, this week Woman’s Day magazine published photographs of the Prime Minister’s wife Therese Rudd exercising in the gym. Big deal you might think.

Well, you’d be wrong. Once again traversing into the now familiar territory of Women’s rags turf, the PM started up again with more feigned disgust:

“Most women in Australia would feel that they should have some privacy when they go to the gym,” Mr Rudd said.

“If magazines choose to photograph people training at the gym through their cameras without their consent, well, I presume it’s a matter for those magazines.”

Feeling that the PM might be on to something with this new style of “new idea” commentary, the Opposition Leader, Sir Malcolm Turnbull went even further than Mr Rudd, describing the photos as an “unfortunate invasion of privacy”.

Clearly this is a matter of national significance that we should all be concerned about.

And just as you were beginning to wonder whether things couldn’t get any more absurd, they did.

Following criticism that his frontbench re-shuffle heralded a predominantly male line-up of factional heavyweights, the PM dismissed the claims with an unusual term “fair shake of the sauce bottle, mate.”

Kevin clearly thought he was onto a winner here, so much so, that he used the term three times during an interview on sky news.

In his defence, he is from Queensland, but is “fair shake of the sauce bottle” really the sort of thing that we want our nation’s highest elected office-holder to have beamed around the world as Australia’s take on issues of major political significance?

It seems the Kevin Rudd we know today is a far cry from the man we knew 18 months ago as Kevin 07.

But it’s nice to know he’s on top of the issues that really matter to ordinary Australians.

Advertisements

351 Responses

  1. Kev is a complete tosser. I blush at the thought of a PM using terms such as “fair shake of the sauce bottle”.

    After blushing, I vomit.

    Does he think he is Dad or Dave?

    Karma sorted out Steve Irwin for similar offense to Australian dignity.

  2. Karma sorted out Steve Irwin for similar offense to Australian dignity.

    LOL!! priceless Tom…!

  3. No, it’s not just you, Reb. I find myself in furious agreement with everything you said.

    When I first heard our Prime Minister invoking Bazza McKenzie last night, all I could think of was, firstly: who’s advising him to do this stuff?; but secondly, and more importantly: what does it say about Mr Rudd’s judgement that he would even think it was a good idea?.

  4. I think the term is “media tart”.

    And yes – I watched the interview last night and was amazed that he thinks this is a good idea.

  5. I wouldn’t like to be photographed in a gym either (and no one would want to see them anyway), but Mrs Rudd was in a gym in which the entire front wall is glass!

    Yes, I agree pollies families shouldn’t be brought in the public spotlight but Mrs Rudd is happy to be photographed attending church and other functions.

    I loathe Rudd. I wonder if he’s related to the brothers Jensen who run Sydney’s Anglican Taliban Archdiocese?

  6. I can’t stand the sight or the tone in which he talks at all, I walk out of the loungeroom when he is on TV!

    I never had that problem to this degree with the last PM.

    I don’t know if there is such a word but bloviation comes to mind!

  7. […] Shake of the Sauce Bottle Posted on June 10, 2009 by reb Following my recent post over at Blogocrats, I thought it would be a good idea if we could all pitch in and help the Prime Minister in his new […]

  8. So given that so many referred to the former PMs wife as “Hyacinth”, how about an equally disparaging nickname for the current one? Consistency demands that Mrs Rudd have an offensive nickname.

  9. Jemima the rag doll?

  10. And Tom comes back to his name for the PM’s wife again.

  11. Consistency demands that Mrs Rudd have an offensive nickname.

    Jane Fonda?

  12. Well, it is only fair as the last PM”s wife had one.

  13. I’d like to slap him with a hammer.

    Hard.

    Very, very hard.

  14. Why is it fair?

  15. This name for Rein is really playground “he did it first” stuff. Honestly.

  16. Why is it not fair, considering many that inhabit this blog referred to the last PM’s wife as “Hyacynth” which at the time I didn’t consider it as malice.

  17. But joni, I see you guys use that method to justify this government’s actions just about every day here.

  18. Oh come one – really – is that the level that you want to hold people to?

    So – because we call someone a name then we have to call everyone who is in the same role a name?

    How petty can you get.

  19. Joni – “This name for Rein is really playground “he did it first” stuff. Honestly.”

    Much of the political commentary here and elsewhere qualifies as “he did it first”.

    Why on earth do you think there is any debate over ministerial standards? It is all entirely based on this standard.

    Do I recall that you may have used the “Hyacinth” nickname?

  20. What – that name-calling is the method by which we hold the government to account?

    FFS.

  21. I can see where this is going and retract everything I’ve said!

    Someone’s up to mischief again.

    Besides, it goes against my grain but it was a twee little bit of fun.

  22. I have used Hyacinth – I admit it. And the reason was that she got involved in politics (such as her “he was never into giving guarantees” comment) where she had ideas above her station.

    When (and if) Rein get’s involved and someone comes up with a nickname, maybe I will use it too.

    But to insist that we must have a nickname for her because we had one for the last one, and that that is part of a “standard” truly beggars belief.

  23. So Joni, I think you and many others may have used a disparaging/offensive term for the wife of the previous PM.

    But for some reason, clear only to yourself, you object to discussion about a similar topic now. Strange indeed.

    The “he did it first” is exactly how standards of behaviour are established. Once established they are either reinforced, or identified as unsatisfactory and changed?

    Are you suggesting that the standards you’ve observed in the past are unsatisfactory?

  24. No Joni, what beggars belief is that the Prime Minister of Australia would use the term “fair shake of the sauce bottle”

    LOL!!!

  25. By the way,

    I now have a post open at The Gutter where anyone can make suggestions as to other Aussie terms that the PM ought to add to his new found colloquial vocabulary.

    The winner of the best suggestion will win an EXCLUSIVE CD FROM MY VERY OWN COLLECTION!!!

  26. Why was it offensive? It was a nickname that indicated that we believed that she had a station above her level.

    And I still do not understand why you believe if it was offensive that we should continue that standard?

  27. Does Therese Rein not have a voice……..?

    Cant we just hear from her instead……..?

  28. Look, I’m all for calling Rudd the media tart he is for the sudden use of Aussie colloquialisms in interviews and Gordon Ramsay crap he is dribbling. That is, to quote the man in question, a “fair shake of the sauce bottle”.

    However, lumping his disgust at people taking photos of his wife while she is at the gym in with the above is crap and I think you know it. I know I would be pretty damned pissed off if I found pictures of my wife at the gym in some magazine. The Prime Minister has enougn problems for us to poke at without making them up.

    Hands up here those who have no hassles with people taking photos of their partners at the gym or in some other private self-improvement activity?

  29. Does Therese Rein not have a voice…?
    Cant we just hear from her instead…?

    No, as that would be stepping into the public spotlight, creating a nice justification for such photos. I’m pretty sure that if she wanted those photos in the paper and hence disagreed with her husband – she’d be letting us know. That she is letting Kevin do the talking implies she agrees with him or at least does not want to publicly disagree with her husband.

  30. Consistency demands that Mrs Rudd have an offensive nickname.

    Tom of Melbourne, on June 10th, 2009 at 10:37 am Said:

    Yeh……………Lets call her Tom.

  31. @Tom of Melbourne
    The difference in my mind is that Mrs Howard stepped into the spotlight. she granted interviews and was fine talking on television about her husband’s job, the justification of people’s opinions, and what she thought of Costello. I have yet to see Theresa Rein do likewise.

    If you step into the public spotlight – you are deliberately opening yourself up to commentary from the public about it. Theresa has refused interviews and remains mostly a private person. Any such targeting of her then is simply because you want to get at her husband.

  32. I don’t like the PM being wheeled out to make comment on all and sundry, I guess they are happy to do it to keep their faces on the telly and in people’s minds as the ‘oh, so wise, father of the nation.’

    John Howard commented on everything too, I found it just as annoying, even more so when Howard refused to condemn the actions of people when he really should have eg the Cronulla Riots – the inevitable ‘dog-whistle’ to the racists and in the littering of ANZAC Cove.

  33. Offensive? I’d say that to characterise anyone as a snob, based on this character is offensive.

    “British sitcom has always been fascinated by snobs, but few were ever as monstrous as Hyacinth Bucket (who insists it’s pronounced “Bouquet”), the central character in Roy Clarke’s Keeping Up Appearances.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/keepingupappearances/index.shtml

    Many here seem to think that the family of the PM should be left to their privacy. But the apparent hypocrisy goes straight over their heads.

    This doesn’t strike you as hypocritical?

  34. Tom, you refuse to see the difference between someone who steps into the spotlight voluntarily and someone who has it involuntarily thrust upon them.

    Whether you want to face the fact or not; Janette Howard stepped into the spotlight herself. She decided to grant interviews and voice her opinions in public media. Had she not done so, your point would be valid. Theresa Rein on the other hand has not granted interviews and has, to the limits possible as the PM’s wife, remained a private person.

    Your point only has merit were Turnbull’s family, Costello’s family, Abbott’s family, etc being targeted. They have not been, nor do I think they ever will be.

  35. B.Tolpitt – So once a wife publically provides support for their husband (or vice versa), they’re fair game?

    What a totally bizarre concept.

    Hazel Hawke granted interviews, as did Anita Keating.

    They’ve never been pilloried as offensively.

    I think you’ve got it entirely wrong.

    It is simple hypocrisy. Don’t bother to defend hypocrites. Let them put up with being called.

    By the way, Kev is a tosser.

  36. I suggested “Judith” as a nickname for the PM’s wife on a number of occasions now, but sadly it seems to have fallen short of acceptable standards.

  37. Tom

    I agree. It reeks of rank hypocrisy!

  38. So once a wife publicly provides support for their husband (or vice versa), they’re fair game?

    Again, failing to realise the difference. Theresa has publicly provided support for Kevin. Do you, however, see her making comment about Julia Gillard? Perhaps you have seen her commenting about non-core promises? No?

    Your mention of the Hawke & Keating wives has no bearing on this. We are talking about the difference between someone that steps into the spotlight and someone that avoids it.

  39. By the way, Kev is a tosser.

    I think we are all well aware of your opinion of Kevin. Personally, his latest attempts at looking cool leave me inclined to agree with you.

    That said, I don’t think anyone is being hypocritical in their treatment of Prime Ministers. I think Howard was a small-minded, mean little man. you think he is a tosser. No-one really cares too much about either of our opinions in that regard though…

  40. But Ben,

    Where was Therese protesting at the presence of the TV crew at her recent lavish garden cocktail party?

    There was Therese on national TV happily swanning around with her guests while they all supped on the finest champagne and canapes..

    Is that the image of someone who’s avoiding the media spotlight..??

    🙂

  41. So Therese made many millions out of a privatisation that her husband opposed, is rich, rich and rich solely because of this.

    But a private woman that provides rare public comment in support of her husband deserves the disparagement?

    Still bizarre logic at work.

  42. How about Theresa Reunion (BOO!) ?

  43. So Therese made many millions out of a privatisation that her husband opposed, is rich, rich and rich solely because of this.

    But a private woman that provides rare public comment in support of her husband deserves the disparagement?

    Still bizarre logic at work.

    Yes, but that would be your logic at work there, not mine. The fact that you think her business success (regardless of the husband’s political opinion of underlying policy) is reason enough to take pot shots is pretty weird. Tall poppy syndrome?

  44. OK. My thoughts on the issues raised.

    The Gordon Ramsay thing. Agree 100% . Really do we need the Prime Minster etc. to comment on every facet of popular media? The Chaser one day, this now. I know that Rudd wants to be loved by the battlers like Howard but it does sound fake.

    On regards to Rudd’s little saying he is doing exactly what he was doing when he was elected. I remember my wife and I playing a drinking game when we were watching his election speech and we had to dunk something down when he said ‘out the back door’ regarding Workchoices which he did with the gesture of his thumb pointing behind his shoulder. I can say I wasn’t feeling too good at the end of it.

    In regards of Therese Rein he was right. Somebody taking pictures of anyone without their knowledge or permission is an invasion of privacy and it should be condemned.

    Why anyone would be interested in Therese Rein exercising is beyond me anyway.

  45. For Godsake the woman is living in 2 bloody mansions in Canberra and Sydney paid for by the taxpayer.

    That makes her a public figure worthy of as many “private” photos as the gossip mags want.

    If she does not like it she should say so in her own words. Not send her spokesman (Kev) out to object on her behalf.

    In fact its her bloody duty to trim off some fat and its our right to see how she is progressing.

    I dont want our PM to be parading overseas with some gargantuan sized woman who looks as though she has Ronald Macdonald as her chief chef.

  46. B.Tolpitt – “The fact that you think her business success (regardless of the husband’s political opinion of underlying policy) is reason enough to take pot shots”

    Now you are plumbing new depths of the bizarre. I’ve not taken pot shots at all. Please retract this.

    I’ve merely suggested that those that enjoyed the disparaging/offensive “Hyacinth” nickname for the wife of the previous Pm would be hypocrites unless they identify a similarly offense one for the wife of the current PM.

    My reference to her business dealings was in response to your odd observation that she is somehow more “private” than the previous one.

    You’re grasping at straws and misrepresenting now.

  47. “I dont want our PM to be parading overseas with some gargantuan sized woman who looks as though she has Ronald Macdonald as her chief chef.”

    Maybe she could offer Gordon Ramsay the job of chef?

    He could even give the PM some lessons to broaden his colloquial vocabulary.

  48. Scaper

    I think Rudd already knows the F-word. hehe

  49. You’re right.

    I just had a vision of the PM and Gordon going to a strip club, the PM jumping on stage and stripping down to his Aussie flag emblazoned G-string gyrating and swinging a boa around to the beat of Nutbush City Limits?

    Where’s the BEX?

  50. The only “F” word Kevin knows is “First Class” ie – the pointy end of the plane.

  51. Oh dear – I read that as “the PM pumping on stage”… my headache is much worse than yours!

  52. I can’t get that vision out of my head…where’s that morphine?

  53. Given his new mastery of our national lingo, Kev will now become familiar with “fair dinkum” and “fosters”.

    He already uses “FOOD NOW!!” when dealing with cabin crew on a VIP flight.

    “FRENCH” is used when he orders champagne.

  54. “….the Opposition Leader, Sir Malcolm Turnbull went even further than Mr Rudd, describing the photos as …………..”

    Posted on June 10, 2009 by reb

    Did Malcolm get knighted on Monday ????????

  55. Rudd’s speeches generally are pretty cringe worthy. I’s never heard the phrase with ‘sauce botlle’ which sounded weird but the phrase expressed the sentiment pretty well and I’d say that most people would have used similar language when responding to the dumb (and partisan) accusation that was being levelled at the time.

    I find it hard to listen to Rudd because of this cringe worthiness (esp his habit of asking himself a question) but having said that I generally find him more upfront and willing to answer questions and explain things than Howard ever was.

    On the nickname for the PM’s wife – who really gives a shit. If someone comes up with something that is good and appropriate, it will stick (as “Hyacinth” was and did); there is no point giving someone a nickname for the sake of it though (see for example the XXX Gold ‘ Captian Cupcake” ad).

    As for the photo’s of the PM’s wife – poor show I think. I suspect that Rudd is right to be angry but let the punters decide with the wallets. Will be interesting to see mag sales figures as a result – why you would buy a mag to see that is beyond me …

    As for Rudd commenting on all and sundry, FFS, what is he supposed to do – the bloody meeja ask him a question about it which he answers – it’s not like he volunteers these comments. If he ducked the question there would be more criticism of him me thinks. I felt the same about Howard giving commentary on this stuff as well.

  56. Tom,

    Given that Rudd is a Labor PM with softer links to the Union movement than probably any former leader of the ALP, I’d have though you may have held him in a little higher regard.

  57. Tom,

    OT but I thought that you may find this from the Science show on ABC interesting:
    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2590405.htm

    It looks at the positive health effects that flow from housing insulation using studies in NZ. The insulation component of the stimulus has broader public and private benefits that I (and most probably the Government) had realised.

  58. “It seems the Kevin Rudd we know today is a far cry from the man we knew 18 months ago as Kevin 07.”

    You have to be kidding right? The second he started campaigning it was obvious what his MO was. You reckon back in 07 he didn’t go after the catchphrase / cliche / attempt to look like a blokey bloke one of us. No doubt there are many like you out there – it would explain a lot !

  59. Dave55

    I agree, while I find the PMs speeches oh so boring. The media shove mics in his face all the time demanding an answer to this and an answer to that.

    If he does not comment, then people like Piers and Bolt would be screaming a cover up and demanding to know what he is hiding and who from China is involved.

    When he does comment it is then claimed that he is waffling on about nonsensical issues.

    I wish he would speak more like a normal aussie than an overeducated buffon, but what choice does he have other than to say something when the mic is shoved almost up his arse by the media.

    This goes for both sides of politics, I would also say the same for Malcolm Turnbull if he was being lambasted for responding to menial issues.

  60. Now you are plumbing new depths of the bizarre. I’ve not taken pot shots at all. Please retract this.

    Um, I did not state that you took pot shots at her, but that you think her business success is reason to. I personally think many things are reasonable that I myself have not done.

    I’ve merely suggested that those that enjoyed the disparaging/offensive “Hyacinth” nickname for the wife of the previous Pm would be hypocrites unless they identify a similarly offense one for the wife of the current PM.

    Which I disagree with. But as I stated above, I did not state you did otherwise…

    My reference to her business dealings was in response to your odd observation that she is somehow more “private” than the previous one.

    I fail to see how being successful in business has anything to do with how public or private a person may be. Empirical evidence tends to suggest that being successful in business corresponds to a more private life. how many CEO’s do you know have pictures of themselves or their wives at the gym published in magazines?

    You’re grasping at straws and misrepresenting now.

    No, you are (deliberately or otherwise) twisting my words into something you can be outraged about. At no point did I state that you personally had a go at Theresa. You did, however, bring up her success (“rich, rich, rich”) as a comparison to Janette being a “private woman”. If you did not think that business success somehow makes Theresa a more public (and hence more targettable) person; why bring it up?

  61. I disagree that the PM has to answer every question put to him.

    The Grimshaw/Ramsay thing is a good example…why does the PM need to opine on this spat?

    I would make that quite clear to the microphone jockeys!

    If I was the PM I would not even bother with such a trivial matter as I would be concentrating on governance.

  62. I disagree that the PM has to answer every question put to him.

    The world must be coming to an end, because I agree with scaper!

    The PM should answer questions relevant to his job and perhaps issues that touch on it. The fact that a celebrity chef called a never-was journalist/presenter an ugly lesbian, while deplorable, is not really anything to do with running the country.

    On the subject of his new-found love of Aussie colloquialisms; my wife just saw the video and said:

    Dear god! It’s like he is a freaky cross between the father trying to be cool for his sons friends and that tourist who picks up local sayings and uses them whether or not they are appropriate or even make sense.

    Pretty much sums up my opinion of how lame it made him look.

  63. scaper

    If you were the PM and walking along with the media houding and hounding you for a response you would have 3 choices, tell them to piss off and then cop the wrath of the media. Say no comment and then generate rumours like happened with Rudd and the Chinese meeting which the media didn’t happen to know about. Or respond with an honest opinion of what you think.

    A PM who did not comment would be fodder for the media.

  64. Actually, the correct expression (as I recall it from my remedial classes in Strine-as-it-is-Spoke and Boganism 101) was: “fair suck of the sauce bottle, maaaaate.”

    It looks to me like the Ruddster needs to take some remedial classes, too.

    I must say, thouigh, I too am beginning to find his constant forays into the gossipy trivia of modern life just a wee bit tiring. The guy is Prime Minister fer fuxsakes, not Alan Jones.

    He really should try and act a tad bit more, well, Prime Ministerial.

    I supose the idea is to demonstrate to the masses that he’s really one of them (and shares their concerns, prejudices and half-baked opinions) and is not just some aloof rich sod stashed-away in that Ivory Tower for self-absorbed popeller-heads we call Canberra.

    Still, there are other ways to accomplish that, and his incessant pandering to whatever the petty outrage du jour happens to be is just nauseating.

    I couldn’t imagine Gough, Menzies or even Keating going the gasp on stuff like this. Sure, The Rodent made it his stock-in-trade, but that’s no reason to ape the bastard.

    Hell, if Rudd really wants to go The Bogan, perhaps he ought to turn-up on a semi-regular basis somewhere like The Campbelltown Arms, get smashed on Bundie-and-Cokes, make a pass at some bloke’s missus (and get his lights punched-out for it) before spewing and passing-out battered and bruised under the pool table.

    Then he’d really feel like one of the masses.

  65. The sad thing re Rudd is that he actually talks this way in real life. Remember all the foo-fah about his lip-licking..well he’s managed to control this tic but now has to work on the colloquialisms. Ah well, I couldn’t stand Howard’s darting eyes when he was telling a porkie nor Costello’s smirk either.

    Re Janette..perhaps an Australian thing that someone has to be at least a little bit important to be given a nickname. I doubt that Janette started out as Hyacinth but earned it along the way. I am certain that the current crew will also earn their nicknames as per Abbott and Downer did.

    The difficulty is that if the PM doesn’t answer a question even if it’s something trivial then the headlines will read: Rudd avoids answering..

    Am catching up as Jeff is home with the ‘flu.

  66. …make a pass at some bloke’s missus (and get his lights punched-out for it) before spewing and passing-out battered and bruised under the pool table

    Maybe that’s why he can’t remember what happened in NY?

  67. And min – I believe the term is “man-flu” – much worse than the other strains.

  68. Thank you joni, this explains it..why I still have to cook meals but hubby is ‘in repose’ outside in the sunshine.

  69. Re fairs-fair..that Janette copped Hyacinth. Me thinks that Therese has had her fair share. Can you imagine the media making fun of Janette’s appearance..chubby knees/should have worn opaque tights etc. I can’t recall that the media ever wrote these sort of things about Janette.

  70. Well Janette was precious and vindictive beyone belief. Hyacinth sure fitted her.

    As for Therese, the sad fact is that she’s built like the proverbial Brick Shithouse. Personality wise, though, she’s an assertive, shrewd business woman and not some quiet character poisoner of the Arsenic and Old Lace school like her predecessor.

    If she must have a nick-name, I’d go for the Zeppelin: She’s big, armed and dangerous.

  71. Wow – name check of one of my fav movies (Arsenic and Old Lace).

    Because she wears the big collars I was thinking:

    Count Ruddular.

  72. B.Tolputt – as I’ve said in the past, the fact that the PMs wife has made MILLIONS & MILLIONS out of a policy that her husband vehemently opposed is odd.

    Outsourcing of the CES was always contentious, and she’s done very nicely out of it.

    This seems a reasonable area warranting discussion, more so than a woman who made a couple of comments in support of her husband.

    The fact that many here used to continually refer to the wife of the last PM as “Hyacinth” simply demonstrates their small mindedness.

  73. I can’t recall that the media ever wrote these sort of things about Janette.

    That’s because Hyacinth was out of the same mould (literally and figuratively) as Margaret Thatcher.

    She would’ve savaged them to death!

    Hell spareth the journo that summons the scorn of Hyacinth.

  74. The fact that many here used to continually refer to the wife of the last PM as “Hyacinth” simply demonstrates their small mindedness.

    Well said Tom. But what do you think of Hyacinth then?

  75. Is Janette Howard fair game?

    Howard got both Janette and his daughter Melanie government jobs. Melanie’s was particularly irksome as she was given the job ahead of someone more qualified than she was.

  76. Shane, the PM has every right to refuse to answer trivial questions and if the media chooses to crucify him over that then they will find themselves on the outer, then watch heads roll at their establishments.

    The PM is the most powerful person in the country but at the moment he is being dictated to by the media because of his misplaced ego.

    To me the media is like a bunch of maggots on the end of a big toe…they will keep consuming flesh up to the knee cap if they can get away with it.

    If the PM is asked an unrelated question to his station he should make a fool out of the microphone maggot to draw a line in the sand and I bet no other maggot will cross it.

  77. Tom Therese was successful before the outsourcing, but yes she did make a motsa out of it. Smart business woman, saw and opportunity and grabbed it.

    Also because of who she was her tender came under a lot more scrutiny and nothing untoward was found.

    But I don’t see why you think it warrants discussion, unless you believe outsourcing was wrong or the way it was done needs investigating?

  78. B.Tolputt – as I’ve said in the past, the fact that the PMs wife has made MILLIONS & MILLIONS out of a policy that her husband vehemently opposed is odd.

    Outsourcing of the CES was always contentious, and she’s done very nicely out of it.

    This seems a reasonable area warranting discussion, more so than a woman who made a couple of comments in support of her husband.

    Odd it maybe, Warranting of discussion, perhaps. However, we weren’t talking about that. We were talking about what warrants personal commentary &/or invasion of privacy such as being called “Hyacinth” or having photos taken at the gym.

    A discussion of Theresa Rein’s business and how it affects / has been affect by Rudd’s opposition to the underlying legislation that makes it possible is all well and good, but has no bearing on her personally unless you can find shonky dealings associated with it.

    The fact that many here used to continually refer to the wife of the last PM as “Hyacinth” simply demonstrates their small mindedness.

    No more so than your need to disparage unions whenever they are mentioned. Personally, I could care less about her now that she & her husband are out of the picture.

    I don’t think we are going to agree on this though, Tom. Your opinion seems to be that personal commentary was made against the wife of someone you support therefore it is OK to do so back to Rudd’s wife. Mine is that Janette stepped into the public deliberately whereas Theresa seems to be avoiding it wherever politically possible.

  79. Evan..Therese has de-Zeppelined herself. Pic is at: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/pm-snaps-at-tacky-intrusion-20090609-c28f.html

    But never mind..the popular press will have lots more interesting things to discuss shortly, wait for it…Brittney is coming to Australia!! And so we can all look forward to never ending discussions about Brittney.

  80. “…….I’d go for the Zeppelin: She’s big, armed and dangerous.”
    Evan, on June 10th, 2009 at 3:11 pm Said:

    I’ve been giving this matter some very deep thought over my lunch hour.

    I believe it would be in the interest of saving this nation from embarrassment that Therese Rein should be subject to a public weigh in every Monday night in prime time.

    I’m sure ACA would be interested and she could be sponsored by Jenny Craig. Channel 7’s Today Tonight could conduct a ‘spoiler” every Monday night as well and sign up Magda Subanski (or whatever wog surname it is) to be sponsored by Weight Watchers.

    After all both these women need to lose weight as they both look as though they have sat down and in one sitting eaten an entire Marlon Brando each.

  81. Dave55, I don’t mind Rudd. But he is a politician, and ipso facto is up himself.

    I’ve seen nothing in his behaviour that suggests he is not up himself and this cringe worthy crap, “fair shake of the sauce bottle” just proves that he is a wanker. Possibly just less connected with the way people actually speak.

    The fact that he rose through the ranks as a non unionist is commendable, but this was 10 years ago. Probably no longer possible.

    Mobius Ecko – I’m only the messenger identifying widespread hypocrisy.

    As I’ve said in the past, Rudd has been a beneficiary of his wife’s wealth. So he obtains a benefit from a policy he and his party opposed.

    The public don’t seem bothered by this. But I’ve never taken much notice of public opinion in forming my own.

  82. B.Tolputt – you are again willing to misrepresent the facts, and my own political orientation.

    I’ve pointed out that I was an active member of the ALP for a period that included the 70s, 80s and 90s, I joined years before the election of the Hawke government, and was a member right through the Keating government.

    I’ve not been a Howard supporter.

    I simply observed the unsavoury behaviour of affiliated unions inside the ALP. Their behaviour sidelined participation by the rank and file.

    I see my self as a cynical observer of all the BS that goes on inside the ALP and unions rather than a supporter of their opponents.

    I’ve had serious discussion with some here who have also misrepresented by political orientation. I don’t mind jousting, but I object to being characterised as supporter of the conservatives.

  83. But Tom – it is not new information. It is information that has been on record for years and years. Why do you think that mentioning it now will change anything?

  84. scaper

    Problem is the media maggots will play it for all its worth and then so will the conservatives if the PM does not answer a question.

    As for being maggots I agree, however the PM is not the most powerful person, but the media is more powerful. Afterall it is the media we turn to for our information via print, radio or television which many then believe as gospel.

  85. @Tom:
    My apologies. I made the (obviously incorrect) assumption that you were a conservative based on your vehemence of unions along with your issues regarding the Budget & global warming.

    I have not read the fact that you were an ALP member, so my humblest apologies on that matter. That said, you take up the conservative side of most arguments I see here on the blog, so while it was a mistake to make the assumption – I don’t think it was a hard assumption to make.

  86. The public don’t seem bothered by this. But I’ve never taken much notice of public opinion in forming my own.

    They’re not bothered because it’s meaningless and actually a plus for both. It means that Kevin isn’t under Therese’s thumb and vice versa, unlike the Howard/Janette relationship.

    Therese had to give up a lot because of Kevin becoming PM and that also says much for her character, whilst on the other hand Janette gained much by John becoming PM and she (and kids) milked it for all it was worth, which is why she got the Hyacinth tag.

    That Howard got dressed as an ocker, or track suit, or whatever (Keating the Musical got it down pat) and also used jingoisms was not scoffed by you or others at the time, but Rudd is on a hiding to nowhere no matter what he does or doesn’t do. I’ve never seen a more sustained attack on triviality against a PM than that occurring against Rudd. He loses no matter if he says or does something and loses if he says or does nothing.

  87. So very true Shane. Remember how hard the media ran with every little bit that they could scrape up prior to the last election, and why Howard ploughed millions of our hard earned into his WorkChoices commercials.

    One can issue as many press releases as one cares to, but it is the media’s decision as to whether they print any of it.

  88. Slightly off topic –

    Ben, your avatar scares the bejeesus out of me!

  89. Shane, I was using maggots as an analogy to attempt to drive my point home.

    From what I understand the media needs the PM just as much as he needs them, he could make things very hard for them to function as far as political reporting is concerned.

    The PM is in the prime position to dictate as the polls suggest and he has political capital to burn due to the state of the opposition.

  90. Adrian..one thing that I had to laugh at was the way the media played it as a criticism of Rudd because he dressed in a hard hat and high visibility vest. However, as every engineer and tradesperson knows, you are not allowed onsite without these, no exceptions, PMs included.

  91. reb – I did not think that bejeesus was in you?

  92. Reb..I love Ben’s avatar..ahh, those finely chiseled features.

  93. Min

    The Media are the empires of the 21st century. With instant communications worldwide they make or break governments and businesses and peoples lives.

    Very rarely do we ever get an apology if they are wrong. its simply oh well lets move onto another story, or they turn it around.

    Example: Woman on Today Tonight complaining that her insurance company would not pay for her injuries. Today Tonight goes into bat accusing the Insurance Company or being cruel and heartless. Insurance company pays up. A few weeks later neighbours and her own son provide evidence she is not disabled at all but a con artist.

    Today Tonight instead of apologising for their tactics and getting it all wrong, simply turn it into a we were duped story and try to turn it to their favour again.

    If they had any brains at the start they would have interviewed neighbours and attempted to seek all avenues as to why the insurance claim was taking so long, rather than go in all guns blazing and giving the Insurance company a bad reuptation at the time.

    Did they ever stop to think there was a reason the claim was being delayed as in maybe this woman was a lying con artist and the insurance company was trying to gather evidence.

    They should have apologised profusely to the insurance company but no they just went back with video footage and now the poor insurance company has to try and get their money back from a thief.

    Amazing clout the media.

  94. Mobius Ecko – The fact that Rudd has been a beneficiary of the wealth of his wife proves only that he is lucky that he didn’t have to find the cash himself when he was flying around the country lobbying for support to become leader.

    Therese is probably thankful that she sold near the peak of the market.

    There is an inclination no the ALP to sanctify the wives of their leaders. Hazel was a strong independent woman, followed her own mind etc. Rather than a poor soul, a stay at home mother who was married to a heavy drinking, serial adulterer. Anita was an international glamorous mother who gave up a career, not a retired hostie.

    Margaret Whitlam (correctly) viewed as brilliant in her own right, but still a politicians wife.

    There has been an inclination to characterise ALP wives as go getters. The conservative spouses are characterised as dull snobs.

    I’m just providing a little balance here.

    B.Toluptt- Like many you probably judge issues and orientation on a party political basis, rather than on a merit basis.

    It makes sense to me to consider the policy position of the world’s largest emitter before determining our own. It also makes sense to me to criticise a stimulus package that provides less than optimum bang for the buck. It also seems fair to criticise some of the activities of unions.

  95. *laugh* I love it. I get myself an avatar of Sherlock Holmes and it scares reb and gives Min the vapours! 😛

  96. Shane..eldest’s bf is a journo but remains independant due to the manipulation of stories.

    As a ‘clear thinking’ exercise, take a story from a journalist (the press releases are the ones minus anyone’s name) and with a large marking pen cross out all the emotive language. What you are left with is the facts minus the manipulation.

    Also..a basic is Headlines and then all the points/emphasis put into the 1st paragraph as the vast majority of people never read the entire article.

  97. Tom

    On criticism I believe that it is something we all need to do, but your criticism always seem to be the same:

    – Unions have an undue influence on the ALP
    – Rudd’s wife made money from something the ALP opposed
    – We do not call Rudd’s wife a derogatory nickname

    Perhaps we bring up the the same things, but I think we do it when new information becomes available.

    (willing to stand corrected)

  98. Mission Accomplished hey Ben 😉

  99. Oh and Tom – you know that we appreciate you being here and if you want to write your own threads (or want ones published) just let us know.

  100. Sherlock Holmes?

    *phew* I can rest easy then..

    I thought it was someone more butch like The Marlborough Man, or Charleton Heston in full Gun Lobby mode..

  101. Nah, nah, nah there’s nothing wrong with a bit of strine, tiny brains. Abso-flippin-lutely nothin, it’s the language of alpha blokes, OK? I mean, trust moi, I’m one of tha world’s leadin experts on alpha male management strayan-style, I know it all, I wrote the bloomin book on it, OK?

    Yers asked about moi extra-special identity? Well yers can rack off cyber bludgers. Yer won’t be gettin it for free, OK? The reality is I’ll be talkin exclusively 2 Today Tonight and the humourless dills at ACA, jest as soon as the flippin cheque clears, OK?

    But Toiletboss? Don’t make moi quiver with rage. He’s a militant union extremist. An the only dealins I choose 2 have with these dangerous militants is trackin their mobile phones an passin their GPS location onto moi mates at Rottweiler Security Services, OK?

    Now stop wastin moi time, cyber bludgers, an get back to outcome-oriented tasks. Immediately. Otherwise the adorable kitten gets it, OK?

  102. @Tom:
    Who is making the wild assumptions now? I look at issues & arguments based on merit all the time. I am calling Rudd the drip he appears to be in this thread for instance. I have been on the receiving end of what I believe to be “political correctness” gone mad on this thread (I believe I hold the dubious honour of starting one of this blogs longest and most heated threads actually).

    The fact that you think I’m “party oriented” based on my support of (most) the Budget and that I believe we need to address global warming soon rather than procrastinate (again) shows you are no better than me in this regard.

    On the other hand, I find it difficult to think of an issue in recent times (say the last six months) where you were on the non-conservative side of the debate. *shrug*

  103. Hey BWOOCE, you should apply for Keelty’s job.

  104. @Min:
    You betcha 😛

    Sorry. That should be: “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn” 😉

  105. Let me tell yers that bloomin Gillard is the one who belongs the kitchen, OK? I mean she’s got a secret plan 2 cut the right wing of every flammin Qantas aircraft, this sheila should be under culinary surveillance, OK?

  106. Uncle Ugly..good grief, can’t somebody donate the poor girl some fruit for her fruit bowl.

  107. Crikey Min, yer’ll be joinin that bloomin blue Gillard at Tuckertanamo Bay at this rate, OK?

  108. Below I think has crossed quite a few people’s minds.

    http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/nine-pouring-petrol-on-ramsaygrimshaw-spat-20090610-c34p.html

    Dr Jason Sternberg, a media lecturer at QUT, said with A Current Affair and Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares both being Channel Nine programs, it was possible the whole controversy had been set up in advance.

    “A cynic would suggest it was contrived, that there are some pretty clever PR people out there,” Dr Sternberg said.

  109. B.Tolputt – You’ve obviously not been paying attention for the past 6 months in that case.

  110. Flammin hell Min, yer jest had to rain on our bloomin parade didn’t yer? Strewth, I mean what’s wrong with a bit of harmless cross promotion? The big white van is already on it’s way, OK?

  111. Yer tiny brains r no longer under surveillance, yer nicked, OK? Time wake up 2 yerselves an smell the cheap instant coffee dingbats, OK?

    As a duly authorised tip-top bloke, I hereby prosepectively prescribe this known extremist wesite under Section 12 d (ii) of the Cyber Bludger Management (Sanctions and Penalties) Act 2011.

    Consider yerselves cooked, everything you say is bein taken down an may B used as evidence against yer work shy cyber bludgers, especially yer MIn.

  112. B.Tolputt – You’ve obviously not been paying attention for the past 6 months in that case.

    Feel free to show me wrong…

  113. Slightly (ever so) off topic, apparenty … (never believe anything in the media these days!) …. Julia Gillard must be “invited” to any schools that take advantage of a “spruce up” fund – $3 billion (from memory) …

    She MUST be provide with three alternative dates and they cannot be on parliament sitting days …

    Hey! Julia – tha’s our money not yours … its your DEPARTMENT’s job to ensure it goes to relevant school issues …

    A few weeks ago I read a plaque fixed to the wall of my grandchildren’s school announcing a “grant” for $150,000 of carpet … and the name of the politician who “presented” it …

    Providing carpet in a school in 2009 is not a “gloating event”! Its part of a politician’s job to ensure that these “resources” are supplied … on second thought – no, its not!

    As for Mr Rudd & Co – nice to see others waking up to the froth an bubble of modern incompetent politicians -my message to ecah and everyone of them
    (Federal & State)

    ………. JUST GET ON WITH THE JOB FFS!

    Photo ops won’t get you voted in next time – a bit of action and demonstrated competence just might …

  114. Uncle Ugly..point taken. Shall immediately take self back to the kitchen and resume veal parmigiana duties..for you, translated from the wog it’s veal in pyjamas for dinner tonight.

  115. Politicians of a senior level for the most part lost touch with the common person many years before reaching their heights. Simply because the level of effort in reaching their positions means that they are unable to socialise like they should. I cringed when Howard wore the tracksuit and called “G’day mate” on his walks and I cringe when Rudd speaks “strine”. But honestly, what else can they do? Protocol requires a false common touch.

    Of far greater import for the opponents of Howard would no doubt have been his foreign policy positions and of far greater import for me is Rudd’s pathological dishonesty and insultingly complicated, and often out of context, language when making speeches.

  116. Alternatively we could simply elect wotsizname from Home and Away to Parliament to deliver a far more genuine “Stone the Flamin’ Crows!!!” Alf Stewart, that’s right.

  117. Oi Min, that’s sounds more like it, love, jest make sure yer cookin enuff of the wog stuff 4 moi 2, OK?

  118. Protocol requires a false common touch.

    Try telling Talcum that.

  119. Oh come on, reb. That’s not fair. We all know Talcum once lived in a rented flat…

  120. Sir Talcum? Wasn’t it, sreb?

  121. James now I know you are joking. Rudd’s pathologically dishonest but Howard’s not?

    Rudd is nowhere near in the same league and Howard was two steps worse in being deliberately devious and deceptive.

  122. On yer Tom, this joint is 123% packed with bloomin raw prawns an flippin watermelons. Go hard son, I’m with yer all the way, OK?

  123. No probs Uncle Ugly..just let us know when you’re lobbing, how does underground mutton sound..mind you they’re a bit spindly these days what with the mixo and all.

  124. Adrian, Howard proved very adept at ensuring he didn’t know about matters that could implicate him. If Rudd lasts long enough, he’ll find himself the subject of enquiries as well though he probably won’t be as skilful as keeping himself clean about it.

    I’m talking about the lies on issues that don’t matter, but which Rudd lies about anyway. His childhood, Brian Burke meetings, strip clubs, reasons for not appointing a bloke we’ve never heard of to a diplomatic post, fiscal conservatism…..and on it goes. Rudd’s default position is to lie to save face.

    Now what are those “more serious matters” that you keep saying we should focus on with Rudd to ensure his free ride over his muck ups?

  125. Now it might just be me

    Reb, I can’t hold the secret much longer. It IS you.

  126. Min, on June 10th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    Yeah and every pollie or visitor that has gone into hard hat safety areas have done the same including Howard, more proof Rudd is criticised for trivialities no previous leader have been.

    Tom, scaper

    Rudd could walk, hobble, hop, run, skip, amble, roll, trip, drive, fly, sail, swim, sit, stand, salute, wave, wink, blink, nod, plod, sneeze, wheeze, breath, suffocate, speak, dawdle, mumble, swear, bare, streak, meek, eat, seat, bluster, fluster, muster, mail, fail, succeed, kneel, feel, kiss, miss, hit, knit, earn, learn, lie, truth, strewth, grin, bin, clean, speak, mutter, mute, live and die.

    Yet you, the opposition and the Right Wing media along with their opinion mouth pieces would still find fault with it and criticise him and do.

    Yet he can stuff up major policy and barely a mention, yet on good or half good minor policy he’s crucified because it’s easier to run a fear and smear campaign on them.

  127. Now you’re making up things James, something you accuse me of. Anything for a good smear, but Howard is excused for the worse of lies and deceits.

  128. If Rudd lasts long enough, he’ll find himself the subject of enquiries as well though he probably won’t be as skilful as keeping himself clean about it.

    Tony, as long as there’s a Liberal party they will continue to rake up as much muck as they can. If they can’t find it – they’ll create it.

    Before the last election Howard instructed senior public servants to find as much mud as possible on the Rudd family.

    It’s there mission statement.

  129. Adrian, “fair shake of the sauce bottle, mate!”

  130. Oh shit I forgot to add in shake. Thanks for picking that up scaper.

  131. Flamin’ golly!! That’s a bit flamin’ rough Mobius Ecko.

    Just because Rudd finds it necessary to adopt some affectation doesn’t mean that I have to fall for the nonsense.

    Rudd may be trying the old adage “once you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made”.

    He is behaving just like a typical politician. Which is completely unsurprising, because that’s all he’s ever been.

  132. Before the last election Howard instructed senior public servants to find as much mud as possible on the Rudd family.
    Miglo, on June 10th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Hi Miglo

    Can you give me a link for this.

    thanks

  133. Hi Joni

    That was really quick. I see that no name was attached to your little article. I will take this as hearsay evidence unless proven otherwise.

    Even more quicker. Yeah yeah yeah lauire Oakes. Didn’t Rudd use to work for Laurie or something like that???

    From your next link

    “Laurie Oakes says the Liberal Party is behind a “fact sheet” about a Howard Government minister who visits gay bathhouses and harasses other men”

    So the Liebaral Party is about a fact sheet about a Lieberal party govt memember.

    WHAT IS YOUR FUCKING POINT????????

    “Glenn Milne’s report on the gay accusations today says the fact sheet on the minister was not being circulated by the Labor Party.”

  134. Um – you asked for evidence of the dirt unit story and I provided it.

    Always glad to help out a fellow blogocrat.

    Nada mas.

    But there is no reason to be so nasty, Neil.

  135. Hi Joni

    I first want to apologise to everybody for swearing. As far as i know this is the first time I have done this. I wish i could remove my comment.

    Joni- I read your links and i saw this

    “Accusations fly about ‘dirt unit’

    Yes we have some accusations. Accusations are nice. How about some evidence. You know a real life human being who will put his name to these accusations

  136. Haha – you too funny!

    We supply the link from respected journalist that show that there was a dirt unit and you want actual names of people.

    In future – any accusations by you must be supported by real life humans.

  137. I’ve just read those two links, and believe Neil’s quite correct, in spite of his little tantrum. If nothing further can be added, those stories are nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay.

  138. Hi Joni

    Your first link was from

    “Howard spending $1m on Rudd ‘dirt unit’
    AAPJuly 14, 2007 11:53pm”

    No name supplied.

    Second link
    “Accusations fly about ‘dirt unit’
    September 23, 2007 – 10:56AM

    No name supplied.

    What respected journalist are you talking about????

  139. those stories are nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay.

    Well that covers 98.78% of what Neil posts then…

  140. Fair enough – as I said, unless all your future links contain actual quote from the people concerned then I have no option but to consider them unsubstantiated hearsay.

  141. And that also means that Glenn Milne and Laurie Oakes are not “respected journalists” – well they were quoted in the links.

  142. Fair enough – as I said, unless all your future links contain actual quote from the people concerned then I have no option but to consider them unsubstantiated hearsay
    joni, on June 10th, 2009 at 10:04 pm

    UNBELIEVABLE!!! A leftoid has admitted he may have said something wrong. I am going to get my camera and take a picture of this.

  143. those stories are nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay.

    Right, because without exposing the whistle-blowers for abuse by those exposed, we cannot believe take them at their word. By your reckoning Tony, Watergate was nothing but unsubstantiated hearsay.

    It does go to prove that unless you already want to believe something – you will find some way to ignore proof provided. If Laurie Oakes is not a credible enough name for you, then you simply don’t want the information.

  144. I did not say that I admitted anything wrong, just that I admit that you did not accept the detail in the links I supplied – which is your prerogative.

    I will just keep reminding you of your standards – which are that you require an “actual quote from the people concerned” in all posts that you make.

  145. Ben

    Remember that Neil is the one who keeps sprouting comments that we prove are wrong (such as the cause of the deficit) – but now he has set a standard for himself – that all future comments by him will be supported by an “actual quote from the people concerned”.

    Simple really.

  146. Hell, if Glen Milne is not a credible enough or right-wing enough for you – you definitely have no hope.

  147. I did not say that I admitted anything wrong, just that I admit that you did not accept the detail in the links I supplied – which is your prerogative.”

    Hi Joni

    You are tooooo fuuuuunnny. The links you gave had no authorship.

    TALK ABOUT HEARSAY EVIDENCE

  148. Neil said:

    Didn’t Rudd use to work for Laurie or something like that???

    Just to provide some background to this – Rudd cleaned Oakes’ house while he was studying…. but Neil wants to make out that it was more than that.

  149. I recognise that joni, the issue is that Neil is not generally interested in a proper debate. Tony, on the other hand, can sometimes be engaged in a proper debate on the issues; and it was he I was aiming my comments at.

    However, given his disinclination to believe the above, I am beginning to doubt he is interested in more than the facade of debate. That Howard ran dirt units is well-known and was exposed by generally right-leaning journalists. That he cannot accept them at their word is what I am focusing on.

  150. Ben and Joni,

    You’ll note I’m not passing comment on whether or not such a dirt unit existed – just that those two newspaper articles aren’t proof of anything.

    You may wish to believe something because it was claimed by a “respected journalist”, however I’m much more cynical than that. (As you both know, I won’t even take the word of the ‘majority of scientists’ as fact, so what hope I’d take the word of Glenn Milne or Laurie Oakes?)

  151. It’s OK Neil. I know I am funny – people laugh at me all the time.

  152. Then as I stated, Tony, by your reasoning , Watergate was only unsubstantiated hearsay.

  153. That Howard ran dirt units is well-known and was exposed by generally right-leaning journalists
    B.Tolputt, on June 10th, 2009 at 10:19 pm

    What right-leaning journalists are you talking about???

  154. If you are not willing to take the word of respected journalists or the word of majority scientific opinion; what is going to make you trust any proof we provide. You could always say the quoted material is lying.

    If this is the case, I will regretfully stop engaging you on subjects we disagree on. As nothing I can do is going to change your mind – regardless of how ridiculous your opinion may or may not be.

  155. Then as I stated, Tony, by your reasoning , Watergate was only unsubstantiated hearsay.

    How do you figure that, Ben? A number of Nixon advisors were indicted, and Nixon was forced to resign over Watergate. Where’s the equivalence?

  156. How about the invasion of Iraq? I think that none of the intelligence had an “actual quote from the people concerned” – meaning those building the WMD’s – then Neil must have been against the war… fun this eh?

  157. If this is the case, I will regretfully stop engaging you on subjects we disagree on.

    Suit yourself Ben. My position on this is the same as my position on AGW: they’re both unproven ‘accusations’.

  158. If you are not willing to take the word of respected journalists

    Hey Mr Tolputt.

    There was NO NAME supplied with the two links that Joni supplied

  159. Neil

    We fully understand what you are saying… we accept that the two random links I supplied had no journalist names.

    I will just be holding you to the standards that you have demanded from us.

    I just feel that it is fair.

  160. How about the invasion of Iraq?

    Yes Joni what about IRAQ!!! I just looked out my window and you know what i saw??? A pig just flew past my window. Unbelievable!!!

  161. Glenn Milne on Dirt Unit

    A copy of the sheet circulated to journalists has been seen by The Sunday Telegraph. It was not shown to this newspaper by the Labor Party. It names the minister, who has children.

  162. Sorry Neil – these are the standards that you demand. Not mine – yours.

    Can you show me the links where the actual people involved in the Iraq WMD programs said that the programs existed?

    I think the term is put up or shut up.

  163. I think the term is put up or shut up.

    Hi Joni- i read your second link and I am not sure what your point is

    “allegations that a Coalition minister is a regular visitor to gay bath houses.”

    “The Government is blaming the Labor Party for circulating a “fact” sheet on the married minister, which alleges he has sexually harassed other males in political circles. ”

    “It also claims his wife is known within the Liberal Party as a “beard” – a term for someone acting as a cover for a gay man. ”

    And yes you have given the name of the journalist. VERY GOOD!!

    By Glenn Milne
    September 23, 2007 11:09am

    WHAT IS YOUR POINT?????

  164. In 2007 on Blogocracy Neil brought up a story about Garret that did not contain a by-line. He was called on it by Adrian. Neil’s response was:

    I read it in Crikey

  165. Joni 10:36 pm,

    Thanks for the new links

    Fist link: Labor (through Albanese and Wong) accuse; Liberals (through Ruddock) deny.

    Second link: Libs accuse Labor, Labor denies; Labor accuse Libs, Libs deny. Various ministers and journalists quoted. Unions accused and don’t deny.

    Juicy reading but no admissions, and no proof. (Note that ‘shit sheet’ does seem to exist, but authorship denied by both sides of politics.)

    All very incestuous – everyone named is either a federal politician or a member of the Canberra press gallery (the odd-man-out is a unionist).

  166. I am not the one making the point Neil – you asked for the evidence for the dirt units, and I supplied a couple of random links.

    You then got upset (even SHOUTED) that it was hearsay because there was not a byline to the links.

    All I am doing is trying to make you understand that I accept your position – which you have made very clear – and to let you know that if you demand direct quotes from the persons concerned then I will hold you to your own standard.

    And my point of the other links are that the stories did have a reporters name attached – which is what seemed to have set you off in the first place.

  167. joni, on June 10th, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    Hi Joni- mate you have totally lost it. just admit you have lost and move on.

    As an inside when i was in 6 class I smoked a cigarrette

  168. Why have I lost Neil? because you say so?

    You even said that you wanted to take a photo because a leftoid admitted they were wrong.

    You have created a standard that you demanded by shouting abuse – I will hold you to that standard, that’s all.

  169. Why have I lost Neil? because you say so?

    Yep Joni because i say so.

    Also next time do not give me links to an unnamed AAP reporter.

  170. I will give whatever links I want – you are the one who has the standard – not me.

    I feel so foolish for losing. Woe is me.

  171. We all know who the loser is in that exchange Neil & I think you’re gonna be sorry 😆

  172. I will give whatever links I want

    Thats O.K. Joni – its your blog.

    I have actually forgotten what the original link was about. So i scrolled up.

    Apparently according to you leftoids JH got the public servants to create a dirt unit to make fun of the ALP.

    please give me a link for this!!!!

  173. Sorry Neil – at this stage I cannot find any links that have the names of the public servants involved in the dirt unit. All I have is the “hearsay” supplied by non-reputable journalists.

    That is why I am the loser.

  174. That is why I am the loser
    joni, on June 10th, 2009 at 11:15 pm

    ABSOLUTELY!!! Thank you for finally admitting the truth.

    As an aside you may be correct. However hearsay evidence is not very good.

    The ALP has been is power since November 2007. It is time for you to produce some evidence.

  175. I agree with everything you have said, except for the second last paragraph.
    Kevin Rudd is exactly the same sad, incompetent, lip slathering little person that he was 18 months ago

  176. I believe that I fulfilled your requirement to have “a real life human being who will put his name to these accusations” – which I did (Veness and Milne).

    Unfortunately for me (the loser by your own assessment ) you have now changed your requirement to provide evidence that the ALP found after Nov 2007.

    I am now even more of a loser than I was before.

  177. The ALP has been is power since November 2007. It is time for you to produce some evidence.

    Teehee – talk about digging yourself in deeper Neil – you do realise what you’ve just done, don’t you?

  178. Teehee – talk about digging yourself in deeper Neil – you do realise what you’ve just done, don’t you?
    bacchus, on June 10th, 2009 at 11:31 pm

    Nope- please tell me what i have done

  179. Nah – that would just spoil joni’s fun 😆

  180. Neil will find out in the weeks to come, but it surrounds evidence of what you post. No one else will be held to that standard Neil – just you because you made such a song and dance about it.

  181. Nah – that would just spoil joni’s fun

    O.K. Bacchus I do not want to spoil Joni’s fun but please let me in on this.

  182. joni, on June 10th, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    Hi Joni

    BLAH, BLAH, BLAH and furthermore BLAH

    So i will find out in weeks to come.

    I CANNOT WAIT!!!!

    What surprises do you leftoids have in store for me???

    JH had a smoke behind the toilet???? JH told a lie in fourth class??

    I cannot wait for your leftoid revelations

  183. Not our revelations Neil – yours, any comment that you make MUST be backed up by full links. It is the standard that you have created for yourself. Not us.

  184. Not our revelations Neil – yours

    Listen deadbeat- you are the one making the allegations

  185. As Daryl Kerrigan would say, Suffer in your jocks Neil 😆

  186. Who is Daryl Kerrigan???

  187. Do some research Neil – find out!

  188. Neil, you keep asking joni what his point is. My question is WTF is your point? Just what goes on in Neilworld?

    Can’t The World According to Neil handle anything that holds a contradictory view to its narrow rigid beliefs? Putting your fingers in your ears and saying la la la isn’t a winning argument, despite what you may think. Glenn Milne is an unnamed AAP reporter? Wow! Who’da thunk it?

    ToM, Therese Rein worked hard for every dollar she has, so I don’t understand why you’re so upset about her success, nor why you think it’s OK for her to be stalked by a tabloid magazine.

  189. Just what goes on in Neilworld?

    hey i was just asking what joni’s point was.

    joni says he has some “evidence’ that JH started up a dirt unit funded by us “the taxpayers” to spread dirt on our current PM.

    I just wanted to see some evidence. Joni gave me two links to articles without a NAME

  190. Back on topic…I see George wrote a cheeky article last night.

    Not his usual dry style but pretty well sums it up for me.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25618344-5013592,00.html

  191. Jane, I have not said anything at all about Therese having her photo in a magazine.

    My only points have been –
    • Rudd sounds like a tosser when he repeatedly says – “fair shake of the sauce bottle mate”
    • I thought the disparaging nickname given to the wife of the former PM was not appropriate. But that balance should dictate that those that provide it, also provide the current one with an equally disparaging nickname.
    • To me, there seems most odd that Therese can become rich out of a conservative policy that was vehemently opposed by the party her husband leads.

    Now, I know some here will suggest that I’m repeatedly raising these points, but it is also up to others to decide whether they wish to continue to discuss them, or not.

  192. Tom

    I was reading in Peter Hartcher’s book last night that most of Therese’s money come from overseas ventures and not that in Australia.

    And yes Tom – you do continually raise them with no new information.

  193. Well Tom when we find out who gave Janette the nickname Hyacinth we will ask them to nickname Therese.

    As joni said Tom, Therese did not become rich out of a conservative policy, she became a bit more richer. And if she had not taken business advantage of that policy by fairly and squarely out tendering other firms then she would have moved onto something else.

    What this has to do with what the Labor party is for or against I haven’t a clue. Are you saying that Therese, who has already given up a fair bit so Kevin can be PM, must bow to every whim and tenet of the Labor party and Kevin?

  194. Manager of Opposition Business > Transcript:Liberal Party Dirt Units; Productivity MPI; Alex Hawke; AFP

    Transcript of PM – Ruddock accused of running dirt unit

    MARK COLVIN: The Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has vehemently denied running a taxpayer funded political dirt unit out of the Commonwealth offices in Sydney.

    But in Parliament this afternoon he did make an interesting admission.

    Mr Ruddock said he expected his publicly-funded staff to monitor the news, and to tell him about mistakes that the Opposition are making.

    Labor says if that information was being passed on to others outside Mr Ruddock’s office then that made it a dirt unit.

  195. Mobius Ecko, on June 11th, 2009 at 10:05 am Said:

    oops, both posted @ same time adrian, did mine wreck yours?

  196. Wow, according to George the PM delivered an amusing spray at his expense this morning.

    He must of touched a raw nerve…lol!

  197. As you can see, Joni, Neil is not interested in debate. He is a classic troll. That said, can we help him keep his own standard by deleting all posts of his that fail to meet it? 😛

  198. Quite right Adrian. Courtesy of Wik Therese set up Ingeus in ’88 the same year that the family returned from China and so therefore a decade before Rudd entered politics as an elected representative.

  199. Kittylitter,

    That first link contains something very interesting, and may lead to the elusive evidence required that “dirt units” existed:

    ALBANESE: Thanks Penny. This morning in the Parliament, Labor sought to give the Attorney General an opportunity to explain what is revealed in The Bulletin this morning; that there is a secret dirt unit operating out of the Attorney General’s office in Phillip Street Sydney, comprised of between six to eight people, and that it has been in operation since the year 2000 and has worked for the re-election of the Howard Government in 2001, in 2004, and it is continuing to work to that end in 2007.

    This morning we raised a number of questions in the Parliament that the Attorney General, the senior legal officer of the land is obliged to answer, they are:

    •what is the date of the secret unit’s establishment? We understand that it’s the year 2000, interestingly when the current Attorney General was the Minister for Immigration and we know the role that he played in the 2001 election campaign;
    •the annual cost to tax payers of the secret unit’s operation;
    •the secret unit’s full staffing arrangements;
    •the secret unit’s recording arrangements;
    •the functions of the secret units, including its monitoring of non-government media comment and other activities;
    •the relationship between the secret unit and the taxpayer funded Government Member’s Secretariat;
    •the relationship between the secret unit and other taxpayer funded units operating out of other ministerial offices;
    •the relationship between the secret unit and the federal secretariat of the Liberal Party;
    •the relationship between the secret unit and Crosby Textor; and
    •the reason that the existence of this secret dirt unit has been kept secret from the Australian Parliament and the Australian people.

    These are all questions that the Attorney General must answer, because after all the Australian taxpayers are entitled to know how their taxpayers’ funds are being spent by this government.

    Ruddock’s answers should provide the proof required – and I have no idea what they were – but, as we all know, there are grave consequenses if a politician lies to Parliament.

  200. No Ben – we leave them up as evidence that he does not want to comply with his own standards.

    Note: the standard for Neil (only) will be that all accusations must be supported by “a real life human being who will put his name to these accusations”, and all links must have a clearly identified author/journalist.

  201. Oh – and the reason I am being so pedantic on this is because of Neil’s outburst at 9.44pm last night.

  202. What grave consequences Tony? As far as I can see all politicians in all parliaments have lied since the very first parliament was formed, and far from having grave consequences most have been rewarded.

    It was no more evident than in the Howard years where government members, party hacks and public servants were liberally rewarded for lying and taking the fall.

  203. Gillard/Abbott – get a room already!

    And could this be a Kernot/Evans moment appearing before our (covered) eyes?

  204. joni, stop it!

    I’ll start to have those graphic visions again.

  205. Adrian, I understand that Therese set the business up well in advance of the outsourcing of the CES, and had a small personnel business established before Rudd entered parliament.

    After the decision to outsource the CES, her business became a big personnel business.

    None of this is new.

    I simply find it difficult to assimilate how one partner in a marriage can take financial advantage of a government decision that was so stridently opposed by the political party her husband now leads.

    I think Rudd was an ALP MP when the decision to outsource the CES was taken.

    It is a most unusual relationship that can accommodate this level of philosophical divergence, particularly given the financial windfall that Therese obtained.

  206. And here we go again – most of the money that Therese’s companies made was from overseas… not from Australia.

    But why is it unusual?

    Do all partners have to comply with all ideological and philisophical positions of their partners?

  207. OK, now I taste sick in the back of my mouth. I don’t even want to imagine the kinds of angry “relations” that coupling would have….

    On Neil, I don’t think he cares what we think of him… He craves attention of any form, the more we try to “engage” him the better. Hence the reason I don’t direct answers to the guy anymore.

  208. While the company is the third-largest provider of services to the federal Government’s Job Network agency, its growth is coming from offshore.

    In the current financial year, the company expects more than half of its revenue to come from its operations offshore, largely through its operations in Britain, and to a lesser extent, in France and Germany.

  209. Interesting debate..that Rein’s company expanded due to Howard abolishing the CES. Therefore if Howard had not abolished the CES then private companies would not have made $$$$s.

    I should imagine that even if Howard had not abolished the CES that Ms Rein would have continued the work that she had been doing for the previous decade, that is helping the disabled and the long term unemployed..the people that the CES weren’t interested in helping…just bung’em on the Disability Pension and forget about them.

  210. I simply find it difficult to assimilate how one partner in a marriage can take financial advantage of a government decision that was so stridently opposed by the political party her husband now leads.

    I don’t find it weird at all. There are a number of areas where my wife & I disagree vehemently on political / business subjects. Being married does not mean one partner automatically becomes subservient to the other – something Theresa & Rudd’s success I think shows quite well. Rudd has his political career and is neither subservient to nor controls Theresa’s chosen career/business.

    The idea a wife can disagree with her husband on principles he holds is not that modern a concept.

  211. Yes BT, I try to do the same but sometimes something he states is so confronting, wrong or stupid you start typing and hit enter before you realise he’s got your goat again.

  212. That is actually why I like blogging discussions / debates. It gives you time to both collect your thoughts and (if you choose to do so) remove emotion from your post. With Neil, I have had to remove myself from the laptop a couple of times in order to not engage in fruitless debate.

  213. I think the volume of the business was split fairly evenly between Australia and the European operations.

    But it was the outsourcing of the CES in Australia that provided her with the kick start.

    Joni, as for repetition, I’m sure you will be pleased if in future I identify all repeated themes in your comments.

  214. I thought Saint Therese’ (there’s one for you tom courtesy of ‘planet janet’) inspiration was her dear old disabled Dad.

    The thing about Therese

    Rein’s life inspiration was, in large part, the battling attitude of her late father, John, who was left a paraplegic after a plane crash in World War II, but who fought against great odds to retrain as an aeronautical engineer, finding work and living a full and productive life despite being wheelchair-bound. He represented Australia as a paralympian and his legacy was, among other things, his psychologist daughter’s burning desire to help get injured people back into meaningful work, even if this meant retraining and starting over.

    So ingrained in her psyche is her father’s story that Rein makes no bones about its being a part of the Ingeus story, too, which “begins with a man who suffered a crippling injury”,

  215. As far as I can see all politicians in all parliaments have lied since the very first parliament was formed, and far from having grave consequences most have been rewarded.

    Your opinion, Adrian. Any examples where anyone has been proven to have lied to any Australian Parliament, and suffered no consequences? And, if so, where they have actually been “rewarded” for such dishonesty?

  216. Tom of Melbourne, on June 11th, 2009 at 10:42 am Said:

    After the decision to outsource the CES, her business became a big personnel business.

    No Tom you are deliberately misrepresenting this again.

    Hers became a bigger personal business, it was already a big business before the outsourcing of the CES, and that contract did not form the majority of her business.

    A while ago we won an eight million dollar contract and am awaiting the outcome of a tender response (in which we are short listed) for a two million dollar contract. Does winning that two million dollar contract make us a big business when we have concurrently several projects larger than that?

  217. I think the volume of the business was split fairly evenly between Australia and the European operations.

    In order to maintain a balance of “proof” in this discussion – do you have any link that shows that?

    Let’s face it – you don’t ever take what we “think” at face value either…

  218. Tom

    Absolutely – but when I bring up a topic I make sure that there is some new information to the topic. I try not to just bring the same things up again and again without any new information or details.

  219. Oh c’mon off it Tony you certainly can’t be that naive?

    Try Downer for one, just on the Saddam WMD let alone East Timor.

    Look up his parliamentary speech on the aluminium tubes but especially the falsified Niger uranium intelligence.

    And that’s just one politician in a couple of instances.

  220. Just a follow on from Ben…therefore following Howard’s decision to privatise the CES, Rein should have just decided to close up shop instead of tendering? This based on the fact that her husband was on the cusp of winning a federal labor seat?

    The CES was dumped by Howard in May ’98 and outsourced.

  221. Try Downer for one, just on the Saddam WMD

    Downer – or Rudd for that matter – didn’t lie to Parliament if they believed what they were saying was true, based on the best information available to them, at the time.

    A lie is a deliberate falsehood. Try again.

  222. Hi tony,

    Kittylitter,

    That first link contains something very interesting, and may lead to the elusive evidence required that “dirt units” existed:

    From my second link:

    Some names mentioned are Ian Hanke, Gerald Wheeler and Kevin Andrews who were digging up the dirt on Latham’s personal life.

    The GSM was one of the the supposed ‘Dirt Units’ and Howard made this GSM unaccountable to a minister and unable to be scrutinised by the senate about it’s activities.

    As voters would have no idea, Prime Minister, by putting this operation under the authority of your whip in the House, rather than a minister accountable to Parliament, you prevent the Senate poking around in whatever it is the unit does. The cute expedient that neither house, by convention, ever examines the staffing and funding of the other, very effectively quarantines the GMS from any sort of parliamentary scrutiny, least of all by a hostile Senate. Clever indeed.

    Labor’s Robert Ray and John Faulkner have been trying at Senate estimates to winkle out details of the GMS for years, never successfully. Ray especially pursued the issue after the Liberal Party’s former federal director, Lynton Crosby, quit after the last federal election, and your chief of staff, Arthur Sinodinos, let Crosby’s wife, Dawn, know late last year she should go, too, after eight years as head of the GMS, thus ending a very cosy little set-up that was not, shall we say, without advantage to the Government. And that, PM, was when your Mr Sinodinos replaced Mrs Crosby with, happily, Gerard Wheeler from your personal staff.

  223. Hi Kitty,

    Do you know whether Ruddock ever gave answers to those questions asked in Parliament? I would be very interested to hear them.

  224. scaper…, on June 11th, 2009 at 7:47 am

    Good article and spot on. George is always good value.

  225. The kick start from the previous government – http://www.ingeus.com/pdf/ThereseReinBioApr08.pdf

    “In the 1990s, when the Federal Government began to use private firms to provide employment and training programs, she diversified into the areas of injury management and employment services.

    Between 2002 and 2006, Ingeus continued to expand – in order – to the United Kingdom, France and Germany.”

    And … “But the big boost to the company’s fortunes came in 1998 when the Howard Government abolished the old Commonwealth Employment Service and established the Job Network, which outsourced the placement of all unemployed people.”

    From – http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21786418-601,00.html

    Some might find the huge divergence between married partners in business and political philosophy unsurprising. I find such a fundamental inconsistency difficult to understand in a marriage.

    The fact that Rudd used her wealth to advantage is also somewhat difficult.

    Min, you might check the timeline that you indicate.

  226. Tony, on June 11th, 2009 at 11:22 am Said:

    Hi Kitty,

    Do you know whether Ruddock ever gave answers to those questions asked in Parliament? I would be very interested to hear them.

    Don’t know tony, can’t keep looking ‘cos I’m off to work now, see ya!

  227. Nope – I don’t have an issue with the “fundamental inconsistency”. And I suspect that neither do the voters.

    I am sure if we look closely we will find lots and lots of inconsistencies in all manner of things that politcians do.

  228. Kitty,

    My own research has led me to this record of Hansard (p3). It appears, contrary to what Albenese claimed in that interview, that those questions weren’t asked in such a way that they “must be answered” – for example, in question time. Rather, Mr Albenese put them forward in one package, while asking that standing orders be suspended so that Mr Ruddock would have to answer them all.

    Of course his motion was defeated along party lines, but Albenese achieved his aim of putting all those questions on the record, and no doubt promoted further discussion in the media, where the majority of these accusations were being made.

  229. (Correction: relevant debate begins on p1 of that Hansard document.)

  230. B.Tolputt, on June 11th, 2009 at 10:15 am Said:
    “As you can see, Joni, Neil is not interested in debate. He is a classic troll. ”

    Joni made an allegation that Howard ran a taxpayer funded dirt unit. i asked for evidence and he gave me two links to unnamed AAP reporters which I questioned and for this i am called a troll.

    He gave me another link by Milne which was alleged to be about a Liberal party dirt unit picking up dirt on Liberal party politicians.

    Not very convincing

  231. 1. I did not make the allegation
    2. I was not aware that you required links with the authors name
    3. I provided links with actual authors (two)

    And still Neil decided that this was not sufficient (after abuse, a declaration that he had “won”, and calling me a “deadbeat”).

  232. So now Tom no married or cohabiting person can use their partner’s wealth to advantage? That immediately counts out every divorcee out there. Retraction, that counts out every partnership out there.

    Methinks yet again tis a conservative attempting to make mountains out of molehills and holding this government, but particularly Rudd, to account and to a standard they have never done for the previous government nor will for a future conservative government.

    Suppose next you’re going to have a go at the Rudd’s pet costing the taxpayers money because it causes extra work for the gardeners… …hang on!

  233. Neil

    Good to see that your usual diatribe of leftoids being the only abusive types has been totally discredited by your continual verbal bile.

  234. 1. I did not make the allegation

    O.K. Joni- sorry. It was Miglo who made the allegation but you responded to my request.

    I think the links you provided with the authors is not good evidence that this dirt unit actually exists. The Milne one especially. It was about a dirt unit spreading dirt about liberal party politicians

  235. Some might find the huge divergence between married partners in business and political philosophy unsurprising. I find such a fundamental inconsistency difficult to understand in a marriage.

    Then, respectfully, your concept of a marriage is stuck in the 1950’s.

  236. OK. Mr Albanese did ask a question during Question time that day (p88), and Mr Ruddock answered it:

    Mr ALBANESE (2.56 pm)—My question is to the Attorney-General. I refer the Attorney-General to the tabled list of government personal staffing arrangements, which identifies that 13 positions are allocated to him. How many of these 13 allocated
    positions are used to staff your ministerial office at 70 Phillip Street, Sydney? Do all the functions of the staff in your ministerial office at 70 Phillip Street, Sydney, relate directly to your role as the first law officer of
    the Commonwealth?

    The SPEAKER—Before calling the Attorney-General, I would remind the Manager of Opposition Business that he should not use the words ‘you’ or ‘your’ in his question.

    Mr RUDDOCK—I thank the honourable member for the question that he asked because it enables me to deal with a rather illinformed article in the Bulletin today—a matter which could have been easily addressed if the reporter made an attempt to speak to me or my staff to verify the claims that were made. The simple answer in relation to the question that the honourable member asks implicitly is that there is no
    ‘dirt unit’ in my office in Sydney or anywhere else. There have been many people who, from time to time, have been in my office and would know and have been in a position to see that there are not six to eight
    extra people in my office. Like the Labor Party, I have staff who provide me with advice on issues relating to my portfolio and issues relating to my ministerial responsibilities. The people who work from Sydney in
    my office provide me with policy advice and the support I need to serve the Australian people. Like the Labor Party members opposite, I would expect my staff to be cognisant of current issues, to read newspapers, to listen to the radio and to watch the TV news so that they can tell me what mistakes those on the other side are making, particularly when you read articles like that.

  237. No surprise there BT, Tom’s views on unions is stuck back there as well.

    But yes you are right, on this matter he really seems to have an ingrained Howardesque 50’s hard conservative view of Australia and Australian politics.

  238. Trivia Time – re that Therese Rein should likewise have a nickname as per Janette/Hyacinth. Likewise if a magazine snaps pics of Therese in her gym gear and publishes these (unauthorised) we should shortly be looking forward to pics of Joe Hockey in his budgie smugglers (not certain what sort of lens the cameraman might care to use). Fair is fair after all, just a matter of balance and fairness.

  239. Further question, and answer, p91:

    Mr ALBANESE (3.10 pm)—My question is again to the Attorney-General. I refer to his previous answer in which he indicated that staff at his ministerial office at 70 Phillip Street, Sydney read the newspapers, monitor
    the news and provide advice to the minister.

    Government members interjecting—

    The SPEAKER—Order! Members on my right! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call and he will be heard.

    Mr ALBANESE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the minister guarantee that the staff in this unit do not disseminate this material to other ministers, other members of parliament and Liberal Party candidates as part of the operation of this secret dirt unit?

    Mr RUDDOCK—I do not think I need to answer any part of the question asked because there is no dirt unit.

  240. …we should shortly be looking forward to pics of Joe Hockey in his budgie smugglers (not certain what sort of lens the cameraman might care to use).

    I’m hoping it is the sort of lens with the cap still on!

  241. My nick name for Therese Rein is ‘Candida’ for anyone who remembers the Big Gig. 🙂

  242. Agreed Ben, he certainly doesn’t have your finely chiseled features 😉

    But isn’t this how silly it gets, talking about Rudd’s nerdy Australianisms, Rein’s sleeves and her porky knees.

    Was just thinking…I would rather that people talk ‘Strine than all these very horrible Americanisms. At least Rudd didn’t say Hey Bro’.. Maybe ‘Australian’ might catch on? My late Dad used to say, Fair crack of the whip.

  243. Yes, my view of marriage is stuck in the 50s.

    The little woman has a dry martini in hand when I arrive home. Tidies herself up quite nicely too. At least she understands how fortunate she is.

    I don’t think philosophical differences are irrelevant. People marry and remain married for a range of reasons, but fundamental opposition to one another’s political or business objectives isn’t a good one.

    Mutual support for these objectives is a stronger basis for a relationship, but that’s soooo old fashioned!

    Joni, it seems to me that you might find some commentary repetitive, but others don’t seem to object to the discussion.

    As Lotharsson suggests, please scroll on by if not interested.

  244. At least Rudd didn’t say Hey Bro’

    Oh damn – I just had the mental image of Rudd with his pants half falling off, microphone in hand screaming
    “Check it out! The Rudd-rapper come’in at ya live from the parliament hizzouse!”

  245. George Mega has a post on this as well and Rudd had a go at himself this morning based on GM’s article:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/11/2595358.htm

    As GM says, wiouldn’t it be ironic if the PM was the only one to get the irony of GM’s post.

  246. D55,

    From your link:

    “Well, I was having a Dad and Dave this morning, that’s a shave, and picked up my copy of the Oz,” he said.

    Even when taking the piss out of himself, the PM gets it wrong. The idea, when using rhyming slang, is that those who know it, get it. Those who don’t, are left scratching their heads.

    You don’t use it, then explain what you just said. He really is a drongo.

  247. Before the last election Howard instructed senior public servants to find as much mud as possible on the Rudd family.
    Miglo, on June 10th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Hi Miglo

    Can you give me a link for this.

    Yes Neil. I am the link.

  248. ” I am the link.”

    Did you omit the word “missing” deliberately?

  249. No Tom, he wasn’t referring to you.

  250. I don’t think philosophical differences are irrelevant. People marry and remain married for a range of reasons, but fundamental opposition to one another’s political or business objectives isn’t a good one.

    And you talk about other’s misrepresenting you! I don’t think anyone on this blog believes Kevin & Theresa stick together because they hold opposing viewpoints.

    Mutual support for these objectives is a stronger basis for a relationship, but that’s soooo old fashioned!

    Yes, frankly, it is.

    The fact that people hold opposing views on politics, religion, and so on is no reason whatsoever for them to be unhappy. Much more important areas for a strong relationship are sharing similar family values, supporting one another emotionally, and actually loving one another.

    No-one here is stating what your marriage should be about; but applying your own prejudices onto their and trying to make it into something suspicious is pretty lame.

    Joni, it seems to me that you might find some commentary repetitive, but others don’t seem to object to the discussion.

    Actually, they do, but you tend to ignore them as well *shrug*

  251. Yes Neil. I am the link.
    Miglo, on June 11th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    O.K. Miglo if its your own personal experience I guess i will have to accept it. Not very nice if this is true. I hope this is not something you heard about but was something you actually witnessed

  252. Tom of Melbourne, on June 11th, 2009 at 11:42 am Said: Min, you might check the timeline that you indicate.

    In ’86 Rein was working as a Rehabilitation Counsellor. In ’88 she established a company Rein & Associates. I can’t give you an exact date..but Rudd had already run ’86 and was elected ’88 and gave his first speech November ’88. The CES was abolished May ’88.

    Hmmm….a plot…Rudd knowing that he was going to be elected to parliament (a foregone conclusion of course given that he was defeated at the first attempt) thought Ah Ha, Here is a way for the Missus to make some money..she should tender for Howard’s outsourcing of the CES.

  253. B.Tolputt – “similar family values, supporting one another emotionally,”

    Perhaps you don’t see business and politics as issues that require values, or emotional input/support.

    Min, I think Rudd was an MP when the outsourcing of CES occurred.

  254. You need to resort to cherry-picking now, Tom? Very sad.

    That you need your wife to share your every political value is no loss to me, but a sad reflection on how you see relationships working.

    That there are happily married people on this blog alone that see no problems with Kevin & Theresa’s political differences should be indicative that your view on relationships is not the only one out there nor is it the only successful one.

  255. B.Tolputt, I really don’t wish to speculate about the Rudd’s marriage.

    The discussion moved into this area due to me finding it odd that Therese was bidding for the outsourced CES work at the very time that Kevin and the ALP were stridently opposing the decision. That’s all. I’ve nothing further to add to that.

  256. Tom: From: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/firstspeech.asp?id=83t

    First Speech To Parliament – 11/11/1998

    This was Tony Abbott’s opinion, from: http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=225

    By contrast, creating the Job Network on May 1 1998 was something of a revolution in the delivery of employment services. The replacement of the CES, a 50 year old bureaucratic monolith, with a network of community-based, charitable and private organisations was unprecedented anywhere in the western world and has prompted a spate of inbound study tourism led by the OECD.

    Umm..the replacement of the CES lead to study tourism??

  257. So be it. I guess that leaves us with the fact that the rest of us think it is odd that you think it odd 😛

  258. As above Tom..wrong. As per Tony Abbott (hope that he is a good enough reference) Howard privatised the CES to church and other religious plus a few secular tenders in May ’98.

    For some strange reason, a number of people did have problems with a government organisation aka the CES being outsourced to mostly religious organisations. Rein’s company was one of the secular ones to gain a guernsey.

  259. Like I said. The more Rudd gets whipped for shaking the sauce bottle, the less Unca Joe can whip out his dinkum growing pie without that sauce bottle coming back to haunt him. And Rudd still dominates this weeks ‘news cycle’ and leaves the Opposition with nothing useful to say beyond some memorable bleating about an irrelevancy while naughty Joel and the actual Cabinet re-shuffle disappears from public consciousness. Onya Faulks folks. 😉

  260. Thankyou Neil. It appears that you appreciate my obligation not to discuss this further.

    Perhaps, one day distant in the future, I’ll tell you the full story over a beer.

  261. Legion,

    You kicked a sausage-roll there, me ol’ china-plate. That bible-basher Kev’s the full-toss all right, but you can bet your boots those billies in their bags-o’-fruit on the big-bickies are the bees-knees.

    Anyone who says Kev’s a fool’s no fool. 😉

  262. I think the major points from all of this is a) that the Prime Minister and Deputy PM have to get involved. Just how sick is this country that they get involved in a trivial spat, and b) that the feminist/sexist card is played. Now its not OK to criticise women. Women don’t want equality, they want superiority. For the PM and Deputy PM to get involved just exposes them as firstly small-minded, and secondly as bullies.

    As for the “fair shake of the sauce bottle”, its just lame and exposes him as a poser – a wanna be Aussie larrikin. We all know what he is, why does he strive to get to what he thinks of as our level.

  263. Min, Rudd was a candidate in the 1996 election and successful in Oct 1998.

    While working for Wayne Goss, I suppose he was active during the intervening period.

    CES was outsourced in 1998.

  264. Yup, you have it Tom. Rudd ran in ’96. Won in ’98. Howard put the chop on the CES in May ’98 and Rudd won in ’98 making his speech to parliament on 11th November ’98.

  265. And so Min – Rudd was NOT in parliament when the legislation was passed, and therefore did not oppose it.

    🙂

  266. Oh, good catch there joni! 😀

  267. Not my catch – it was mins, I just prepared it for lunch.

    😉

  268. Well then – good catch, Min.

  269. Pedantic point. Is anyone suggesting that Rudd was not the ALP candidate campaigning against this decision to outsource the CES?

  270. As a family historian..don’t get Cockney rhyming slang mixed up with Australian.

    This used to annoy me a wee bit, that when Australians were portrayed in American and even in English movies that we were given a Cockney accent.

    Tony..that is actually very very good, just delete the china plate which is Cockney. The bee-knees is American ’20s-’30’s.

    The rest is Aussie. Very well done.

    Oh ok, I’ll shushh, the Australian language, accent and it’s origin is an interest of mine. Min slinks away..being labelled a nerd…

  271. Pedantic point.

    PMSL. Again an issue of “pot meet kettle”. Whenever facts get in the road of a predetermined conclusion – ignore them.

  272. Bugger, joni would you mind fixing up my blockquote pls? Only the first line is meant to be quoted. Ta.

    joni: was already fixing it 😀

  273. Thanks 🙂

  274. Thank you Ben. This is something that has annoyed me for a while. It is always worthwhile to obtain a timeframe. As noted as per above.

  275. Min, on June 11th, 2009 at 3:10 pm

    The scary thing, Min, is that Tony’s link from last week to UK linguistic regionalisms pretty rapidly revealed to me that some elements of speech (even hints of original accent) can endure transmission through nine generations of Australian-isation (which is the fun part when occasionally being asked, “Where do you come from?”, like mine answer should reveal somewhere else remotely exotic, and tossing up between an answer of, “Here”, or, “Mars”). With a bit of research I narrowed down the residual hints of accent to either of two adjoining counties, and a quick consult with the family genealogist (Mum) narrowed it down to the one that best-matched the records (which also suggests that those better than hints of accent endured there, so far as the recordings I accessed go).

  276. Min and Legion,

    You may enjoy this scene for its interesting language.

  277. ONLY FOR THE HISTORICAL INCLINED.

    I admit, I haven’t followed this long thread but from what I can garner, part of it at least, takes Rudd to task because his wife’s business success. How quaint.

    In many ways, Rein’s success was accidental in the sense she was at the right place at the right time and also selected good people.

    Outsourcing of ’employment services’ didn’t originate in Australia but can be easily traced to Thatcher’s Britain and the ‘neo-liberal’ ideology she embraced as did Hawke, Keating, Howard and virtually ever western leader in the last century. It was the ‘common sense’ of those times (and perhaps still is, with some minor modifications).

    Rein’s original motivations can certainly be seen in the ‘altruistic’ or ‘charitable’ sense before morphing into the full business mode. Nothing unusual in that, given we are totally immersed in a capitalist society.

    Nevertheless, I find some elements of personal interest. Joni linked to an article by Andrew Fraser who worked for the Goss government in a number of capacities. First as a Presser with Education Minister, Paul Braddy where he worked with Michael Stephenson, the Private Secretary. Second, Fraser worked for Jim Elder when he was Deputy Premier before his resignation due to ‘branch stacking’.

    Stephenson went on to become Private Secretary to Goss and needless to say had a tense relationship with Rudd – but then again, anyone who deals with Rudd will have ‘interesting times’.

    With The demise of Goss, Stephenson left Queensland to work for Tony Blair and did so for some time. He then became crucial to Rein’s expansion in Britain and later into Europe. He, like Fraser, is a very good operator.

    In many ways, Rein has been terribly disadvantaged by her husband’s success. While there are many on this Blog who abhor ‘racism’, ‘sexism’ apparently gets a free ride. Funny that.

    Perhaps there’s is another female out there who wants to post, but then again, the one female who did is no longer a contributor nor even a visitor.

    Just sayin ..

  278. Tom of Melbourne, on June 11th, 2009 at 8:20 am Said:
    Tom of Melbourne, on June 11th, 2009 at 8:20 am Said:

    “• I thought the disparaging nickname given to the wife of the former PM was not appropriate. But that balance should dictate that those that provide it, also provide the current one with an equally disparaging nickname.”

    ToM, why does there have to be nickname “balance”? I am unaware that some sort of nickname protocol exists which demands that for every nickname bestowed on one person, an equal and opposite one must be bestowed on another.

    If such a protocol does indeed exist, I, like our friend Neil of Sydney, demand detailed links, naming names, meticulously dotting any and all i’s and crossing ts. Does non-compliance attract a custodial sentence?

    “The fact that Rudd used her wealth to advantage is also somewhat difficult.”

    How come, ToM? If the reverse were the case, would you find it less difficult, you old chauvinist?

    reb, the garden party was donated to Sids and Kids ACT charity auction at their gala dinner. Peter Strong, chairman of Bendigo Bank was the highest bidder. So Therese was in fact swanning for charity, not to big-note.
    In accordance with Neilrules I’ve provided a link, complete with names. lol

  279. The stutter is free of charge or link.

  280. In many ways, Rein has been terribly disadvantaged by her husband’s success. While there are many on this Blog who abhor ‘racism’, ’sexism’ apparently gets a free ride. Funny that.

    Yep!

  281. Tony..with apologies, sorry I can’t hear it as the speakers on the computer aren’t working.

  282. Sorry to hear that, Min. It was a scene from ‘Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, where Barfly Jack is talking about Rory Breaker.

    It’s not the same, because you don’t get the accents, but you can read it from the script at Scribd if you’re interested, half-way down p57 here.

  283. Neilrules – ROFL… 😀

  284. I must say that despite coining the moniker The Zeppelin (Big, Armed and Dangerous), I like Rein.

    She is (or was) regarded as one of the better providers in the old Jobs Network days and embued with a certain spirit of generosity and compassion towards clients not apparent in some of the other For Profit outfits.

    She’s also quite clearly an outstanding business woman.

    The fact she made a bucket of filthy lucre out of something the Libs privatised is neither here nor there. She only made ago of it with a lot of hard work and good-on her for doing so.

    When the CES was privatised I suppose they expected that the only people who would make a buck out of it were their mates in the Melbourne Club. Well, sorry fellas, but a Free Market is just that. And just because someone is a Leftie doesn’t mean they can’t turn a dollar in business if they have the ability and aptitude for it.

    Besides, I thought the whole idea of the Thatcherism and The Privatisation Revolution was to turn us all into little Capitalists so that we’d never dream of thinking of anyone else’s welfare or vote Labor again.

    With her, of course, it failed.

    She turned into a Captain of Industry alright, but unlike some (Meredith Hellicar and the James Hardie crowd, for example) she kept her conscience and didn’t check-it at the Board Room door.

  285. When the CES was privatised I suppose they expected that the only people who would make a buck out of it were their mates in the Melbourne Club”
    Evan, on June 12th, 2009 at 10:55 am

    No Evan. It was privatised because it was hoped that this would be better for the unemployed people of Australia than the old CES.

    It would be interesting to see some studies about how good/bad this privatisation was. Apparently it is unique in the Western World.

  286. Well, Neil, it’s been an outstanding success as a matter of fact, despite financal pressures om the providers from time to time as a result of poorly-thought-out funding models.

    As long as they get the mix right, it works just fine (and for far less cost than the old CES).

    I understand that the UK and others are looking at something similar.

  287. For the record, the process of outsourcing employment services was started by the Keating Government.

    The closure of the CES was the contentious decision of the Howard Government.

    This allowed Ms Rein’s business to transform itself from a small service business in a niche market to a very substantial multinational.

  288. Yes, Keating started it with Skillshare then Howard shut that down, introducing Jobs Network and finally shutting-down the CES.

    What Rudd has now done is to fund a large number of training opportunities and programs as part of the system to get unemployed people work-ready for when the Recession ends (I don’t give a stuff what people say, we are in a Recession).

    Howard had some funding for training, but nothing like this. It was the one real weakness in the system he introduced (apart from some poor funding models that required several revisions after much wailing and gnashing of teeth).

    As it stands the system is a one-stop shop for the training and job-placement needs of unemployed people. And the service is a lot more personalised than anything the CES ever provided as the punters get dedicated case managers.

    This is a situation, much as it may pain me as a Leftie to admit, in which privatisation has demonstrably worked.

  289. This is a situation, much as it may pain me as a Leftie to admit, in which privatisation has demonstrably worked.

    Personally, I don’t have a problem with privatisation of services by the government – especially in the area of job creation. I’m not sure how the funding on such schemes work, but if it were $X per person employed – capitalist pressures would work to get as many jobs filled as possible in the most efficient manner to maximise profit. Nothing really wrong about that.

    My issues with privatisation are always in the sale of physical assets which were created using tax-payer dollars & in which the tax-payer has no option but to continue paying for the use of (without alternatives).

  290. Min to Tony. Thank you so much for sending the script. Hopefully will have new speakers for the computer this ‘arvo.

  291. What Rudd has now done is to fund a large number of training opportunities and programs as part of the system to get unemployed people work-ready for when the Recession ends

    I can’t help wondering who these central-planners are that can predict the kinds and numbers of jobs that will be available “when the Recession ends” (let alone when the recession will end, if we are in one).

  292. My problem with the privatisation of the CES is that it was mostly awarded to church and other religious groups such as Mission Employment (aka Mission Impossible). Rein’s company was one of the few non-religious companies to be awarded a contract.

  293. Min, do you know if the religious groups were awarded funding in preference to the secular/for-profit organisations?

    I have no hassles with religious organisations performing the job &/or being awarded for it based on merit. If the Church of Scientology happens to be the best at getting people employed (without pushing their idealogy) – they deserve to be awarded the funding.

    On the other hand, if the funding was awarded based on their status as a religion in good standing &/or they happen to be a charity – then I would be against it. That is, treat religions like any other organisation (commercial, charitable, or otherwise) and there is no problem. Favour them (or any other organisation) on attributes other than merit and I’ll be damn ticked off.

  294. Ben..no I don’t know whether religious organisations were given any sort of preference as providers after the demise of the CES..and I suspect that it would be very difficult to prove that these providers were given preference.

  295. Min, no they weren’t.

    Contracts were and are awarded under a commercial tender process and its a real bitch, too. Some providers have a religious connection (like Mission and The Salvos), but there are a number of community-based Not For Profits as well as For Profit outfits.

    Here is a list of current providers from the Federal Government:

    http://www.workplace.gov.au/workplace/Publications/News/StreamServicesbyESA.htm

    Anyone trying to push their brand of faith on the punters would pretty-soon be the subject of a complaint to the Department and such conduct could place their contract at risk. They’re paid to provide a service, not to convert the Heathen Masses.

  296. Thanks Evan. In that case, I have no hassles with it being based on merits.

    I have my issues with religions for sure but only because they are elevated above & beyond other corporations due to their belief in the “Great Beardy Sky Man” (or similar unprovable claims). Not everything they do is charitable, yet they are treated as if they were.

  297. And so there we go and there you have it..Therese Rein’s company was chosen by the Howard government as a provider due to merit.

    Herewith Min provides notice of a conflict of interest: Eldest works for Tursa.

  298. And so there we go and there you have it..Therese Rein’s company was chosen by the Howard government as a provider due to merit.

    I don’t think anyone seriously debates that. Tom of Melbourne is simply claiming it as “odd” in some attempt to cast aspersions on Rudd / Theresa. He is implying there is something untoward about it, but not actually coming out and stating it.

    It would be like me stating there is something “odd” about the way two guys are single, always participating in activities together, and have no problems with showering naked in the locker rooms. I’m not actually stating their “gay” (although the implication is obvious). So when I am accused of falsely claiming they are homosexual – I can honestly say “I never said that.”

    It’s a passive aggressive thing I observed growing up. The above statement can also be followed by the insidious “But if the boot fits…”

  299. One version of common sense says she’ll become a lot richer, too, given that she deployed her business model into tanking labour markets overseas and the returns on that investment accrue with any pick-up in placements. The worse it gets, the better it gets. And then Malcolm really will have to watch his back for 183rd spot on the list.

  300. Ben..but you have it..over the past umpteen months the accusation that Rudd has ‘made money’ from his wife’s business.

    joni, on June 11th, 2009 at 2:41 pm Said:
    And so Min – Rudd was NOT in parliament when the legislation was passed, and therefore did not oppose it.

  301. Malcolm is wealthy enough that he doesn’t need to get a job placement should he get pole-axed as Opposition Leader. Believe it or not, although I disagree with him on most of his platform, I have some respect for the guy. He doesn’t need to be a politician. The pay for his job, while pretty damn good for us, is pretty low compared to what he could get given his career history.

    In other words, it appears to me that, Malcolm Turnbull is in politics because he really believes in what he is fighting for. I won’t vote for the guy, but I might actually have a drink with him at the pub (or a snifter of port in his den :P).

  302. Speaking of politicians, what is the bet that Costello will go again..only 17 days to go until The Big Decision.

  303. Hmmm – it’s about time for a new topic. Let me see if I can dig up some material and put an article up on it 🙂

  304. If you are trying to say that Malcolm believes in himself and can afford to expend time in attempting purchase of a Veblen good job title imbued with organisational power for which he has developed a taste, I might agree. In other words, Malcolm may be as uncomplicated as wanting to be PM, and I’d suggest probably is.

  305. Good choice Ben..and while you are at it, I would love the Cold scene from The Great Race with Natalie Wood, Jack Lemmon and Peter Falk. I can find The Tree in the Forest clip but not this one.

  306. Re Australianisms and the English language:

  307. Mind you, I’m almost sure there’s also scope and a delicious irony to be had, for an ambitious young man to bide his time when his principled agenda is shafted and shelved by the power that was and yet still can be in same office, to leave his generative imprint on a new Australian Republic should that occasion arise under his stewardship at some point.

  308. One version of common sense says she’ll become a lot richer, too, given that she deployed her business model into tanking labour markets overseas and the returns on that investment accrue with any pick-up in placements. The worse it gets, the better it gets.

    That’s good to know because, in the context of the country and ‘the recession’, the further into recession we go, the better, because the upswing, when it comes, will be all the greater. All we have to do in the meantime is not use up all our operating capital.

    Oh, wait…

  309. Just wondering if anyone has spotted John McP lately..am missing his imputs re the economy.

  310. Nice post, Min. Rex Harrison as Prof Higgins at his insensitive best.

  311. I haven’t; and I am, too; it’s partly why I keep his name ‘alive’. The rise of fringe groups capable of sowing deep social divisions in Europe was but many of his sound insights.

  312. one of many*

  313. So Tony, you think it better for the country to go deeper into recession? Interesting…

  314. So Tony, you think it better for the country to go deeper into recession? Interesting…

    Of course not, Ben. I was pointing out (what I think are) the flaws in Legion’s logic. (I thought the very last line might have given you a hint.)

  315. Legion, of course, was not talking about the economy-as-a-whole, but a segment of a sector of an economy and its peculiar countercyclical operations. More unemployed on the books sussed for their skills as inventory makes for saleable hires when there’s demand again, perhaps

  316. I know – I probably should have included a smiley. That said, you and I do disagree with the need for a deficit *shrug*

  317. Legion, of course, was not talking about the economy-as-a-whole

    Of course you weren’t, Legion. It’s just that Ms Rein’s companies, like our economy, must weather the storm of decreased earnings, and correspondent drain on capital, until any recovery, and associated increased placement fee earnings, comes about.

  318. Evan..it’s an expression of how one’s accent used to keep one in one’s place…why Australian television presenters used to speak in either American accents or British accents..but never, ever Australian accents.

    Having attended Canterbury Girls’ High..we were all taught to speak with an English upper class accent.

    This compared with how Rudd has been criticised for his Australianisms and Gillard for her nasal accent. Are we still embarrassed to be Australian?

  319. *corresponding

  320. Min, it wasn’t through any sense of shame of Australianisms that Rudd was criticised; it was his extraordinary out-of-character use of them as affectation that was criticised.

  321. Tony, on June 12th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    What decreased earnings, Tony? Job placement services don’t just disappear because there are no jobs; if anything, what’s lost in terms of apparent quantity in one service is made up for in terms of quantity and/or intensity in same or another service; and the very low starting bases in some markets yields a perfect opportunity to capture more market-share of those and more markets again to keep the quantity effects flowing either way.

  322. I stand corrected. In the circumstances described, and provided Ms Reins companies can find work for those people (and why not? – presumably that’s what they’re good at) then things appear to be on the up-and-up for the British Rein concerns.

  323. Tony, on June 12th, 2009 at 2:43 pm Said:
    Min, it wasn’t through any sense of shame of Australianisms that Rudd was criticised; it was his extraordinary out-of-character use of them as affectation that was criticised.

    ~~~
    Tony..it wasn’t out of character..Rudd talks like this mostly. Sad but true..he is a nerd.

  324. Tony..it wasn’t out of character..Rudd talks like this mostly. Sad but true..he is a nerd.

    Fair enough Min, I’m happy to take your word for that since the only Rudd persona I’ve been exposed to is the public one presented in Parliament and elsewhere, and as reported on TV.

  325. Tony..it’s just from youngest PhD at UQ molecular bioscience (biofuels). Rudd drops in on occasions. It’s just him.

  326. Min/Tony – I have a thread waiting in draft mode that touches on the very subject of Rudd being a nerd/dag… can we hold off for a bit as it will be posted over the weekend.

  327. Legion,

    Further to your point is this.

    It seems that there is higher turnover of jobs during recessions maning there is more work for the jobs agencies than in good times. The converse is probably true for the agencies who head hunt for execs and professionals though.

  328. Yes boss.

  329. Min- “Sad but true..he is a nerd.”

    That wasn’t the language of a “nerd”. It was the language of someone pretending to be something they’re not.

    It was an insincere attempt to be a dinky dye Aussie.

  330. Dave55, on June 12th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    Very interesting. I’d worked out that the least viable market scenario for job placement services was ‘full employment’ but didn’t realise the best returns were on the churn in the trough; I was figuring somewhere between moderate unemployment and tending towards but not reaching full employment, which would allow for some slack for moving between jobs and re-training and the topping and tailing of industries, was ideal for everyone concerned (even the economy) in the long-run. The proportionalities of the youth segment of that growing (un)employment inventory, when converted back into raw numbers, I would imagine to be quite appealing, along with the bread-and-butter long-term unemployed

  331. Yes, it’s all very counter-intuitive to me, but the following snippet from D55’s link explains it in a nutshell:

    there is also a much larger number of unemployed persons during a recession, and it turns out that the effect of having more unemployed persons is the dominant effect on the magnitude of the flows from unemployment to employment. Hence, the outflows from unemployment to employment are at a peak during recessions.

    It seems Ms Rein has greatest inventory – in number and variety – during a recession, so is far more likely to be able to fill any new requests for staff, however frequent or infrequent those requests may be. She can supply the most demands when her stock of unemployed job-seekers is at its greatest.

  332. And, from what I read, Ms Rein (I’m still tempted to say she, which would make her the cat’s mother 😉 ) is also attempting to have her company(ies) enter and operate in French and German markets besides the British venture, both of which have a higher population base to work off than the departed home market and both of which have reasonably persistent high(er) unemployment rates along with reasonably well-developed welfare sectors.

  333. B.Tolputt, on June 12th, 2009 at 1:13 pm Said:

    “It’s a passive aggressive thing I observed growing up. The above statement can also be followed by the insidious “But if the boot fits…”

    Sorry to be pedantic, BT, it’s “if the cap fits…..” I’d hate you to be castigated for making an insincere attempt to be dinky di. lol

    Re the privatisation of the CES, I haven’t heard a good word said about these job placement agencies by people who’ve used them. In fact they are regarded as a complete waste of time by those who have to register with them.

    They all found their own jobs without any help from the agency and were extremely miffed that the agencies then claimed credit for the job placement so they could help themselves to the very generous government funding.

  334. Tony, on June 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm

    Me being me, I’d still want to get a picture of the rate of change over time in the magnitude (and direction) of the flows from unemployment to employment to measure the ‘acceleration’ of the flows; and to compare that picture with pictures of the rates of change over time in magnitudes, and of the absolute magnitudes themselves, for inventories and total demand for labour. I have a nagging suspicion, in one dimension, that first picture is going to be an /\/\=graph and not a /\-graph…to inventory’s /\-graph, total demand for labour’s \/-graph and the economy’s GDP V- or U-graph or L-graph. I might have the mind experiment wrong (and I suspect I do slightly because I can see I’m slightly confusing the pictures put into words for want of words to describe accurately the movement of the pictures I am seeing), but that potential for a retrograde in the rate of change over time in the magnitude of the flows from unemployment to employment /\/\-graph, and for the magnitude of flows from unemployment to employment to ‘peak’ during a recession, might not necessarily be a good thing if the recession is a severe or prolonged one where inventories continue to accumulate and total demand for labour continues to fall, possibly bringing about the situation you originally envisioned if the ‘peak’ in magnitude of the flows from unemployment to employment too falls away and goes into recession while in the middle of a broader recession (and assuming Ms Rein’s business model was wholly reliant on fee-for-placements, which I’m not sure it is).

  335. Legion,

    If I understand your meaning correctly, your concerns are similar to the proviso I touched-on here:

    is far more likely to be able to fill any new requests for staff, however frequent or infrequent those requests may be

    We have established, I think, that Ms Rein’s company is best able to supply demand for placements in a recession because of increased inventories of unemployed job-seekers.

    However, in order to run a profitable business, the magnitude of demand for those inventories is crucial; it’s no good having the ability to fill every job vacancy in the world if there are no vacancies.

    Besides, increased supply alone doesn’t usually create increased demand, unless prices fall as a result of that increased supply. End-user prices in Ms Rein’s businesses – wages – are regulated, so that can’t apply here (unless, of course, Britain has quietly introduced some form of workchoices ;-)), .

    There are a couple of other things I can imagine such a company would need to do to be successful in a – presumably – tight labour market.

    One is to supply more than its fair share of any demand, by increasing market-share over its competitors (get a bigger piece of the four-‘n’-twenty, with or without sauce ;-)).

    The other is to ‘create’ ‘additional’ demand – I’m envisaging ‘sales’ teams, whose role it is to ‘sell’ to potential employers the benefits of hiring available job-seekers – based on, for example, hard-to-find skills, which would become harder-to-find, thus more valuable, when expansion resumes.

  336. tight labour market’ should be ‘slack labour market’

  337. So – Rein’s company was about making a profit from people who are unemployed. And that profit was made during Howard’s term in office. Surely that means that there must have been lots of unemployed for her to make money – meaning that unemployment was high during Howard’s term?

  338. If you say so, Joni. 😉

  339. Spot on.

    Shameless self promotion – I’ve written a similar post but with dodgy photoshopping and an animated gif! Fair shake, you may shit when you see it:
    http://dullsvillain.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/introducing-rudd-roasts/

    joni: Welcome!

  340. Ladies and Gentlemen – just want to point you to the comment here that I just approved. The link is a bit blue – but quite funny.

  341. I think I was just attempting to build an ad hoc oculus, Tony, into an area sometimes raised in contemporary political debate, but little examined by those who would raise it from time to time as a tangent, and a tangent usually subsumed under a more convenient generalisation, to other political thoughts had or intentionally to be inferred.

    Otherwise, having visited Dick in Perth’s stomping ground and very much enjoyed it, I’d perhaps recommend a consideration of early Greek thought about the locus (loci?) in optics for the role of enlightenment identifying the light source; a classic debate between Emission theory and Intromission theory.

  342. Dick, on June 13th, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    Very appropriate post name and avatar, Dick … 😀

  343. looks like someone finally worked out what he meant – pretty funny!

    http://www.fairshakeofthesaucebottlemate.com/

  344. Tony, on June 13th, 2009 at 7:22 am

    Besides, increased supply alone doesn’t usually create increased demand, unless prices fall as a result of that increased supply. End-user prices in Ms Rein’s businesses – wages – are regulated, so that can’t apply here (unless, of course, Britain has quietly introduced some form of workchoices 😉 ), .

    I’m not sure, but for lapsing into unemployment, that persons are returned to their exact same jobs, pays, or conditions, especially where some features of the labour landscape are floors or safety nets and other features are soaring acrobatics in tight labour markets; I imagine, under some scenarios in slack labour markets, that end-user prices could witness a de facto fall, whether per industry in declining industries or per unemployed person where that person is placed in a taxi rank position of taking or needing to take the very next available job for which they are suited.

  345. Yes, you’re correct of course. Wages are regulated only to the extent that there is a legislated minimum for a given industry/job-description, leaving scope for the over-award portion (if any) of the price-of-labour to fall. ‘Professional’ salaries would be a different matter again.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: