In which the pond spends its meditative Sunday relaxing with nattering "Ned", prattling Polonius and Brownie ...

 

With a little comedy for an opening flourish ...

(Allegedly)

There were some temptations the pond could easily avoid:

Labor tried to destroy me with lies, but I’m still here
I was silenced by the lies that destroyed my life. I’m fighting back
I was made a villain by lies that had no foundation in fact. Now I’m speaking out, fighting back, and enjoying the support of thousands of Australians.
By Linda Reynolds

Just go away. Go away now. Do not pass Go, do not collect any more court-supplied tribute, just go ...

So over it, so tired of it... why not do what plucked political chooks do and turn into a feather duster? Or head off to Planet Janet and spend a year or three above the Faraway Tree.

And while you're going, take Brendan "just love me some murder in the streets mayhem while railing at the 'leets from my 'leet eyrie" O'Neill with you ...

Drawing the (border) line on elites’ slurs — why celebrity attacks on sovereignty are fuelling a populist backlash
Billie Eilish’s Grammys swipe at border enforcement exposes a widening gulf between wealthy cultural elites and voters who see secure borders as central to sovereignty and social order.

By Brendan O'Neill

Only in the hive mind do reptiles think people can't track the latest polling ...

Just go away, leave the pond in peace to enjoy a Polonial prattle for its Sunday meditation ...

The header: Liberals’ future must focus solely on policies, not personalities; When Robert Menzies helped set up the Liberal Party of Australia in late 1944, he was a person of authority dealing with a political rabble.

The caption for the timeless snap: Prime Minister Robert Menzies takes in the tennis with Sir Norman Brookes in December 1954.

Can there ever be a lizard Oz piece about the Liberal Party without a snap of Ming the Merciless? 

And does anyone remember Norman Brookes? Why does Polonius ignore him?

A dissertation on tennis might have been more interesting than this Ming-infused nostalgia, but  if you're a Polonius with a limited set of references and a keen desire to live in the past, you're certain to produce a dullard sports-free four minute read designed to sooth the hive mind:

When Robert Menzies, with the help of others, set up the Liberal Party of Australia in late 1944, he was a person of authority dealing with a political rabble.
Menzies had become prime minister in April 1939 following the death in office of United Australia Party leader Joseph Lyons. By late August 1941, Menzies had lost the support of the partyroom and he stepped down from office.
However, the first Menzies government had been an efficient administration. So when, after the opposition’s devastating defeat by Labor at the August 1943 election, Menzies resumed as UAP leader he was by no means discredited. The Liberal Party lost to Labor in 1946, but Menzies led the new party to victory in December 1949 and remained prime minister before retiring in January 1966.
The first conference of what was to become the Liberal Party was held in Canberra in October 1944. There were 77 delegates or observers and some 10 different political parties. All wanted to form a new party and all accepted Menzies as leader.
It is likely the Liberal Party will survive in spite of its current discontents. The Liberal Party has an organisation in the six states and the Australian Capital Territory. The Liberal National Party in Queensland is constitutionally part of the Liberal Party of Australia. And there is the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory whose representatives in Canberra sit with either the Liberal Party or the Nationals.
It is a difficult task to close down a main political party and set up another. Especially in a situation where the Liberal Party is not a national organisation like the Labor Party but a federation. Moreover, the LNP is in office in Queensland and the CLP in the NT.
The first task of the contemporary Liberal Party is to determine where it stands. Like so many Labor MPs, Treasurer Jim Chalmers is politically smart and also has been active in politics from a young age. His description of the opposition this week, following the collapse of the Liberal Party/Nationals Coalition, as consisting of “three far-right parties” is clever.

When not featuring Ming, it's always good to instil paranoia in the hive mind with a snap of Satan's helper, all the more devious and devilish for sometimes pretending to be "astute": Jim Chalmers’ reference to the Coalition as consisting of “three far-right parties” is astute. Picture: Martin Ollman

The pond knew what it was up for when it signed on to Polonius, and stuck at the game for the sake of a long warrior line of noble fighting lettuces ...

The reference is to the Liberal Party and the Nationals plus Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party. However, at the May 2022 election there was little policy difference between the Coalition and Labor. So, if the Liberal Party and the Nationals are far-right – then so is Labor.
Only four Liberal Party leaders have defeated an incumbent Labor government. Namely, Menzies in 1949, Malcolm Fraser in 1975, John Howard in 1996 and Tony Abbott in 2013. All were high-profile with a politically conservative agenda that set them apart from Labor.
The ABC is a conservative-free zone and is all but devoid of viewpoint diversity. However, producers like to talk to former Liberal Party MPs or staffers who have become vehement critics of the Coalition. During the first Radio National Saturday Extra for 2026, presenter Nick Bryant interviewed Niki Savva (who worked for some years in the Howard government), followed by former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, now a perennial Liberal Party critic.
Bryant advised Turnbull that Savva has suggested he might lead a new political party on the non-Labor side of Australian politics. Turnbull replied that this was “very flattering” but said he had retired from politics. What Savva and Bryant overlook is that the Liberal Party’s current decline commenced on Turnbull’s watch.
Having replaced Abbott in a party room ballot, Turnbull led the Coalition to the 2016 election and lost 14 seats to Labor. The Coalition survived with a majority of one. Scott Morrison, who replaced Turnbull in a partyroom ballot, attained a net gain of two seats from Labor at the 2019 election.
Then in 2022, under Morrison’s leadership, the Liberal Party lost 10 seats to Labor, six seats to teal independents and two seats to the Greens. Then in 2025 the Coalition effectively lost 13 seats to Labor.

Bored b*tshit (*google bot aware) enough already? 

Able to spot a Polonial error in the litany?

Truth to tell, the pond couldn't be bothered checking. Instead the pond got stuck on that line ...

The ABC is a conservative-free zone and is all but devoid of viewpoint diversity.

Ancient howling dogs and curling cats, does he ever pause and ponder how many times he's resorted to that keyboard short cut, and thereby forced the pond to waste endless amounts of energy noting his doddering decline into ABC-inspired dementia? 

Polonius is an ideas free zone, and all but devoid of tennis.

Now standby for a meaningless snap, The Coalition split has left Liberal and National MPs sitting separately in parliament this week. Picture: Getty Images

The pond supposes it's a relief that the reptiles didn't resort to a graph (oh wait, that's coming down below).

Want more pie in the sky?

Stand by for a last gobbet, a cry of pain and hope...

Writing in The Daily Telegraph on November 5, Perth legal academic Rocco Loiacono put it this way: “Since 2013, the Liberals have lost seven seats to the teals, but also lost another 39 elsewhere.”
In other words, the Liberal Party’s current problems go well beyond that imposed by the success of the teals in some wealthy parts of Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.
Reports emerged again recently about how Fraser, before he died in 2015, was intent on establishing a new political party to take on the Liberal Party. It is sometimes overlooked that the first breakaway from the Liberal Party occurred when Don Chipp quit the Liberals and set up the Democrats in 1977. Chipp let it be known that he left the Liberal Party because he was too much a “small l” Liberal (or moderate in contemporary parlance) to succeed under a conservative leader such as Fraser.
Fraser’s The Political Memoirs, which he co-authored with left-of-centre academic Margaret Simons, is littered with errors. In his book Fraser declined to deal with his decision to drop Chipp from the Coalition ministry in 1975 and got the dates of Chipp’s departure wrong. Chipp would readily fit into the teals these days.
It’s unlikely that what Fraser had in mind will succeed. However, there is a real threat to the Liberal Party and the Nationals from One Nation. Labor should also be wary of One Nation.
It is more than two years to the next scheduled election. The task for the Liberal Party is to win back the seats it has lost to Labor by focusing on the cost-of-living issues and to hope to win a few seats from the teals.
It’s time for Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley and Nationals leader David Littleproud to follow Howard’s advice that it is in the interests of both parties to restore the Coalition. It’s not a time for making non-conditional demands.
Whoever leads the Liberal Party to the next election will need to have a policy platform significantly different from that of Labor. Australians dumped Labor in 1949, 1975, 1996 and 2013 because Menzies, Fraser, Howard and Abbott did this. Potential One Nation voters will only be won back on policy issues.

He really is deteriorating at a rapid rate, getting worse each column ... but it makes for a mellow Sunday, especially as things could be worse ...

And now, as promised yesterday ...

The pond realises that there will have been some greedy gutz, who raced off to the intermittent archive yesterday after the pond provided a link to "Ned's" opus.

But hopefully a few abstained, in order to build up an appetite, because only the famished would fling themselves on this "Ned" feast:

The header: With Chalmers under pressure to effect Labor’s boldest reform, does he have the conviction, will Albanese let him? The catastrophic implosion of the centre-right has given Labor an open landscape on which to build genuine economic reform. Will they prove up to the task?

The caption for the cheesy collage for which unwisely Emilia took the credit: From left, Anthony Albanese, Sussan Ley, David Littleproud and Pauline Hanson have created a political imbalance not seen for many decades. Artwork: Emilia Tortorella.

As noted yesterday, this "Ned" Everest is a bigly 10 minute climb, and as well as the many visual distractions provided by the reptiles, the pond thought it might fling in the odd cartoon - not in any way related to the text at hand, more by way o providing a little relief, a way station on the trudge to nowhere ...

The crisis of the ­centre-right in Aus­tralia has a guaranteed consequence – it is about to reveal the true character and mettle of the ­Albanese government as a sullen public waits to see how Labor ­exploits the virtual free political landscape it is now gifted.
Our politics is being defined by collapse yet opportunity. For the past decade – at the 2016, 2019 and 2022 elections – governments had narrow majorities off tight electoral battles, but that landscape has been swept away.
Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers are ascendant with a huge majority in the house, a progressive Senate majority and a ­broken opposition likely to take years to become competitive again.

See how it works: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, whose Labor government continues to benefit from preference flows as One Nation rises. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Yes, but at least he's not King Donald ...

The pond thinks this 'toon strategy might make the climb a lot easier:

Labor has a discretionary power unparalleled for many decades. How will it exercise such power? Will Labor be brave, or shrink into timidity and merely pocket its huge political gains?
The decisive event is the deepest crisis of the centre-right since Sir Robert Menzies formed the ­Liberal Party – a crisis of structure, culture, conviction and fanned by chronic leadership instability. The bottom line: the centre-right today does not constitute a tenable opposition. There is no ­silver bullet solution given the damage is entirely self-inflicted and has been 20 years in the making.
Consider the debacle. Liberal leader Sussan Ley remains under permanent threat with Angus Taylor now the challenger-in-waiting, a situation where division risks being institutionalised; within the Nationals, leader David Littleproud, a practitioner of the “leadership from behind” method, is the chief architect of the disastrous ­Coalition split as he sleepwalks his party into losing its credentials as a governing entity; meanwhile, Pauline Hanson enjoys an eruption of support, with her ratings in some opinion polls leaping ahead of the Liberals – once an incon­ceivable event.

The beefy prime Angus boofhead from down Goulburn way is still playing the tease? Angus Taylor has not ruled out a leadership challenge to Sussan Ley amid Liberal anger with the Nationals and David Littleproud.

The pond is all in favour of it, because the beefy boofhead is a dumbo of the first water, and his elevation would probably result in a sinking feeling ...

The pond will concede that this tactic makes it hard to focus on "Ned", but the pond would have found it hard without any distractions.

"Ned" in Chicken Little mode is just a bunch of squawks and fearful glances at the clouds:

While the excited populist right praises Hanson for “shaking up our politics”, most opposition MPs know the grim truth: the more Hanson gains support, the more the centre-right will be fractured and discredited and the more ­Albanese will consolidate his political control.
In the current convulsion, the two big winners are Albanese and Hanson. Albanese can hardly believe his luck. The Newspoll three weeks ago showing Hanson running ahead of the Liberals for the first time – 22 per cent to 21 per cent – has reverberated across the ­centre-right. It was reinforced this week by The Australian Financial Review Redbridge/Accent Research poll showing Hanson’s party heading the Coalition 26 per cent to 19 per cent.
Hanson’s revolution is primarily a vote transfer within the centre-right that hurts the Liberal and National parties. It is not a vote transfer from Labor to the centre-right, despite the pretence to this effect from the pro-Hanson apologists. If talks to reconstitute the ­Coalition fail, the centre-right will be diminished in three separate parties – Liberals, One Nation and Nationals – fighting for primary votes. That is a dangerous outcome for the country – it means when voters grow disillusioned with Labor they will baulk at voting ­centre-right, given Hanson’s higher power and media profile in that spectrum.
There is an element of the surreal in all this. On Wednesday night, Hanson told Sky News a three-way coalition government of Liberals, Nationals and One Nation was “the only way to move forward”. That’s political gold for Labor. What’s next? Hanson running the economic critique against Chalmers’ policies?

The obvious rick for a Pauline interruption would have been a 'toon about her ... Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation SA leader Cory Bernardi. The rise of One Nation is actually weakening the centre-right rather than threatening Labor. Picture: Dean Martin

... but whenever Cory comes along the pond must abandon 'toons and celebrate body ...

Vanity, all is vanity, saith the long absent lord.

"Ned" yabbered on, oblivious to the pleasures of such a cut man ...

While the Liberals have been ­focused on One Nation’s threat from the right, Labor is planning an assault from the left, given the ­signals this week from Albanese and Chalmers opening the door to the May budget reducing the current 50 per cent discount on the capital gains tax. Labor would run on intergenerational equity, easing housing prices to help young people into the market, and striking a blow for tax fairness by cutting back tax breaks for the asset class. It would be a formidable political campaign and an obvious trap that the Liberals and the conservative media are likely to fall into.
This follows the economic ignition point for the coming year – the Reserve Bank’s increase this week in the cash rate to 3.85 per cent, with the far deeper conclusion it implied – namely that Labor’s economic model looks dysfunctional, failing to generate the productivity needed to sustain higher living standards and suggesting that Australia is trapped in a vortex of unproductive growth.
Even the growth the bank forecasts – a dismal 1.6 per cent in 2027 and 2028 – presages a rising mood of dismay and anger in the community unless the Treasurer embarks on a genuine economic reset and more ambitious reforms. Cutting the capital gains tax discount as a stand-alone step won’t do the job and would only highlight the lack of broadbased tax reform.
Economist and partner at Deloitte Access Economics Stephen Smith told Inquirer: “The latest forecasts from the RBA paint a dire picture of the health of the economy and our future prosperity. These are the weakest growth forecasts ever published by the RBA, and growth of 1.6 per cent in 2028 is a full percentage point weaker than Treasury forecast in MYEFO (mid-year economic and fiscal outlook) just a handful of weeks ago.

The reptiles decided to drop in a snap of Satan's helper in Rodin pose,  Treasurer Jim Chalmers is considering changes to the capital gains tax discount, a floated reform ‘essentially about redistribution and raising revenue to finance government spending’. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

It's as if Melania the movie had vanished from mind ...

What's the best distraction from this tale of coalition woes? 

Why it's to do a drum roll about the economy ...

“The RBA is telling us we have a major problem. Below average economic growth, above average inflation, negative real wage growth and soft household disposable income growth all the way to 2028 will extend households’ post-pandemic malaise to almost a decade. The cause is the collective of politicians – federal and state of all persuasions – who have failed to bring about the economic reform required to improve competition, dynamism, investment and productivity in Australia. We are now experiencing the consequences.”
Smith says the logic points to one conclusion – pressure on Chalmers to bring down the boldest reform budget seen so far from Labor. Two questions here: does Chalmers have the conviction? And will Albanese let him? The huge irony is that with Labor vulnerable to an assault on economic policy grounds, the opposition is immobilised and absent from the contest because of its internal crisis.
Professor of economics at the University of NSW Richard Holden told Inquirer: “Albonomics, like Bidenomics before it, just isn’t working. The rise in interest rates reflects an economy which basically can’t grow more than about 2 per cent a year without an inflation spike. This stems from our long-run productivity growth problem matched with excessive government spending at the federal and state level.

Sky Noise rolled into support "Ned",  Sky News Senior Political Reporter Trudy McIntosh says Treasurer Jim Chalmers has been repeatedly “downplaying” the role of federal spending on inflation. Ms McIntosh claims RBA Governor Michele Bullock has been “pretty clear” that rates may move again this year. “If they deem that necessary to get on top of this inflationary problem.”

On the other hand, it could be worse ...

"Ned" did his best to maintain the rage; the pond lost interest even more quickly, with not even an Alice reference enough to stop mind from wandering:

“Federal government spending as a share of GDP has grown strongly and at 26.9 per cent of GDP is at the highest level since 1986 (outside the pandemic).
“This Labor government has made both the productivity and spending problems worse. In the last parliament, then minister for employment and workplace relations Tony Burke took large fistfuls of sand and hurled them into the gears of the Australian labour market. Large pay rises, pattern bargaining, two-year casual conver­sions to permanent jobs, 15 per cent pay rises in the care sector, removing flexibility in the gig economy, you name it. If there was an idea that could reduce productivity, the government tried to implement it.
“We need to return to fiscal rules that both sides of politics had since the mid-1990s. Government spending needs to be curtailed. A pro-growth mindset needs to replace a redistributive mindset. It’s incredibly telling that when asked about inflation problems, the PM pointed to all the government subsidies he’s providing. They’re the cause of the inflation problem but he thinks they’re the solution.
“We’re through the looking glass. In Albonomics, black is white and up is down.”
The key challenge from Holden’s remarks is whether Labor can change its economic values. That’s a hard ask given these values are deeply entrenched under Albanese and Chalmers. The change demanded from the evidence is the shift from a redistributive mindset to a growth mindset, yet the floated reform on capital gains tax is essentially about redistribution and raising revenue to finance government spending.
Tony Barry, a director of the Redbridge polling and strategy group, outlined the risks for the centre-right along with the dangers facing Labor. He told Inquirer: “The Labor government has a lot of problems but the Liberal Party isn’t one of them. The mood direction in our last poll is 55 per cent of people thinking we are heading in the wrong direction. If you go back to the Howard government days, it was 65 per cent right direction in 2007.

At this point, and why not - we're already well down the "Ned" rabbit hole - the lizard Oz graphics department gave up the ghost ... People ‘think the economy is stuffed and they want someone to unstuff it’.

They want someone to unstuff it? 

Why not a man who knows about groceries, and can reduce costs by at least 2,000﹪, while doing a little ballot snatching and stuffing?

"Ned" was, in the end, selling exactly the same kind of hokey blarney as Polonius, the same kind of pie in the sky, castle in the air policy wishful thinking ...

“The mood today is entrenched pessimism. The great Australian dream is that the next generation will be better off than the current generation – but 55 per cent again said the next generation will be worse off. People don’t just think the ‘here and now’ is bad, that this will be a tough year. They think the economy is stuffed and they want someone to unstuff it.
“I’ve been doing focus groups and people are totally despondent, they don’t see any hope or future and they worry about their kids. Parents say ‘my kids are 19 but they won’t be leaving home for another 10 years’.
“Any idea the Liberals can go to the next election getting away with cheaper petrol for 12 months and a few bits and pieces like immigration just won’t cut the mustard. In that situation people will default to Labor, the devil you know, and conclude the Liberals are hopeless.
“People want leadership. The Liberals need to recognise that Australia is an urban electorate, that’s where the Liberals need to make progress. The Liberals and Nationals need a new mindset.”
Extrapolating from Barry’s comments, there are several critical conclusions. First, a smart Labor government could exploit the sense of “next generational failure” as a selling point for more ambitious reform. If, as expected, Labor sticks by progressive redistribution initiatives, that will miss the bigger opportunity begging from the public’s alarm about the future.
Second, Albanese needs to think about refurbishing his standing. The polls aren’t flash for the PM. His authority was undermined in the aftermath of the Bondi massacre. Newspoll has Albanese easily outranking Ley, but his satisfaction approval is minus 11 while in the Financial Review poll his favourability is at minus 10 compared with Hanson on minus 3 and Ley on minus 32. As the economic story darkens, so will Albanese’s ratings. He needs to get proactive. The current economic challenge demands prime ministerial leadership – Albanese can either seize it or lose it.

Cue a politician speaking fluent dog whistling on SkyNoise down under, Liberal Senator Jane Hume says the Liberals need to communicate a “united and credible” alternative to Labor. “There is a recognition that there is no guarantee that the Liberal Party will remain the Opposition forever,” Ms Hume told Sky News Australia. “That is a problem because a centre-right party, a credible, quality centre-right party, is so important.”

There's no doubt that Albo will go at some point, and so will the Labor party, that's the way the election cycle works in what remains for the moment a two party system (and never mind the Pauline rabble), but will Susssan beat the lettuce thanks to the power of "s"?

That's not so sure ... even the noblest Kings can face a little trouble ...

Eventually "Ned's"listicle began to splutter out and it was a relief when he stopped at number three:

Third, the message for the centre-right is about a recovery strategy, whether the Coalition is re-formed or the Liberals and Nationals are into political divorce for most of the term. They need to convert crisis into opportunity. Barry calls it a new mindset. Because they are so discredited, they have little to lose from thinking big.
That means an internal negotiation between the factions to agree upon and roll out new principles. It means getting away from the endless left-right binary that plagues the Liberals when their strategic identity is obvious: they are a centrist party that embodies both the conservative and liberal traditions and that delivers policies inclined to either the conservative or liberal side, depending upon the issue.
For instance, the immigration intake must be cut and reformed, yet the Liberals must remain a pro-immigration party overall – that’s a sensible conservative position. On the economy, the party needs a pro-growth, pro-productivity agenda with a more activist role for government – delivering incentives for the private sector while knowing the difference between enhancing sovereign capability and wasting taxpayer funds on flawed public interventions. That’s a sensible liberal position.
The Liberal Party can hold the government to account only by securing its own internal settlement. It is almost certain the Reserve Bank will increase the cash rate a second time. Both the bank and the government have been exposed for their failures. Chalmers’ extreme sensitivity this week to debunk claims public spending has been a factor in the inflation reversal reveals the depth of Labor’s vulnerability.
Big spending defines this government and comes with guaranteed economic and higher tax consequences. A competent Liberal Party would make the issue of Australia’s economic and social future the central issue of this term. That should be obvious, yet it is far from obvious to many on the populist right.

Cue an entirely meaningless illustration, Economic and social strains on the public mean grievance will intensify as data indicates 55 per cent of Australians already think the nation is on wrong track.

Grievances will intensify?

But isn't the whole point to look the other way?

Still working, or should that be slaving away, for the Murdochs?

Who can blame "Ned" for clutching at straws in these dismal times for reptiles? 

Stand back, give him some hope ...

Labor is already in trouble; witness Chalmers’ claim last year that “the worst of the inflation challenge is now well and truly behind us”, while in 2024 he accused the bank of going too hard and “smashing” the economy with rate increases. The two central economic tasks facing Labor – the two issues on which it will be judged this term – are tackling inflation and rekindling productivity, and there are serious doubts over its management of both – thereby feeding directly into whether living standards will rise, fall or languish. Sympathetic statements that “we know people are doing it tough” have a shelf life nearing its end.
Economic and social strains on the public mean grievance will intensify in our body politic. That will work in Hanson’s favour but it should mean her flawed policies, or lack of policies, come under serious scrutiny – something that hasn’t happened so far.
The ANU 2025 post-election survey found that Labor replaced the Liberals last election as the party of superior economic management, despite cost-of-living pressures and sustained interest rate increases. It is an astonishing outcome, more attributable to Liberal failure than Labor success. But there is no future for the Liberals unless this mantle is regained.
The related finding is that economic issues dominated the election campaign, and it is apparent that economic issues will dominate the current term, notwithstanding the vital role of culture.

At this point the reptiles gave "Ned" a final wretched uncredited collage ... Susan McDonald, Bridget McKenzie and Ross Cadell defied the position taken by Opposition Leader Sussan Ley.

And at this point the pond gave up on the 'toons.

It just wanted "Ned" to end...and so he did:

Finally, consider the sad plight of the Nationals. They have brought the humiliation upon themselves. Three weeks ago, the Nationals engaged in a stance that made no political sense – deciding to vote against Labor’s hate speech laws with three senators breaching the shadow cabinet position. The Nationals went in with open eyes. They could have abstained. But no, they wanted to be heroes, and kept telling us they were proud to do so.
Are they really deluded enough to think that purist free speech is a mainstream, beating heart issue in the regions and the bush, as distinct from the political activist minority?
And what did they get? A busted Coalition, their exile from the ranks of formal opposition, the loss of their prized asset – their standing and authority as an alternative party of government, their big advantage over One Nation. It has been an exercise in absurd and counter-productive politics.
Their leader specialises in “leadership from behind” tactics and history tells us that has two consequences: the leader survives far longer than he deserves, while his party sinks into decline.

The takeaway for the lettuce?

It's worth hanging in for the next month ...

As for a set of appealing policies? Might have to wait a few years, or perhaps the twelfth of never, a long, long time.

And now the pond will keep its promise to feature Brownie, but first a little detour to Parker Molloy ...

Jeff Bezos Gutted the Newsroom. He Kept the Megaphone.
Bezos didn’t abandon the Washington Post. He just decided which part of it he wanted.

Inter alia ...

...If you only looked at the layoffs, you’d think Jeff Bezos lost interest in the Washington Post. But the timeline tells a completely different story. Over the last two years, Bezos has been more involved with the Post than at any point since he bought the paper in 2013. He just wasn’t involved with the journalism.
It started in early 2024, when Bezos brought in Will Lewis as publisher and CEO. Lewis came straight from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp with phone-hacking scandal baggage and no discernible plan for the Post’s future. But he had one quality Bezos apparently valued above all others: he’d do what he was told. Within weeks, respected executive editor Sally Buzbee was pushed out. Lewis clashed with her over the newsroom’s coverage of his own legal entanglements, and she was gone.
Then came October 2024, when Bezos killed the editorial board’s planned endorsement of Kamala Harris. The board had already drafted it. The paper had endorsed a Democrat in every presidential race since 1976. Bezos overruled them. More than 250,000 subscribers canceled in the immediate aftermath. Three members of the editorial board stepped down. Editor-at-large Robert Kagan resigned. Columnist Michele Norris resigned. Baron called it “disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

What an excuse for a few 'toons ...

In February 2025, Bezos posted a note to the Post’s staff announcing that the opinion section would now focus exclusively on “personal liberties and free markets.” Not as one perspective among many. As the only perspective. “Viewpoints opposing those pillars,” he wrote, “will be left to be published by others.” He told opinion editor David Shipley that if Shipley’s answer to leading this new chapter wasn’t “hell yes,” then it had to be “no.” Shipley chose no.
Will Lewis sent a follow-up memo to staff that made the terms even more explicit. The replacement for Shipley, Lewis wrote, would be “someone who is wholehearted in their support for free markets and personal liberties.” Not someone who’d present a range of views. Not someone with editorial independence. Someone wholehearted. The CEO of a major American newspaper told his staff, in writing, that the next opinion editor would be selected based on ideological loyalty to the owner’s mandate.
The new editor, a conservative, Adam O’Neal, was brought in over the summer. And the opinion section started doing exactly what you’d expect a billionaire’s editorial page to do. In October 2025, NPR’s David Folkenflik reported that on at least three occasions in two weeks, the Post published editorials on matters where Bezos had a direct financial interest, without disclosing those interests to readers. One editorial pushed for nuclear power. Bezos has a stake in a Canadian venture pursuing fusion technology. Another argued that Washington, D.C. should speed up approval of self-driving cars, calling safety concerns a “phony excuse.” Amazon’s autonomous car company Zoox had just announced D.C. as its next market. A third editorial opposed inheritance taxes. Jeff Bezos is worth roughly $250 billion.

And again...

Ruth Marcus, the Post’s former deputy editorial page editor, told NPR: “I think telling your readers that there might be a conflict in whatever they’re reading is always important. It’s a lot more important when it involves whoever the owner is.”
Marcus would know. She’d already been pushed out by then. In March 2025, after four decades at the Post, she wrote a column criticizing Bezos’s new editorial mandate. Lewis killed it. He wouldn’t even meet with her to discuss it. In her resignation letter, Marcus wrote that the new directive “threatens to break the trust of readers that columnists are writing what they believe, not what the owner has deemed acceptable.”
She wasn’t the only one forced out. In January 2025, editorial cartoonist Ann Telnaes resigned after the Post refused to publish a cartoon depicting billionaire media owners (including Bezos) courting Donald Trump. She called the decision “dangerous for a free press.” And by October 2025, Post opinion columnist Marc Thiessen was openly stating what everyone already knew: the opinion section was now conservative.
In two years, Bezos handpicked a publisher from Murdoch’s empire, pushed out the executive editor, killed an endorsement, wrote a new ideological mandate for the opinion pages, decided the terms under which the opinion editor would be replaced, watched as Lewis killed a dissenting column and let a cartoonist walk, and presided over an opinion section that started publishing editorials serving his financial interests without telling readers about the conflicts. This was the most engaged Bezos has been with the Post since he bought it. He just had no interest in the part that does journalism.

Read the whole piece, follow the links, heck follow Parker Molloy, she sends out handy emails as she casts a baleful eye on those disunited states ...

And now, even though the pond provided a link to Brownie in the intermittent archive yesterday, here's Brownie to wrap up the Sunday meditation ...

Sure, it's just more of the same, sure it's just digital fish and chips wrapping that likely will be made irrelevant in a week's time, but it fills the void, and saves the pond's blood pressure, which would have spiked if Brendan had got the gig.

The header: Liberal MPs brace for Angus Taylor to make his move on Sussan Ley’s leadership; After Sussan Ley and David Littleproud endured another day of fruitless negotiations, Liberals are now preparing for the potential of Angus Taylor challenging for the leadership next week.

The caption for the snap starring the beefy prime Angus boofhead from down Goulburn away (and never mind those hacks sharing the bench with him): Angus Taylor. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Brownie spent four minutes on this gig and they seemed like a way to measure an ever-expanding universe:

Liberal MPs are bracing for a potential Angus Taylor challenge for the party leadership next week, amid growing expectations the Coalition will go through a sustained separation, after Sussan Ley and David Littleproud ­endured another day of fruitless negotiations.
With the Opposition Leader expected to unveil plans to ­establish a Liberal-only frontbench on the weekend given fury within her ranks at the Nationals’ latest offer to re-form the Coalition, several senior conservative MPs said they believed it was likely supporters of Mr Taylor would call for a leadership spill next week.
This is despite some senior conservatives saying they were not convinced he had the numbers to prevail on a spill motion, which requires the support of a majority of the partyroom.

Susssan got a gig, Sussan Ley. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

All Brownie could offer was the sort of speculation you might find considering form in a horse race:

Mr Taylor’s backers say all that is required to bring on a special partyroom meeting is a written ­request from two MPs to Ms Ley and chief whip Aaron Violi.
A spill motion at a meeting to be held “as soon as practicable” would then lead to an anonymous vote. This bar is significantly lower than what Peter Dutton faced when he challenged Malcolm Turnbull for the leadership of the Liberal Party in 2018.
On that occasion, Mr Turnbull demand Mr Dutton’s supporters provide a petition signed by a ­majority of the partyroom calling for a special meeting to hold a vote to spill the leadership. This action – in a dramatic week that ended with Scott Morrison becoming prime minister — was against Liberal partyroom convention and prompted the late Kevin Andrews to codify rules in 2020.
Liberal sources say Mr Violi has a copy of the rules formalised by Andrews. Conservative MPs believe he would not be talked out of following them by Ms Ley.

How on earth Kev ended up in this sorry saga was something the pond didn't care to know about,  The late Kevin Andrews. Picture Gary Ramage

Brownie then produced a sign that essence of Angus might be a worry:

In a radio interview on Friday, Mr Taylor said he retained an ­ambition to lead the Liberal Party and had been talking with colleagues about its future direction.
When asked if Ms Ley would be Opposition Leader by the end of next week, Mr Taylor said he had “no plan” to roll her.
“I’m not going to say to you and your listeners that I don’t have and haven’t had leadership ambitions,” Mr Taylor told 2GB radio.
“I clearly have had … that’s why I ran for the leadership last time around. Ambition is a good thing. But most of all, what we all want is a better Liberal Party and a better Coalition. And we need that fast. And if we don’t deliver that, ­Australians will continue to look elsewhere.”
Mr Taylor said he did not think the Albanese government had “protected our way of life the way it should have”.

Say that again?

"protected our way of life the way it should have”.

What on earth does that mean? It's idle, inconsequential blather, and if it's a policy statement, where's the policy?

Is it a concept for a framework for an outline of a plan to protect our way of life, and never mind climate science?

Before the pond could brood too much, the reptiles interrupted with an insight fresh from Sky Noise ...

“The Libs and the Nats can’t seem to come to an agreement to get back together,” Mr Bond said. “National Leader David Littleproud has made it pretty clear that he doesn’t really want to work with Sussan Ley as Opposition leader. “The problem isn’t that they’re too right-wing. It’s that they don’t seem to believe in anything, and they don’t have a coherent policy platform. “Labor has lost nine per cent in the outer suburbs. Add up One Nation, the Liberals and the LNP up in Queensland, and you have 52 per cent of the primary vote.”

Mr Bond? Shaken and stirred?

Surely they have a policy! Why it's to protect our way of life, and never mind what that is, provided it doesn't involve climate science:

“I personally don’t believe that the government is focused sharply on those Australian values that have made our country great,” he said. “And I think some of the concerns about what happened at that terrible tragedy in Bondi have reflected that.”
While some MPs said they believed Mr Taylor would prevail if a vote was held next week, others had doubts over whether he had enough support to blast out the party’s first female MP.
Some MPs willing to shift their support from Ms Ley to Mr Taylor said they had not yet received a call sounding out their support.
Some supporters of Mr Taylor argue it would be better to wait until the March parliamentary sittings to give him time to build more support, while swing voters argue it would be a bad look to move on Ms Ley too quickly.
“Not one person has come to me and said they are convinced that Angus has the numbers,” one senior conservative said. “People are all over the place.”

The reptiles then inserted that graph yet again, and while the pond has done its best to avoid too much repetition, it's an essential part of Brownie's hysteria, a supplement to the snap found in Polonius above ...

Brownie carried on in short bursts ...

Those backing a challenge say a special partyroom meeting for next Friday, after parliament rises, would be the most logical time.
Although Ms Ley beat Mr Taylor in the post-election leadership contest by 29 votes to 25, three people who backed her – Hollie Hughes, Linda Reynolds and Gisele Kapterian – are no longer in the partyroom.
The Right faction’s numbers, meanwhile, have since been bolstered with the entrance of NSW senator Jess Collins, an ally of Mr Taylor. On top of this, Mr Taylor’s backers say there are other MPs outside the Right faction who have shifted their support away from Ms Ley.
“What are we waiting for?” one Liberal said. “When do people think it is going to get better?”

The reptiles spared a moment for the villain of the piece, the man who had little to be proud of,  David Littleproud. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Brownie was by now well out of steam - where's coal when it's urgently needed?

Ms Ley and Mr Littleproud met again on Friday afternoon to discuss the terms of a potential Coalition reunification, with the Liberals yet to provide a formal response to the Nationals’ counter offer at 6pm.
Ahead of the meeting, allies of Ms Ley said they did not think the Nationals’ latest offer was “serious” as Mr Littleproud did not accept the need for a lengthy sanction of the three Nationals senators who crossed the floor last month.
Liberal sources said the offer from Mr Littleproud instead proposed a collective suspension for all former Nationals frontbenchers until the end of February while negotiations continued on a future Coalition agreement.

At this point the reptiles dragged in the Bolter to help out ... Sky News host Andrew Bolt claims the Liberal Party got frightened and embarrassed to discuss culture wars. “The Liberals got embarrassed about talking about the culture wars, frightened about talking about culture wars,” Mr Bolt said. “Now they’ve got to learn all over again how to do it.”

Yes, they did so well with the culture wars ... everybody's doing well with the culture wars, except maybe dogs, people murdered in the streets, and the truth murdered on Truth Social ...

And so to a final short wrap ...

While the Nationals are firm on all of its former frontbenchers facing the same sanction given Bridget McKenzie, Ross Cadell and Susan McDonald acted in accordance with the partyroom’s position, Liberal sources say the timeframe for a collective suspension was insufficient.
A senior Liberal moderate, who did not want to be named, said the offer by the Nationals to reunite the Coalition was a “joke” and should be rejected by Ms Ley.
“It is not a serious proposal and that is kind of the end of the road,” the moderate MP said. 

The pond hopes it all ends soon, if only to put a stop to this endless agonising, this relentless introspection, this non-stop navel gazing and fluff gathering to bed.

The tedium, the sense of ennui, is made worse by the way all the real fun - if you can call murder in the streets fun - is happening elsewhere ...

Something for the season...

Fun done, this is the latest sad report on the disunited states in the reign of the demented, deeply corrupt narcissist, racist, misogynist, profoundly peculiar always posting king, determined to make King George III look like a benign sovereign ...who went, to quote Michael Wolff, "went bat*shit crazy" in his latest frothing, foaming rants ...not that you'd know it from reading the likes of WaPo or the both siderist Times...

In which the Ughmann returns, the Lynch mob continues to defame the University of Melbourne, and the dog botherer whines and mopes ...

 

The clue?

MSNBC and CNN covered the post during morning programming on Friday, while Fox News largely ignored it. (Deadline)

The antipodean variant: the ABC, the SMH and the Graudian all got up early and covered it in the morning, while the lizard Oz largely ignored it.

The "it"? (HuffPost)

Meanwhile, here's what scored the headline, early in the day, before "Ned" took over ...

Put it another way: The world is aware what really went down, while the lizard Oz largely ignored it ...

Nothing like the sour taste of a genocide to kick off the weekend, as the pond waits patiently for the reptiles to note what even The Times of Israel wrote up, IDF believes 70,000 Gazans killed in war, as claimed by Hamas; civilian-combatant ratio unclear; Figure, acknowledged by senior military official, doesn’t include those under rubble, who Hamas says make up 10K more; Israel largely rejected Hamas tolls during war.

After all that time the reptiles spent doubting and denigrating or outright denying ...

And now to rule out a few contenders for the pond's attention this weekend ...

Why the Holocaust, Auschwitz, and death marches matter – and why Australia has forgotten
Since October 7, antisemitism has returned to Australia with self-righteous vengeance. From dinner parties to classrooms, the tropes are ancient, the hatred runs bone-deep.
By Shelley Gare

Speaking personally, the pond hasn't forgotten the dismal deeds of the Nazis and their fellow travellers (including one prominent member of the British monarchy), but whataboutism doesn't fly when confronted with a new form of ethnic cleansing, and displacement, and mass starvation as a tactic of war.

Avoidance of what has gone down, is going down and will continue to go down - no thanks to the crimes of the current government of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank - continues to be the "go to" method of a rag now routinely parading as The Australian Daily Zionist News.

Dame Slap also ruled herself out, as she often does...

Labor’s ‘Mean Girls’ v the ‘Morrison Boys’
The Higgins saga this week shone yet more light on the dark heart of politics as claims by ex-Liberal staffer Fiona Brown puts a plague on both sides of the house.
By Janet Albrechtsen
Columnist

Sheesh, more than enough already. Stop it or you'll go blind. Beyond the valley of the monomaniacal, obsessive compulsive possessed ... and barking mad to boot ...

The only thing worth noting was the terrible wobblecam effect embedded in the opening collage, and sadly that went missing in the archive ...

Enter at your own risk ...

The pond also felt exhausted by the thought of another round of Susssan v. "daughter of lettuce", but promises to cover nattering "Ned's" latest outing on the morrow ...

10 minutes?! And with the yet another example of that tendency to tired-looking collages?

Ye ancient yowling cats and howling, long suffering dogs ... let it be over soon ...

For those who can't wait, there's always the intermittent archive ...

Seize it or lose it: Coalition crisis to test PM’s courage
With Chalmers under pressure to effect Labor’s boldest reform, does he have the conviction, will Albanese let him?
The catastrophic implosion of the centre-right has given Labor an open landscape on which to build genuine economic reform. Will they prove up to the task?
By Paul Kelly
Editor-At-Large

COALITION IN CHAOS
Next week Taylor-made for leadership strike
Liberal MPs brace for Angus Taylor to make his move on Sussan Ley’s leadership
After Sussan Ley and David Littleproud endured another day of fruitless negotiations, Liberals are now preparing for the potential of Angus Taylor challenging for the leadership next week.
By Greg Brown

The pond can understand if some break and indulge immediately on those after dinner mints. The suspense is endless ...still waiting, always the endless waiting for someone with ticker to do the dirty deed...

The pond makes no apology for deploying the intermittent archive as the cornfield of choice. 

There simply had to be room for the return of the Ughmann ...

The header: Australia’s summer of chaos reveals nation divided and dangerously unprepared; Australia’s now swimming among sharks in a world where the illusory flags of rules-based order are gone; our best defence lies with a community spirit where the sense of what’s right prevails.

The caption for the visual cliché: Bondi lifeguards keep watch on patrolled beaches, the embodiment of community spirit that washes inland with the nationwide web of community-based rural fire services. Picture: NewsWire / John Appleyard

Being an unreformed seminarian, the Ughmann has always been inclined to the apocalyptic, but as a climate science denialist, he must look elsewhere for a rant, so why not sharks?

Now the pond will allow that Robert Shaw's USS Indianapolis shark scene (YouTube link) is one of Shaw's best moments and a great piece of cinema, but the Ughmann ain't no Spielberg...

The sea is dangerous. This statement of the bleeding obvious bears repeating because, amid the torrent of words that passed as news in this summer of disquiet, one sentence lingered after a spate of shark attacks around Sydney.
“If you’re thinking about going for a swim, just go to a local pool because at this stage we’re advising that the beaches are unsafe,” Surf Life Saving NSW chief executive Steve Pearce was reported as saying.
It has never been safe to swim in the sea and no authority can guarantee your welfare in the water. Enter at your own risk. There are sharks in the sea. You can drown in the sea. Storms can sink even the mightiest ships. From The Odyssey on, bookshelves groan under the weight of tales of the terrors and marvels that lie beyond the water’s edge. To choose to leave the safety of the shore for the chaos of the ocean is to weigh the risks against the benefits. You can stay ashore or take a plunge.
Nonetheless, to be human is to attempt to impose order on nature, so we try to create it and defend it wherever and whenever we can. And the best defence in a democracy is not government or law but a community spirit where the sense of what is right is pervasive. The surf lifesaving clubs are an embodiment of that. This organisation of volunteers emerged as beach culture rose in the early 20th century and, with it, a wave of drownings. It was not a creature of government but an invention of the people, by the people, for the people.
Today, you can greatly reduce the risks of swimming in the sea if you stay between the flags on patrolled beaches. The risk is not eliminated, but your neighbour has your back. This spirit of service washes inland with the nationwide web of community-based rural fire services. Other countries also rely on volunteers to fight bushfires, but none more so than ours because we have a vast, sparsely populated, fire-prone land. Common sense and a sense of the common good evolved here into a system where the fastest and best help will always come from neighbours who rally to defend their own. This is the most Australian expression of the virtues of the democracy we inherit.

To match that blather, the reptiles interrupted with visual fluff ... Surf lifesaving clubs emerged in the early 20th century as drownings increased alongside beach culture.

This is the best the Ughmann could do on his return?

A half-hearted attempt to steal Our Henry's thunder by dragging in Thucycides?

If oaths of wretched women can have force, I swear I have not merited this fate! Though innocent, to suffer punishment! (Ovid)

The funeral speech of Pericles, as recounted by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War, is often cited as one of the greatest in history. To honour the fallen, Pericles did not speak of their deeds but of what it was they were defending: the unique governance of the city of Athens.
“Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy,” he said. “We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens.”
This democracy was ordered by laws, but that was not enough, and among the virtues of the native spirit of the citizens of Athens, Pericles noted “those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment”.
Our summer of disquiet began when the written and unwritten laws of our democracy were desecrated on our most iconic beach. One of the indelible images of that assault on our way of life was a barefoot surf lifesaver running towards the sound of gunshots.
This summer, many of Australia’s illusory comforts collapsed as we discovered, again, that chaos lurks just beneath the surface of our attempts at order. And what was violated was visceral: our sense of who we are and what being a citizen means.
The Bondi massacre ripped down the wallpaper of multicultural unity and laid bare the fact that, without some common cultural glue, diversity can disintegrate into division. The Albanese government’s instinctive response showed it had no stomach for dealing with troubling home truths and would rather patch the wallpaper. If one of the deepest wells of antisemitism in Australia is radical Islam, then it has to be confronted.
The government’s job is to provide leadership. It failed, but that alone was never going to be enough. A sense of community wells upwards and cannot be imposed from above. It is the community’s job to rebuild the unwritten bonds of trust, and that demands our Muslim citizens shoulder some responsibility for dealing with the cancer in their midst. Pretending it does not exist will fly in the face of the evidence we already have and that which will emerge as court hearings expose the motivations, preparations and prayers of the two mass killers.
If the government cannot bring itself to name the problem, and the Muslim community will not examine its conscience, then any response will fail and the unwritten laws of our community will continue to fray.

The graphics editor hadn't caught up with that ADJN variant, and so flung in another meaningless snap,  Australia relies heavily on volunteer-based emergency services, including surf lifesaving and rural fire services. Picture: Thinkstock

Visual banality heaped on dismal verbal banality, and the Ughmann will have to do better if he's to hold a place in the hive mind pantheon ...

Difficult times reveal character and the government fumbled its most important character test. But there will be no penalty greater than the growing unease of a loveless marriage with its people. Labor’s grip on office strengthened, not through competence or skill, but because of the Coalition’s almost supernatural capacity for self-harm, as it mud-wrestled itself to the edge of electoral oblivion.
What we are witnessing is not a cycle but a rupture of the post World War II settlement that entrenched a political order that all but the very elderly have ever known. Before the war, the liberal-conservative side of politics was in constant flux. Labor won the 1943 election in a landslide and the divided opposition was gutted. In Afternoon Light, Robert Menzies recounts the painstaking task of trying to unify 14 state-based organisations into one Liberal Party. It took six years for the party to win government but, from here, that time frame looks optimistic for this era’s Liberals and Nationals.
All this would be disturbing enough were it not for the fact that the news from abroad is not good. The American President reminded everyone over our summer that the “international rules-based order” his country established and policed was not that old, not that ordered, and was more honoured in the breach than the observance. The Chinese and Russian presidents have their own ideas on how the show should run, and we will find the new era suits us less well than the old. Australia now has to deal with a world where the illusory flags have been removed and we are swimming among sharks, a long way from shore.
Many commentators have dusted off another line from Thucydides to define the times: “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
It will be a dangerous year, at home and abroad. There is a storm on the horizon. The sea is roiling. Our best defence is unity and a common understanding of what we are trying to defend. If we can find it. If we cannot depend on each other, then no one is coming to our rescue.

Sheesh, what a pathetic attempt at an apocalyptic scribble. It should have opened with ..

It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents—except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind that swept up the streets (for it is in Surry Hills' hive mind that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness. (wiki)

A climate science denialist blathering on about what we're trying to defend, while shipping the planet down the creek? Fergeddit ...

Meanwhile ...

The pond had to unleash the immortal Rowe to make welcome the Lynch mob, taking NY Times both siderism to a new level...

The header: Epstein files reveal tawdry sex and power but fail to create a true political crisis; Powerful men using young women for sex: this scandal is just too bipartisan, one of the few issues in America that is, for left or right to prosper much from stoking it.

The caption for the wretched collage for which Emilia unwisely took credit: Donald Trump, left, and Peter Mandelson, right, with Jeffrey Epstein. Artwork: Emilia Tortorella

This was a lavishly illustrated - by hive mind standards - attempt to defame the reputation of the University of Melbourne, and to the Lynch mob's credit, it was a fine defamation ...

Before commenting on what could (or could not) be the moral panic of the decade, we should remember two things. First, that there are some 1200 women claiming to be survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and, second, not a single alleged male perpetrator (except for Epstein himself) has been found guilty of anything in a court of law.
Until then, we need to maintain an empathy and due process for both groups.
“Victim names. Nude photos. Wild accusations. This isn’t justice,” declared The Wall Street Journal. Any ensuing justice, of course, is made harder because the man at the centre of the storm is dead. His most famous victim, ­Virginia Giuffre, is dead too – both by suicide.
This is a scandal of spectres.
Its current phase stems from no legal judgment, but from a dumping into the public domain, by the US Department of Justice, as mandated by law, of more than three million files with zero official adjudication of what they contain. It is as if we have been invited to sift through them to confirm our prejudices about how the world works.

Did you notice that impeccable opening bit of both siderism ...what could (or could not)

It was time for the first visual distraction from the dismal offering, Jeffrey Epstein with his private jet in an image released by the US Department of Justice.

The defamation continued:

It is hard to discern the shadow Epstein has cast on his “not me gov” inner circle, or what his unmasking of its members, from beyond the grave, says about how we are governed.
I met a student this week who was worried (really, genuinely, worried) that the scandal would be the undoing of democracy. I have also read commentators who think this is a storm in a teacup.
Founding editor of Quillette and writer for this masthead Claire Lehmann was excoriated on, and briefly suspended from, X for ­admitting she found it all a bit “boring”. They can’t all be right.

Quillete?

That reminded the pond of the Weekly Beast...(beware the Graudian's attempts to enforce signing up)

Journalist and psychiatrist Tanveer Ahmed is a past plagiarist who despite being dropped by the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian for a contentious column about men and domestic violence, continued to be published, in the rightwing outfits Spectator and Quillette. 

Ah, Quillete, home of quality journalists, but do carry on ...

The nexus of sex and power that is fundamental to any assessment of the Epstein scandal will increase short-term prurience (who hasn’t read some of the emails or bemusedly pondered the picture of Andrew, formerly known as Prince, on all fours?) at the price of any civilisational ­reordering.

Sorry, time to pause for more snaps ...Andrew kneeling over a woman lying on the floor; Epstein and former French culture minister Jack Lang at the Louvre in Paris. Pictures: US Department of Justice/AFP/AP

Back to the defamation, with the Lynch mob trying to sound like a combo of Noam Chomsky, Lawrence Krauss, Alan Dershowitz, and philosopher Woody Allen ...

The latter are rare in human ­affairs. A new revelation of an old truth – that sex and power are ­interwoven – will hardly transform the nature of our politics. Didn’t Epstein dabble in the oldest ­profession?
I wonder that even if the dynamics are ancient – powerful men using young women for sex – this scandal is just too bipartisan (one of the few issues in America that is) for left or right to prosper very much from stoking it. This hasn’t stopped them trying. But to little advantage. Epstein is the wrong kind of villain for Democrats and Republicans, progressives and conservatives. The outrage will dissipate given its lack of utility for both sides.
We may be saved from a bigger crisis because US politics is polarised, with one side’s moralising cancelling out the other. As a scandal with ambiguous political impacts, Epstein may end up ranking well below those others, American and non-American, that were deeper and more unsettling.

Quick, after such sharp-minded penetration, another snap, Epstein appeared to threaten Bill Gates over the Microsoft co-founder’s affair with a Russian bridge player. Bill Gates and Mila Antonova pictured in 2010. Picture: Facebook

On the Lynch mob meandered:

These pages carried a powerful indictment, by Helen Rumbelow, on Thursday of the rhetorical depravity endemic to Epstein’s “dark network of male power”. Calling it banter doesn’t capture it. The regularised and casual labelling of women as “bitches” and “c--ts” (and worse) by men holding positions of trust and authority, from philanthropists to professors, was especially depressing. The lack of judgment is spectacular.
The multidenominational affiliations of the men make the scandal much harder to exploit for partisan gain.
Consider how left and right are compromised on Jeffrey Epstein.

The right and the failure of moral capitalism

Conservatives, a broach church of course, must elide the laissez faire capitalism that gave Epstein his wealth, properties and pull. Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), argued that any free market needed a moral foundation. This was missing on Little Saint James, the financier’s infamous Caribbean island.
Wealth should oblige moral conduct, as Margaret Thatcher powerfully argued. In Epstein’s world, these were inversely proportionate: the greater the wealth, the looser the morality.

Eventually the reptiles got around to King Donald himself ... Donald Trump in an undated, redacted photo. Picture: US Department of Justice/AP

Quick, time to muddy the muddy waters even more, so that they might become a swamp or a cesspit:

MAGA populists have made some political hay from all this: “Look, this is how the deep state really works. This is the technocratic class at play.” It is a powerful critique. To watch ruling-class men allegedly engineer access to teenage women through Epstein is to validate a QAnon conspiracy theory.
Indeed, the “Epstein class”, for some in Trump’s base, is bipartisan: there are bad dudes on both sides. Megyn Kelly, Elon Musk, Candace Owens, Marjorie Taylor Green. All accused Trump of hiding crimes.
America’s political right is divided on what this scandal means, if it means anything at all.
The left’s hypocrisy on sexual abuse
But progressives seeking to stoke a moral panic over Epstein are trapped in several deeper hypocrisies. While hosting the Grammys last week, Trevor Noah quipped that artists coveted an award “almost as much as Trump wants Greenland, which makes sense ­because Epstein’s island is gone, (and now) he needs a new one to hang out with Bill Clinton”.
The joke didn’t land. It trapped the left-wing Noah in an uncomfortable hypocrisy: Democrats forgave Clinton’s phil­an­dering (“everyone lies about sex”) but need Trump’s sexual misconduct to paint him as evil.
Given progressive posturing on women’s empowerment, whataboutery becomes unavoidable. What about Bill Clinton exploiting his presidential power to have a sexual relationship with that woman, Ms Lewinsky? Hillary Clinton condemned the young intern as a “narcissistic loony toon”.

Shameless really, to celebrate his whataboutism while pretending it's unavoidable. That's sublime effrontery, whataboutism cranked up to 11:

How handy Slick Willy's blow job is in these troubled times, and rather than brood about King Donald's decade long plus friendship with Epstein, role out the whatabouts ...
The 51-year-old was an intern at the White House when then-President Clinton, 78, embarked on an eighteen-month-long sexual relationship with her - which ultimately led to an impeachment trial. Appearing on Elizabeth Day's How To Fail podcast, Lewinsky reflected on the scandal and how she was vilified and branded a "bimbo" amid the scandal. "It was 22 to 24-year-old young woman's love. The way we see love evolves with every relationship we have. I think there was some limerence there and all sort of other things, but that's how I saw it then. I think it was also an abuse of power."
Isn’t OJ Simpson’s (1995) exoneration for the brutal double murder of his ex-partner and her lover now viewed by some on the identarian left as racial justice by other means?
British grooming gangs, indulging a level of abuse at least as bad as that on Epstein’s properties, were swept under the rug by many progressives. Going after men of Pakistani heritage is racist; going after rich, white (ideally right-wing) men is social justice. Both sets of predators left a trail of broken women and girls.
The left’s moral contortions and hypocrisies have become legion in the #MeToo years. Israeli women raped on October 7, 2023? Nah. Zionist propaganda. But a misconstrued microaggression against a woman on a university campus? Burn him!

Remember Nobel scientist Sir Tim Hunt? His poorly chosen quip – that women in labs “fall in love with you” and “when you criticise them, they cry” – led to the 72-year-old’s exile from polite society. Patriarchal honour codes and killing among some multicultural communities? Nothing to see here; all cultures are equal.

Oh FFS, how deeply pathetic, and then the reptiles went off the rails by flinging in a Frank collage ... Fiona Brown has alleged Scott Morrison and his senior advisers silenced her following Brittany Higgins’ allegations that she helped cover up Higgins’ rape. Artwork: Frank Ling

Weren't we meant to be talking about Epstein? is there no end to Dame Slap's obsession and to the Lynch mob's whataboutisms?

In Australia, Indigenous women are victims of sexual violence at rates at least three times greater than non-Indigenous women. The outrage against its perpetrators leads to no mass rallies. Instead, Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins has been a mobilising cause of Australia’s progressive left. And the chief victims of this saga? Two women: former defence minister Linda Reynolds and her chief of staff, Fiona Brown.
What does all this add up to? That the abuse of women by men, and sometimes of women by women, has no obvious ideological valence. The Epstein files, in their voluminous, excruciating detail, are becoming a moral panic but a political nullity.

The reptiles must have decided they needed another distraction, so they flung in an AV, reduced in the pond's usual way to a screen cap ...

A newly unearthed legal letter has revealed a shocking act involving pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and disgraced ex-Prince Andrew. The legal letter that sought $250,000 in hush money revealed that an exotic dancer alleged she performed “sex acts” for the two men. The letter, which was part of the latest batch of files tied to the pedophile, was reportedly sent to Epstein’s lawyers by the female dancer’s attorney. The letter reveals the unidentified dancer claimed the act after she was transported to a party at Epstein’s Palm Beach home in 2006. The “popular dancer” claimed she and several others were offered $10,000 to dance at a party at Epstein’s home. As reported by the New York Post, once the dancer arrived at the party, she was ushered upstairs, where Epstein and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor were waiting.

Next up a valiant attempt to reduce the fuss to ...

Storm in a teacup?
Despite the inevitable trauma of each document release – which must be considerable for Epstein’s many female victims – they reveal no big political conspiracy. These men demanded hassle-free sex. They were powerful so had to be careful how they sourced this ­supply. The scandal kind of ends there. These men wanted a temporary sabbatical from their professions. They did not seek political advantage from association with Epstein; his financial patronage was negligible.
Indeed, we can imagine that several thought they had earned the “fun” Epstein afforded them ­because of their tireless devotion to the public interest.
This was all meant to take place in a permanently secret Xanadu. Epstein was a funder and funster, not some evil Machiavellian who demanded political preferment from his guests. What he learned from Peter Mandelson and Bill Gates was hardly the difference between his great wealth and any truly enormous wealth.

Just as King Donald ordered ...The scandal kind of ends there.

Wait, there's even more snaps, and luckily it's the Poms that can take the fall ... An image emailed to Peter Mandelson by Epstein in February 2011; Mandelson in his underpants. Pictures: US Department of Justice; Mandelson in his underpants. Pictures: US Department of Justice

Hang on, he was just being a bit of a lad, and never mind money for secrets, it's what lads do ...

The question we might ask Lord Mandelson, an architect of Britain’s New Labour movement – after “Who was that woman? And why was it appropriate to wear underwear in her presence?” – is what was your part in Epstein’s plan to rule the world? His answer, I suspect, would be that there was no such plan. No conspiracy. Just tawdry, rich men allegedly seeking some sexual kicks.
Likewise, Epstein’s guests gave him cover for his own sexual obsessions. He did not mean to turn his young victims into so many nickels and dimes on his path to global power. The man died in a squalid Boston prison cell in 2019. He was offering no sequel to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion – despite some bizarre accusations that the Jewish financier was in the pocket of the Israelis.

Then to add to the seemingly endless number of illustration, aka visual distractions ... Jeffrey Epstein smiling next to a child.

... and it could be said that you don't learn much about the Epstein matter, but you do learn a lot about the Lynch mob, and his taste for pandering, dissembling apologetics...

The documentary evidence reveals a sexual deviant, not a Zionist conspirator.
Watergate (1972-74) was a genuine political scandal. Richard Nixon burgled his electoral opponents to access their plans. Why did Bill Gates, Peter Attia, and former prince Andrew want access to Epstein? Was it because he promised them more power or because he promised them more sex? These men have denied allegations of wrongdoing and there is no suggestion any sexual offences were committed by these men.

Nauseating ... and not just Epstein ... Epstein surrounded by unidentified women. Picture: US Department of Justice.

Realising he might have gone a little too far, the Lynch mob flings in an "even so", but even so, there's no time for "even so" when you're trying on an epic whitewash ...

Even so, it is essential to indict the troubling nature of this. It is much harder to turn it into a scandal shaking the foundations of liberal democracy.
Mandelson didn’t use access to Epstein to burnish his power but allegedly to find the more diverse sexual gratification he sought: Cuban Americans to have sex with, not a revolution in Cuba. The files contain several emails between Lord Mandelson and Ghislaine Maxwell. “Behave,” she teased in one, “or you will be punished like the bad boy you are.” In another, she told him: “Do not be disgusting,” and he replied: “I love disgusting. That’s why I am wild and dangerous, and twice fallen.”
This truly is disgusting, nauseating even. But it does not rise to the level of a vast political conspiracy. The Lewinsky affair (1997-99) gave the GOP a cudgel with which to beat the most successful Democratic president since FDR. The Epstein scandal has not replicated this advantage for Democrats over Trump.
Anti-Trumpers want to drag him into “Epsteingate”. But, unlike Andrew and Mandelson, Trump cut ties with Epstein in 2009, well before he ran for office.
That the normally ubiquitous “gate” has not been suffixed to Epstein tells us something about this scandal’s limited political fallout. Sex and politics rarely combine to transformative effect.
This might be even truer of Australia than America. Barnaby Joyce? Malcolm Turnbull’s ensuing “bonk ban”? We don’t do sex scandals. We inflate the cultural meaning of Bruce Lehrmann’s rape of Brittany Higgins because such crimes in a political setting are so rare.
No-win situation for both sides of politics
The Epstein Transparency Act (2025) requires the US Department of Justice to publish all the files related to the dead financier, hence the recent dump. The bill was passed by overwhelming, essentially unanimous, majorities in both houses of congress (427 to 1 and 100 to 0); the lone dissenter, Clay Higgins, a Republican, feared that releasing the identities of witnesses would harm their families. It surely has.
This degree of bipartisanship is exceedingly rare in the Age of Trump. It tells us that neither side of politics has worked out a way of exploiting the Epstein scandal for its own political advantage. He is, again, the wrong kind of villain. Both sides have too much to lose. Both sides have their fair and mostly equal share of sexual perverts.
This, I suspect, is what will limit the scandal to depraved curiosity, but curiosity nonetheless, in the political history of the United States.

And so the defamation of the University of Melbourne continues apace ...

Timothy J. Lynch is professor of American politics at the University of Melbourne.

Congratulations to participants, you've been given the Lynch mob escape card ...

And so, if exhaustion hasn't set in, and correspondents can't put one agonised foot after the other, to the bonus dog botherer ...

The header: Hanson’s rapid rise is due to one key quality – consistency; As the Liberals and Nationals flip-flop about on key policy areas, One Nation has stuck firm to its central priorities. This, above all else, accounts for the party’s voter appeal.

The caption for yet another appalling, wisely uncredited reptile collage: Pauline Hanson and One Nation’s rise.

This was an almost unendurable six minute read, so the reptiles said, and the only pleasure to be found was the way that the dog botherer sounded hurt, and kept on whimpering ...

The absurdity of the shambles among the right-of-centre parties was neatly demonstrated when Pauline Hanson told me on Sky News this week that One Nation would be happy to form a coalition government with the Liberals and Nationals. “Of course, that’s the only way to move forward,” Hanson said.
The protest party that is now outpolling the official opposition was raising the prospect of going into coalition with two parties that are no longer in coalition. Talk about scrapping over the spoils of defeat.
Before going into the rise of Pauline Hanson, why it has happened and how the Liberals and Nationals are to blame, it is useful to consider a counterfactual. Splintering on the non-Labor side of politics is not an aberration, rather it is the natural state of affairs – a historical and ideological core strength that is also a fatal flaw.
What we too easily forget is that the Liberal Party was born of splintered non-Labor parties. Robert Menzies created the Liberal Party from 18 political parties and organisations.
At the Albury conference in December 1944 he outlined the aim succinctly. “I want to make it clear that political unity among the non-socialist forces is … not a mere matter of political convenience or opportunity,” Menzies said. “It represents our great chance to give a means of expression to the deepest feelings to hundreds of thousands of Australians who are frustrated by the present and who are seriously alarmed about the future.”

Could it possibly be a reptile outing without a snap of Ming the Merciless? Robert Menzies created the Liberal Party from 18 political parties and organisations. Picture: Australian News and Information Bureau

How amiable it was to see the dog botherer mope and whine ...

Menzies knew the difficulty and importance of consolidating the non-Labor vote (including through formal coalitions with the Nationals). The Liberal Party was a product of his political genius and has been remarkably successful, holding power more often than not.
But its core ideological strength – advocating the primacy of the individual over collectivism – is also its main political weakness. The Menzies Institute describes this tension at the formation of the party in this way: “Part of the problem was that by its very nature, non-Labor was a group comprised of quite independent minds, who were determined to preserve their freedom of thought and action. They were explicitly not-collectivists and had a hard time sacrificing their individual interests for the sake of the broader cause.”
This friction is always bubbling below the surface and constantly triggers eruptions; it is just that this time it looks like Krakatoa. And there is no Menzies-like ­figure to reconsolidate the right; there is not even a John Howard-like figure who can deftly draw the strands closer.
In the current parliament, the spectrum of right-of-centre or centrist players includes the Liberal Party, Nationals, Liberal National Party, One Nation, Katter’s Australian, Centre Alliance, teals, Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party, former Palmer now Jacqui Lambie Network, former Jacqui Lambie Network now independent, and a handful of other independents. They are all in competition against each other, as well as against the parties of the green left – this is where game ­theory crashes into chaos theory.
To plot a path forward we need to consider how we got here. Pauline Hanson’s rise is phenomenal, but it is likely more symptom than cause (her steadfastness made her well-placed to benefit).
My dealings with Hanson began when she was a freshly disendorsed Liberal Party candidate who decided to fight on as an independent at the 1996 election. ­Stationed in the Ten Network Canberra bureau, I reached out to Hanson and thought I might have a nice little story when this unlikely victor arrived to sit among the Goliaths in the nation’s capital.

Oh he was an insider, but ... Pauline Hanson in 1996. Picture: 60 Minutes

The dog botherer was in awe ...

Instead, she grabbed national attention immediately and by the time she delivered her provocative maiden speech, Hanson was at the epicentre of a national racism controversy. Her complaint that the country was being “swamped by Asians” still jars but her other prominent theme about Indigenous preference prefigured the voice debate decades later – “Present governments are encouraging separatism in Australia by providing opportunities, land, moneys and facilities available only to Aboriginals,” Hanson said in 1996.
Hanson formed One Nation the following year and her 30-year political career has included triumphs such as winning 11 seats in the 1998 Queensland state election, and bitter lows. In those early days I covered Hanson public-speaking events where protesters outnumbered the audience and huge police contingents tried to keep the two groups apart.
She was a hate figure. The ­Coalition vowed to preference One Nation last.
Hanson ended up losing her seat in parliament and even being jailed over electoral fraud charges (before being acquitted and freed on appeal). Her revival and resurgence is an astonishing tale but as she dominates the political debate today, 30 years on from being an unknown Ipswich fish and chip shop proprietor, one of the most remarkable aspects of Hanson is her consistency.

At this point the reptiles did a singular thing. They actually put up a 60 Minutes video link, available on YouTube, and a way to escape the hive mind ...

But there's no escape, as this ancient mariner whined on ...

The One Nation founder would probably not use the phrase “swamped by Asians” today, she has moderated her approach to some degree. But her visceral 1996 stance against high levels of immigration, race-based welfare and multiculturalism, overlaid by a strong sense of economic nationalism, are the same themes that underpin her resurgence today.
Hanson has hardly changed, yet she is now mainstream. There was a time when she was being de-platformed, now she is a weekly guest on my program; we agree on some issues, disagree on others.
Rather than Hanson adapting to the times, the political debate and the views of a large share of the voting public have come to her way of thinking – aided by Liberal and National parties that have become divided and unclear on core issues. The one policy area central to Hanson’s current popularity that was not mentioned in her maiden speech is climate change and net zero, but her stance on that is longstanding, and in keeping with her original economic ­nationalism.
Her consistency demonstrates that the dilemma for the right-of-centre parties is not that Hanson offers something new, but that they have lost their hold on many conservative voters. The influence of so-called moderate Liberals, and similarly wet Nationals, has increased since the Howard government and this has led to a lack of clarity and conviction from the Coalition parties on immigration, cultural issues, economic management and, crucially, net zero. By being wobbly on immigration, multiculturalism, net zero and economic nationalism, the Liberals and Nationals have invited ­voters to desert them for the clarity of One Nation.

Clarity? Well the pond supposes that Herr Adolf offered clarity, though the same can't be said for the next two to appear ... US President Donald Trump. Picture: Alex Wong; Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. Picture: Getty Images

Getting nearer to the end now ... as the dog botherer turned into a caricature of himself, and so early in the year too ...

It is a similar phenomenon to what we have seen in the US through Donald Trump’s populist brand of Republicanism, Reform in the UK where Nigel Farage has tapped into immigration, energy and cost of living concerns, and in various countries and parties across Europe.
The seminal moment in the Liberals’ decline was when Malcolm Turnbull toppled Tony Abbott as prime minister. Abbott had made some mistakes as prime minister (don’t they all?) but he was strong on borders and immigration, economic responsibility, energy pragmatism and national culture.
Turnbull’s plot was driven by personal ambition and revenge, and the rising influence of so-called moderate Liberals. These are the city-based MPs who felt awkward about criticism of tough border policies and a lack of action on climate change.
When Turnbull won, these jumpy types who are more interested in pleasant dinner party chatter and winning praise from the green left media than fighting tough issues with conviction took control of the party. They blurred the delineation between Liberal and Labor so much that voters in some Liberal strongholds thought they might as well vote for the teals instead.

There was a final burst from the Canavan caravan, thanks to full disrespect Sharri ... Nationals Senator Matt Canavan comments on Pauline Hanson’s push for a Coalition between One Nation, the National Party and the Liberal Party. “I’d like to sort this out … I don’t really understand why we had to split over this issue,” Mr Canavan told Sky News host Sharri Markson. “Pauline herself has been a little schizophrenic on this in the last 24 hours.”

And then came the final whine ...

Despite Scott Morrison’s valiant attempt to reset the party, and his stunning election win in 2019, the Turnbull moment is the rupture from which the party is yet to recover. Morrison’s worst mistake, playing into this trend, was his sudden and disastrous embrace of net zero.
And what of the Nationals? To a degree they have been victims of the Liberals’ muddling, as their better electoral performance suggests. But they did acquiesce on net zero under Barnaby Joyce, a position he clearly was not comfortable with yet adopted all the same.
Now, as a One Nation defector, Joyce has re-embraced his natural opposition to net zero. The Liberals and Nationals are still picking and re-picking from a Lazy Susan of policy options.
There are many other factors, decisions and personal performances at play – there always are in politics. But these were the key moments when the seeds of the current turmoil were sown.
In contrast to this confusion and squabbling, One Nation has been hardline, yes – but more importantly, it has been consistent. Voters know what the party stands for, and the major parties do not offer it, so they are drifting to Hanson’s outfit in droves.
Just when we have a dangerously bad government, the right-of-centre parties seem bent on revisiting the dysfunction of more than 80 years ago. They need to sort out a structure, offer clear policies on the crucial issues, and argue them with conviction, consistency and unity.

Frankly the pond learned more just by looking at the immortal Rowe ...

And to to a couple of PS's ...

Thanks to a correspondent, the pond caught up with Calum Jaspan in that other place, with a piece in his On Background media news, headed ...

The Australian suffers its own culture war

Killing season continues for The Oz’s culture vultures

What a sorry tale Jaspan told, and yet with a wry sense of amusement that was beguiling, and which deserves repeating ...

When The Australian went on a press offensive in October to announce it was launching a new culture section, long-serving film critic Stephen Romei was front and centre in the photoshoot and glossy video introducing the seven-person team.

The Oz went big, spending to promote the launch across outdoor advertising, online, print and social media. With Romei part of the core team, he would also be fronting a new video series alongside award-winning author and columnist Nikki Gemmell. They would be “disagreeing agreeably” as they reviewed a different film each week.

Indeed, indeed, though memories of it online are few and far between ...

Carry on not carrying on ...

Fast-forward to January and we revealed Gemmell had been parachuted into the culture section full-time and handed the title of chief film critic after her column was dumped from The Weekend mag.

For the past few editions, Romei (who has held that “chief film critic” title at various times) and Gemmell shared a double billing in the film review section.

But as is the case in all good films, not every one gets a happy ending.

Three months from that photoshoot and Romei has been the latest cultural veteran to be given the boot at The Australian, following former broadcaster and author Phillip Adams out the door.

It turns out that Romei, who has spent the best part of the past 15 years as film critic, was dumped a few weeks into the new year. Sources familiar with the matter said it was a financial decision, while other sources referenced a broader change in the team.

From our partners

“I’m not sure what’s happened. All I know is the managing editor [Darren Davidson] phoned to tell me my services were no longer required. My final film reviews for The Australian are scheduled to run on February 21,” Romei told On Background.

Romei said he wanted to thank all who have read his reviews in the past 15 years, whether they agreed with him or not.

“I plan to continue writing about film in other publications, and via a Substack account, so I hope, to paraphrase Claude Rains in Casablanca, that the friendship continues.”

It’s certainly an odd one, considering the cultural clout Romei has held for the paper as a 40-odd year veteran of News Corp. In his most recent stint as a film critic, Romei worked with the late, great film writer David Stratton and his colleague held in similar regard, Evan Williams. But Romei’s association with the paper goes far beyond that, as its former literary editor, and foreign correspondent, including as its New York correspondent at the time of the 9/11 attack.

It’s evident The Australian’s editors knew his brand mattered too, given how prominently they used his image to help launch the new section just three months ago.

From what we can tell online, that new video series featuring Romei and Gemmell published a grand total of two episodes, a review of One Battle After Another in September (before the announcement) and that of the new Jacob Elordi-led Frankenstein in late October.

While a spokesperson for The Australian declined to comment, if they did, we can only imagine they’d stick with the Casablanca theme. It would have gone something like: “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

The pond also noted this bit of Murdochiana which slipped through one of the Graudian daily updates  by Jonathan Barrett, offering some excellent news, and some not so good news ...

News Corp offsets advertising hit with higher prices

News Corp’s global stable of mastheads have suffered a hit to their advertising, with revenue falling $US13m during the last financial quarter, according to earnings released in the US.

The division, which includes the Australian, the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun as well as mastheads in the US and UK, was able to partially offset the weak global advertising conditions by raising subscription and cover prices.

The overall business, however, was once again lifted higher by the strong performance of REA Group, the owner of realestate.com.au.

The Murdoch family-controlled company has a majority stake in REA, which has benefited from continued strength in Australian property listings, and the ability of the portal to charge premium prices due to its market dominance.

News Corp reported US$2.36bn in overall revenue during the December quarter, up 6% from a year earlier, with strong contributions from the digital real estate portal, book publishing units and Dow Jones information unit.

Its Australian chief executive, Robert Thomson, released an upbeat assessment of the potential for more revenue deals with artificial intelligence firms.

He said:

What is the point of acquiring cutting-edge semiconductors if they are being deployed to repurpose gormless, factless, feckless content sets?

We do believe an increasing number of insightful companies understand this content contradiction and will indeed pay a premium for our premium content.

News Corp reported an increase in digital subscriptions for its Australian mastheads, rising from 979,000 to 999,000 over the past year, according to internal figures.

Amazing really that the reptiles could conjure up almost a million mug punters, even they're spread across all their titles...

And now as the pond always likes to end with a cartoon, some reheated TT...