Still, as silly as these later developments are. the greater public might enjoy this: that there is some sense of accountability. And as a blanket platform as we enter the tougher stuff this can only do good as it must inevitably tend to policy debate on the one hand, or style, as a valid secondary, on the other.

We’ve a much changed political interaction just now and given where we’ve been this last half decade or so overall it’s a good thing.

Abbott Tony, the most busy at present, I would suggest.

So why not pose the question Rudd is similarly clearing the decks for further return attacks on the Coalition? No, bugger it?

Bring on policy?

Says it all.

Otherwise tell me if it is “Australian”
(a) to be given a nickname by your mates
(b) to turn your back on a mate

I am unhappy with the term

Laurie Oakes on 9 last night said the liberal office was given a hours warning of the raid.

There is more to this than meets the eye

To the extent that you miss the functional and take a literal offence, you would be even more offended if I used the perfectly acceptable “smell a rat”. When you really think about it, I have promoted the PM from a perfectly acceptable rat to a rodent (is a ‘rodent’ above a ‘rat’? Discuss).

As it happens, with a flourish, appealing most of all for its brevity, by my inflexion, the word is able to convey both the conventional meaning of (“smell a rat”), and the identity in (“rodent”), the story; the “what” and the “who”, in one neat cut.

From a writer’s perspective, the word’s thus working double-time … and a half: the half is that it also conveys a slightly irreverent attitude, which should alert sensitive types not to read further or they might be upset.

So I’m rather pleased with it. So I guess we disagree. I would agree that the term is overused, notwithstanding its featuring role as a seamless enhancement in this particular case.

Yes you dislike him, so what? It doesn’t contribute to any discussion to describe Howard as a ‘rodent’ and to refer to his alleged role in a political situation as his ‘smell’.

Given the vagueness of reports so far as known, via the media, as to who was notified and when, it is certainly tenable that knowledge of those upcoming raids was held by one or more persons prior to that Burke attack. That is, on the thursday morning.

It is unproven otherwise.

There is nothing to say conclusively otherwise, for instance, that Tony Nutt for example, wasn’t notified in some way on Thursday morning that raids were to take place. Nor is it unproven that Costello could have been given the nod to throw the Burke card on the table during Question Time shortly after, on account of that direction, including that the nature of that advice wasn’t mentioned to Costello: only that now is the time.

All the while, Howard may have known only that the Burke attack on Rudd was importantly now (thursday) to be done. “Now is the time,” Nutt tells him, for example. Enough said – per the internal script for things such as these plausibly deniable political plays.

I know what you’re saying FXH, which means that the issue will probably never be able to be nailed, as discrete whispers don’t leave records. Still, a decent journalist could seek to pin the PM on who provided the actual advice to who when, precisely, and then double check with the sources. It could also be a useful ask in Question Time.

On the forensics Robert, yes, the “office” reference is another (safe) barrier away, which is useful in case of the need for deniability. Is it not also a tad odd that the PM specified Thursday “night”? By comparison, he didn’t, as far as I can see, specify the part of the day that the official ministerial advice came through on Friday. Why was he being so precise as the specify “night” and so vague as to only say “office” on Thursday, neither of which then mattered on remembering his formal receipt on Friday, when it was all being recalled yesterday?

More generally, I wouldn’t make a positive assertion of conspiracy, or orchestrated scandal if you prefer, on an issue such as this, as it would obviously be foolish to do so in the absence of the facts. I’m merely suggesting that, given the PM’s past record and the way in which the story worked out in effect, the facts may be worth following up. To those who deny the PM’s (dark) political genius, I say underestimate him at your peril, as so many have before you.

The post itself is a set of questions and a conjecture without a shred of evidence that nevertheless points to a very clear viewpoint. The main conjecture: ‘you smell a rodent’? Evidence? And again, what a way of referring to a person.

Whatever you think of him, John Howard himself would never refer to his worst political enemy in this way.

Would love to have known the contents of the “long” discussion with Campbell.

Then again that could be my cynicism.

On the other hand, if I maintain my view that federal politics is just office politics on a national stage, I have come across more than one office politician who likes to keep a bit of powder dry.

And more than one deft opportunist (and I would put Howard in that category)

I guess that means I agree with Fred A. with the caveat that I don’t buy the Howard spiel most of the time, but I can see how many would.

The real is question is why they chose that particular moment. Chris’s theory is plausible, but that’s as much as can be said of it.

Is the AFP in the business of confirming or refuting statements found in the press as made by politicians? How much leeway does the PM’s office have when it comes to making public statements about prior AFP advice?

And what is the protocol for politicians being advised about an upcoming raid? A phone call? Formal notification? To where and, exactly, to whom?

A nods as good as a wink to a blind horse.*

*Some might not remember that Rod Stewart used to be good.

Utter rubbish! The feds have to investigate on the basis of “information” received. “Information” planted by “I wonder who”.

All conspiracy theories are equal but some are more equal then others. I’ll back mine and we’ll see who’s right a bit down the track.