analysis 'r us

I feel obligated - ie I have placed this obligation upon myself - to comment on the Ministerial changes now taking place. I commented on another blog about Sen Patterson: "I was particularly enthralled by Patterson’s claim that she would miss championing the causes of the disabled and their carers. My better half works in that field and I can tell you that there is f**k-all evidence of any change as a result of all that ‘championing’. There are thousands in circumstances too dire to imagine. Is that what Ministers do: ‘champion’? Spare me."

So rather than rant incessantly about the possible new Ministry, I'll float a few half-formed ideas about how we describe the work we do. I guess we all try to bring about change. I would have thought a Minister would do that by legislating, but maybe championing really is all it takes. Someone in a service job brings about change by delivering the service: hairdressing (always, for some obscure reason) is a good example. It's when we get into the realms of executive jobs that it becomes a little, er, imprecise. I should have kept it, but there was a job advertised in one of the weekend papers that had all the buzz-phrases: innovative; synergistic; client-centred; strategic; on and on it went. And I had no idea at all what business the company was in or what contribution this job might make to whatever the company did. I can only imagine that to get such a job, we write a letter and construct a CV in the same meaningless terms and then, at interview, just reel off the same stuff. What did you achieve in your last job: "I brought about a client-centred realignment through synergistically strategised outcomes." "Beaut, that's just what we want. Tell me, what does this ink blot remind you of?" "Money."

I can't keep doing this. So, in respect of Ministries, I am reminded of the election of the Hawke government at which time the old man, bless 'im, said, "This is the best Liberal government we've ever had." He was right and it's been downhill ever since.