one could compare the subsequent career directions of Rudd and Hockey with the “post-ESPECIALLY FOR YOU� careers of Kylie Minogue & Jason Donovan

Bear Cave, I’m seeing it more as Kylie and Danii Minogue.

The unbridled lust for power knows no sense of propriety, decency nor morality.

The end always justifies the means in the world of Howardista machinations.

Courts love displays of remorse, Liberals love displays of madness.

I wrote here on the 16th of April:

“Glenn Milne reveals that Joe Hockey’s role on the Sunrise program is being challenged by his own party: Wrote Milne:

“The internal bitterness over Hockey’s Sunrise performance emphasises other colleagues’ doubts about him: whether he has what it takes to convince the electorate at the end of this year�.

Did these other colleagues even stop to consider that for most of Hockey’s tenure on the program, his primary objective wasn’t to sell what is described in The Age today as the Howard Government’s “most unpopular policy”?

I argued here in April that the segment also presented Hockey with an opportunity to act as a less regimented member of the Conservative federation – enjoying the benefits of what I branded “The Arnold Schwarzenegger Factorâ€?.

In support of my argument, I quoted Ed from The Australian as he wrote on 14 November 2006:

“As the US election result shows, the race is on for the centre. California’s republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, provides the stand-out example of political survival through reinvention. He ditched unpopular policies and captured the centre, and with it almost 80 per cent of the vote.�

A voter’s decision-making can be as emotional, if not more emotional than it can be rational. My first reaction to the opponents of that Sunrise segment – both in the elite end of the Mainstream Media and the internal dividers within the Coalition – was that they were actually going to regiment Hockey rather than allow him to be himself.

To quote one dumb decision maker within the Coalition:

“Every Friday it’s just a free kick for Rudd. Joe’s always wanted to be Big Happy Joe. Well, that’s not enough.�

So, in other words, any objectives Hockey might have had for the segment outside the immediate “percieved” needs of the Party were suddenly regarded as irrelevant.

Months later, journalist Mike Stekettee admits on behalf of The Australian newspaper today that an ironic challenge for the Liberals if they lose the next election is that they’ll need to become “less conservative and more pragmatic”.

Oh really? How do you propose that will happen?

Specifically, would you restore that Sunrise segment after the next election with Alex Hawke as the Coalition representative in the event Joe Hockey is no longer available in parliament?

Since the end of that Sunrise segment, one that was so popular because it engaged the “very general public” in matters political, one could compare the subsequent career directions of Rudd and Hockey with the “post-ESPECIALLY FOR YOU” careers of Kylie Minogue & Jason Donovan

For the benefit of “democracy in general”, I hope it is not too late for the next-term configuration of the Liberal Party’s “broad church” to contain its needed share of moderates as the proof is already evident in the recent NSW State Election that a “pure conservative” party only does appeal to a minority.

One thing is for sure: If Howard loses, expect much parallel analysis between what’s happening to Conservative politics here and in the United Kingdom.

…From Justin

“Allow markets to determine wages – dump all the union bullies – and use government to engineer a socially acceptible minimum wage.”

Oh, I see!

So in order for a majority to enjoy the benefit of small government, you impose “Bigger Government determination” on a minority of people.

You define it “a socially acceptible minimum wage” ?

Socially acceptable with who exactly?

The actual people affected by it or those that most benefit from a deregulated labor supply?

…From Justin

It was enacted in the midst of prosperity, without union or management excesses that endangered the economy, or public support.

…It is filled with … restrictions on the freedom of business and labour to negotiate contracts.

…Parts of the law made so little economic sense … Writing the law was outsourced to the major Australian law firms that represented management.

“We’re very keen to end this matter as quickly as possible,” Dr Buchanan told ABC radio.

“Having an argument about personalities and reputations is a real distraction.

“There are major issues in our labour market and they’re issues of substance.

“I don’t want to anticipate what the lawyers are going to tell me but I’ll be trying to keep this out of the law courts for as long as possible.

“But if there’s no sign of reason on the part of the treasurer or the minister then, like I say, we’ll have no choice.”

http://au.news.yahoo.com/071001/2/14kjs.html

With Howard also entering the fray because of his untruthful comments about ABS statistics, it’s hard to know who in the government will blink first, though you can be sure that any decision to placate or inflame the situation will come from Howard. But given the current state of the polls, who knows which way he will go?

Not all economists are so easily influenced by 80s fantasy as our friend HC.

The Government’s campaign against the academics came as the Bureau of Statistics undermined Mr Howard’s claims that ABS research showed employees on AWAs earned more than other workers.

Valerie Pearson, the bureau’s assistant director for labour employer surveys, said the ABS had not done any research into the effects of AWAs since the introduction of Work Choices in March last year. The only AWA-related research it had conducted was in May last year “on a pre-Work Choices basis”. It would not study the effects of Work Choices “until May next year”.