It will be the longest lancing of a boil ever. The slow release of a series of Mark Latham diaries, biographies, remembrances, commemorative plates, T-shirts, coffee mugs and show bags is set to do Kim Beazley and the Labor Party slowly.
God knows how the party will handle the fallout from a constant stream of personality assassinations from here to September. Certainly a strategy for containment won’t help; it’s too juicy a story for the media jackals, the sight of Beazley throwing himself over every grenade over the next few months will take its toll.
But is Latham going to say anything that we don’t already know? Not really. Much of what is reported in the lead up to the release of his upcoming biography we’ve already chewed over. Still it’s sometimes interesting to compare and contrast some early commentary.
Latham on Beazley. “Labor got the leader it truly deserves. The old party has become a very conservative institution, run by conservative machine men (from all factions) so it is well suited to a conservative, stand-for-nothing type of leader”.
Beazley in reply. “I’m not going to comment on the comments that are made on the book or the book itself”.
It’s hard to make yourself look much smaller than that. Keep up that that kind of talk Kim and we’re all going to look forward to your concession speech in 2007.
Latham on the Premiers. “[Bob] Carr, [Peter] Beattie and [Geoff] Gallop are A-grade arseholes”.
Peter Beattie in reply. “I have to say he’s not the first person to have accused me of it and no doubt he won’t be the last, but someone had to tell the truth and that’s all I did”.
“But I do feel sorry for Mark - I mean I know this has been a difficult time for him, but writing something like this I don’t think is very helpful for him.”
That’s better, almost the beginnings of a good stoush, and spoken like a true Conga veteran. Still, you’re only a State Premier, what would you know except how to put your hand out to the Feds for more cash?
And what about the other Labor insiders (boils)? Well it’s all about rats and some WW 1 fighter pilot named Billy Hughes. I think he shot down the Red Baron, or flew with him. But who really knows what this pack of time-servers really cares about besides a cushy seat for their backsides and a stacked branch for their mates.
Hopefully though, this will be good for Labor in the longer term, there needs to be a catharsis over Latham’s leadership, only then can they begin to look forward.
Catharsis is an interesting term in the context, because indeed this is a repressed memory in Freudian terms Labor would like to stay buried - but what’s written in the bone, will out, as someone says. The Labor Party needed to do the work of mourning, but that’s occluded by the return of the repressed - Beazley. Anyway, that’s my one and only effort at psychoanalytic political commentary to date, but I do think that Mr Latham is a spectre haunting the Labor imaginary who is yet to be laid to rest, and may not be for some time.
Nice post, Phil.
For those Backpages veterans, I proudly lay claim to always having been a Latham sceptic, if not outright opponent. Indeed, my first published article was a critique of his attempts to propound an Antipodean “Third Way” back in 1998.
Therefore, as well as the commemorative tea cup, I want a bumper sticker that says “Don’t Blame Me - I Never Wanted Latho for Leader”.
Oh I don’t know. Love or hate Latham (I think I called him the Mark Phillopousis of politics), at least he continues to be entertaining. And well don’t tell me John Howard wasn’t on the back foot a few times last year cobbling together policies overnight.
I think people should just accept their history whether it is that of their family, their political party, their nation whatever, rather than run from it, pretend it didn’t happen, or rewrite it.
I’m looking forward to the Liberals (especially Costello) giving some sudden new found credibility to Latham by quoting him all the time as some authority. And showing us the meaning of true snark. And all these Labor men coming out telling us, oh I dunno. Latham was psychotic or something. Then I will laugh at the lot of them. Otherwise I might be tempted to cry.
Trackback.
As Ben Graham has commented over at wsacaucus.org, there is a special place reserved in hell for members of the ALP who do this kind of thing.
With all fairness to Iron Mark, I think he always had (and evidently continues to have) an inherently unstable personality. The taxi-cab driving brute and cussing hard man never quite reconciled with the statesman he tried to represent himself as. This was part of the reason why he lost.
Somewhere along the way after his election defeat he lost the thin veneer of grace he had built up for himself when he ascended to the leadership. I don’t understand why he feels he has to fire wild, poorly-targeted shots like this from his Green Valley bunker. He is not doing himself justice.
This is a 1-2 day wonder because Iron Mark is yesterday’s man.
Saint he had howard going backwards for most of the time.
I think Guy hits on the reason why almost everyone was wrong about the election.
People agreed the ALP had more conservative economic policies, that the Libs were spending more money yet they changed at the last minute.
Howard had Latham’s number all along. While the media thought Howard was “going backwards”, he was in fact stealing all of Latham’s best policies, leaving him with nothing.
Then it was down to personalities. And while the slavish media were spruiking for Latham, the voters weren’t fooled. They knew he was an arsehole.
EP, I think for the first time ever I just about agree with you.
‘Arsehole’, now that’s a word to be careful about using.
Actually, contra the thread, I admired Latham in a guilty kind of way and hoped he’d get in. He was arguably the most interesting Labor leader since Evatt. And like Evatt, he owed it largely to the demons that drove him.
Not that it did much for either Evatt or Latham. And like Evatt, he seems now to be consumed by them. Demons, demons, demons……everywhere you look: demons.
I hope he finds some gracious way of returning to public life. The signs are not good at this stage, however.
I almost agree with you EP. Personalities played a part although I think people, not just the media, were interested for a while in giving Latham a look - “the fresh face” factor. I think the cherry picking was more evident after the election (as is usually the case). Throwing $6 billion around was a mark of desparation in my view. And Howard got stumped on child care, Medicare Gold but recovered with the timing on forests….one could go on and not just in the election campaign.
Failing to counter the interest rate scare campaign was also a biggie. Labor lost that. And also lost on captilising on the strengths of their front bench and policies by playing to the one-on-one tactics of Howard. Latham was too keen to hit the winners all by himself.
Oh and yes Guy could be right. I called him the Mark Philippousis. Didn’t know enough about him go as far as inherently unstable he was. Could be.
EP,
if howars had his number all along then why the $6b giveaway?
Why on election night was he afraid of a very narrow win.
One thing I do agree on the Forestry policy was badly handled although again it was quite consistent on an econoically rationalist basis.
If you wanted smaller Government you would have voted ALP.
The voters didn’t want smaller government.
Latham may be unstable, bitter, motivated only by revenge … I don’t know and only care on the level of media spectacle. But I’m glad that someone is saying what he’s saying. I wrote in comments here last week that I find Beazley this time around totally tedious and uninspiring. I change channels when he comes on TV as I can’t bear the disappointment. I completely agree with Latham’s assessment of him as stand-for-nothing. Whether Latham’s opinions will have any real impact inside the ALP is debatable,but at least we have access to some real opinions as opposed to PR soundbites.
‘Beazley in reply. “I‚Äôm not going to comment on the comments that are made on the book or the book itself”.
It‚Äôs hard to make yourself look much smaller than that. Keep up that that kind of talk Kim and we‚Äôre all going to look forward to your concession speech in 2007.’
??!! Do you really keep a straight face when you assert this?
Your advice to the big man is to surrender control of the agenda to any miserable third-rate journo with what they think is a brilliant question. To replace newspaper stories on the failings of our Tory government with stories on this miserable little spat. To gratuitously nourish the divisions within his caucus, and to forgo his legacy as a steady hand and a uniter of the party, all so that he might celebrate 50 years since the Split with a faint and pointless echo of Cock Evatt’s ego-driven assaults upon his own team.
For the sake of party and nation I really hope he continues to ignore any of this sort of counsel.
I rather liked Latham because PM material or not I hoped he would at least make things interesting. Politcs with an ineffectual opposition is just so boring and he did have Howard on the back foot there for a while.
Now Beasley is leader again and we are back to a boring and ineffectual opposition.
“There is no relation between Hitler and Mark Latham.”
– Robert McLelland just now on the wireless.
Just in case anyone was wondering.
I completely agree with the venom that Latham has reserved for the machine men like Graham ‘Whatever it takes’ Richardson. These unprincipled careerist hacks are indeed boils on the body politic. I don’t see what’s so outrageous about anything he’s said except for his unfair sledging of Bob Carr.
There is nothing outrageous about the sentiments, many (most) people in the ALP would agree. If he’s expressed it in less of a sour grapes fashion it would raise not one eyebrow. It’s the lashing-out-for-the-sake-of-it aspect that puts me off.
Of course it was those same unprincipled careerist hacks that put Latho in parliament and in the leadership in the first place.
“One thing I do agree on the Forestry policy was badly handled although again it was quite consistent on an econoically rationalist basis.”
The problem with the Forestry policy was that it was announced so close to the election that there was ample scope for the waters to be muddied by Howard’s announcement in the company of a crowd of misled forestry workers, with no time for the merits of Labor’s policy and its superiority to Howard’s package to be effectively communicated. The timing, of course, was doubtless influenced in part by the white-anting operation by the Tasmanian Government and the forestry unions.
A policy like this needed to be announced at least a month before the election (like Bob Hawke’s policy on South-West Tassia in 1983). Another example is Peter Beattie’s announcement of Queensland Labor’s excellent policy to protect the SE Queensland 18 months before the 2001 State election, although Beattie was also greatly aided by the fact that he was able to broker an agreement between the Queensland Timber Board and the peak conservation groups on the policy, and was also able to bring most of the party (with the exception of the AWU) along with him. The AWU dealt itself out of the game by aligning with Pauline Hanson, Wilson Tuckey and the Queensland Nationals in opposing the policy.
“Of course it was those same unprincipled careerist hacks that put Latho in parliament and in the leadership in the first place.”
Latham was no mean total unprincipled careerist hack himself when it suited. Look at the factional deal he put together to save Crean’s arse. And as for calling Beazley “conservative,” who was it who spluttered all over talkback about the threat to the nation posed by an episode of Playschool? Not to mention fronting Nicola Roxon to reassure a crowd of baying “Christians” in the Great Hall of Parliament steamed about poofs getting married. Then there was the endless relaying of his Mum’s advice about the deserving poor versus the bludgers across the street….for 14 months his “man on the edge of an axe murder massacre” roleplay held the nation spellbound, but you wouldn’t vote for the nutter….
As Lindsay Tanner tells any party member who’ll listen, the forest/medicare gold policies are typical Latham/Crean/Gillard stunts. The Creanites decide their policies on the basis of how well they go in focus groups, with no regard for their actual substance. They then pull them out at the last minute like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Then they go and brief the papers about how Beazley “doesn’t stand for anything”. What a load.
Shame on me.
I loved every minute of the Latham experiment; it was a wonderful change to have a Labor leader who actually, in his heart of hearts, really didn’t like the Coalition, or want to be just like them.
“[Bob] Carr, [Peter] Beattie and [Geoff] Gallop are A-grade arseholes”. Wild, Guy, to be sure, but pretty precisely targetted. And “… a special place in hell…”? This is a bit of a strange sentiment from a bunch of agnostic humanists. Hell certainly exists, but I very much doubt it contains only Billy Hughes, Mal Colston etc. For all the bitching about “machine men”, the one cardinal sin is making adverse comment on the party! “My party, right or wrong” is a ludicrous and morally repugnant stance.
Yes, Homer, Howard had Latham’s number, alright, and that number was $6b (with apologies to Douglas Adams). The real pity is he could have done it with a lot less.
“It was a wonderful change to have a Labor leader who actually, in his heart of hearts, really didn‚Äôt like the Coalition, or want to be just like them.”
He didn’t like anyone except for himself his Mum and his wife - who was working for a Coalition pollie when he met her.
I’m laughing as I read this. I’m just watching the 7.30 report and the charges of him being ‘mad’ are being voiced…bingo!!!
Oh bleh puke. I’m sorry folks but every time I hear the term “true believers” (from Bill Shorten this time) I want to throw up. I don’t know if these party machine men realise the the rest of the world doesn’t give a toss about their personal devotion to some ideology most of us know nothing about and which I doubt exists.
More seriously. I don’t think Latham needs to keep his mouth shut. We have a pile of ex leaders - Hewson, Keating, Fraser etc who pop up to give us the benefit of their wisdom. If they get an airing let them speak and we will judge what they have to say as well as their timing. And it seems that putting out the memoirs and publishing diaries seems to be the standard exit strategy in public life. I noticed Cosgrove said he might put out a “quick memoir” after he retires. Again, if they have the market, go for it. It is a free country. Mind you I have never read any of these tomes nor do I have any interest. Does anyone know how popular biographies and autobiographies of Australian political figures are? Who is their market apart from party people and political junkies? And how forgettable are they?
And weren’t there about three books about Latham published while he was leader? Say what?
Maybe you have to be a bit driven to seriously challenge for national leadership. Maybe that’s why Beazley never quite convinces: no real fire in the belly. Latham had his share of personal faults, but so did Hawke (narcissism) and Keating (arrogance). It didn’t disqualifty them from national leadership - in fact, it probably helped in somemeasure. Maybe just to want to be a national leader means you’ve got some kind of character flaw (an over-active ego, at least?)
A damn good bleeding. It’s what Labor needs and what better blade than a disgruntled and hard-done-by former leader? Bleed the whole front bench, I say. Then there’ll be room for the new blood. Providing the machine lets it in. Almost makes me want to vote Green next time around.
I feel like crawling under a rock.
Come on under with the rest of us, BS Fairman, and remember to sign the attendance books before you leave the meeting, if you want to be able to vote at the branch AGM.
James, your comments about Crean’s and Gillard’s probable involvement with the Tasmanian forests policy are intriguing. Given Crean’s history of disagreement with the environmental movement over forestry issues when he was ACTU President, and Gillard’s personal and sub-factional associations with pro-logging elements in the ALP, it seems somewhat incongruous that they would have become born-again deep greens on this issue. Do you think there’s a possibility that certain forces in the ALP decided that the best way to set back environmentalist influence on Labor policy would be for Federal Labor to adopt a strongly green position on a high-profile environmental issue, but do so in a mis-timed, half-baked and poorly sold way, with the resultant electoral consequences then being blamed on the policy itself rather than the timing and selling of it?
Then there was the endless relaying of his Mum‚Äôs advice about the deserving poor versus the bludgers across the street….for 14 months his “man on the edge of an axe murder massacre” roleplay held the nation spellbound, but you wouldn‚Äôt vote for the nutter….
Absolutely. And like anyone suffering from narcissim he now turns on everyone who was loyal to him as well as those who weren’t, still not new behaviour for him.
He hammered Labour in the last election. He will be remembered by Australians for story books for kids and handshakes. Many in the media did think he was the new ‚ÄûMessiah”. Well they were wrong, and its time they got over it. He was a man overwhelmed by his personality disorder, still is and doesn‚Äôt deserve to be listened to or the air space he is getting. In the meantime those he betrayed (and abused, writing crap on work done for you) are left trying to rebuild.
Didn’t even turn up for the book launch. What an ego.
Well… he was different, you gotta give him that.
The stars that shine brightest…
Latham: I’m not Bi-Polar.
… generally turn out to be space junk, burning up on re-entry.
To the degree there’s a Bowie reference there, Tony, it’s far too good for Latho…
James,
I’ve received a communication from Lindsay Tanner denying that he has commented specifically on the role of Latham, Gillard and Crean in the terms you suggested. He wrote to me:
“This claim is simply not correct. I have been openly critical of Labor’s approach to issues and policy, but not with any reference to particular individuals. Our tendency to put marketing ahead of content, and adopt a largely reactive posture, is not a recent phenomenon, and is something for which we all must take responsibility. I disagree with the essence of Labor’s approach to its task from 1996 to 2004. I’ll be doing everything I can to change that orientation.
“Please feel free to post this response on the website concerned.”