Having made the rounds and read all of the big media and political pundits two cents worth of opinion on the Latham Diaries, I’ll just say stuff ‘em all. I love a bit of vitriol and the burning of a good canoe, it’s a cathartic experience, after all that’s what diaries are for and this time we all got to join in. Labor will be better for the experience. He’s also set a new benchmark in the diary stakes; we’re going to need more than the tragicomedy of a mistaken love child to take notice when the next one comes along.
But really, the mock horror, the false righteousness and the gnashing of teeth by all sides of politics and media have served only to highlight the totally rotten nature of the system, all of these strange bedfellows lined up and united to heap a bucket of shit on one man, Why? Latham must have been a hellova guy for this degree of piling on to occur. Flawed though he was, maybe he was the goods after all.
Let’s face it, it appears that Latham’s real crime here was to dance his own dance, speak as plainly as he felt like and plunge the knife in face to face (we now have some terrific nicknames for many of the actors in this drama), all done on his terms and his own personal understanding. We all make our own reality, or lack thereof (example), this was his. I also think it interesting that we hear a lot about back ground leaks and gossip about Latham, but you never heard stuff about him having done the same to others….until now, out there and for all the world to see.
But with the diaries there was no dance with the devil this time, just the plain unadulterated truth as he saw it or wanted it seen, and that’s fair enough considering that so many others were framing him with their own realities. Most high pressure, competitive and fast paced workplaces would probably throw up the same result at one time or another – the media pack is a fine example. Of course politics is even more tightly compressed so the explosions can be, well, explosive, especially of late. You can feel how the pressures of modern politics have changed for the worst, and it appears that the talented youngsters are the ones biting the dust. Every aspect of a political life is now under the gun and the only survivors are the grizzled, the cynical, the neutered, or hypocritical silver backed media hacks.
The other thing that struck me as silly was the claim that Latham, being a product of the system and machine men, was a hypocrite for biting the hand that fed him. Bollocks. As this whole episode shows, there is no honour amongst thieves – or News Limited and the ABC. Think for a moment where machine politics places you when you wake up one morning and realise that the game as it’s played is no longer for you, by then it’s probably too late, you’re in and can’t get out. The only way to get away from the clutches of this mob is to pull the pin on a grenade of your own making and throw yourself on it, I can relate. And you know what? While the machine men and big media insiders may not bite the hands that feed them — to their great shame; they do spend a lot of time at the trough feasting on their young. I for one will miss Mark Latham.
Excuse my language, but bullshit.
The one person who will be hurt the most by this, as old beardo Barry Jones said, is Latho. The ALP will not change one bit because it looks like the victim at the moment.
Please note, I don’t usually listen to blokes with beards
Annabel Crabb has some interesting stuff to say in her up coming book.
Very good Phil. You captured it I think. What we have witnessed with Latham is a truth that will colour our perception of politics from now on.
Latham may have bitten the hand that feeds him, but what a corrupt and twisted and cruel hand it has become.
20c worth from me: Latham was, at best philosphically confused and, at worst a hypocrite. His entire ‘aspirational’ codwollop was a nothing less than a philosphy underpinned by the glorification of the consumerisation of greed – a materialist manifesto. Labor’s own neo-con thoughtmeister… and they all swallowed it…
“just the plain unadulterated truth as he saw it or wanted it seen, and thatÄôs fair enough considering that so many others were framing him with their own realities.”
Truth? I doubt that anyone will agree that his picture of Beazley, as a mendacious gossip merchant amassing files of supposed sexual indiscretion, is within a western plains coo-ee of “truth,” Phil.
That politics can be a grim and grubby business is self-evidently the case and Latham himself has been no mean player in that very engine-room.
So, there may well be insights here – though hardly “revelatory” – about our political culture but they’re ultimately buried in an unreasoning and unbelievable spray of exactly the sort of “get you payback” that he claims to despise. The man appears to have no self insight whatsoever. Nothing it seems is Mark’s fault. Everybody else is the arsehole. You’re either my mate or you’re my enemy. We’re supposed to “learn” something from this? If so, it’s not very edifying and it’s pretty much about one bloke.
Mark Latham? Telling the truth?
Bwahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha!
I think you have to suspend your critical facilities to conclude that Latham’s all right and the system’s all rotten, Phil. The Latham diatribe is built on assumptions that are manifestly self-serving. His juxtaposition of the pristine, meaningful, moral pleasures of family life with the evil disfunctions of politics is absurd, reliant on exagerrated selectivity on both sides of the dichotomy. Likewise, his idea that everything was somehow innocent and orderly back in the ALP before the ‘fall’ in the 1970s is preposterous. The biggest factional battles ever occurred in the 1950s; at one stage during the 1930s the internicine strife was so great there were three Labor parties in NSW; and as far back as 1923 Vere Gordon Childe documented the variety of political streams that flow into the big river of the ALP and the difficulties for politicians that therefore naturally arise (counterparts of which also naturally arise on the conservative side of the story). Latham has written a book basically complaining about representative liberal politics as usual, which might be fair enough, except in that he has also conveniently/psychotically construed this as an exceptional conspiracy of men and events against his noble self.
What Chris said.
Nicely written post, Phil, but I can’t agree.
I think this column gets it right:
What gets me is his focus on sex and sexual allegations.
And the habit he has of referring to Gabrielle as “The First Wife”. And suggesting that Beazley is “not much of an Australian man”. And his chivalrous pummelling of John Howard’s arm.
And this is the Snaggy Home Dad?
First attempt at a gender analysis here.
No doubt someone will read through the whole tome and see what it says about Latho’s attitude to women.
Fugly is what I reckon.
Boofy bullying bloke of the worst kind.
Just been down to the Merthyr Road shops to pick up my paper and a pastrami, cheese and cucumber sandwich from the Deli.
Coles at the checkout has juxtaposed Woman’s Day (or something similar) with the headline “Shock Mary Health Scare”, another mag with the headline “Peter and Jordan’s Tacky Wedding Extravaganza” and the Sunday Mail “Latham: How Janette Insulted My Wife”.
Just reportin…
“Latham Joins Lowlife Celebrity Trash Culture”?
Here’s Latho from the excerpts in today’s Sunday Mail:
QED.
Let’s face it, Phil, the guy’s a thug and a fruitloop.
On Chris’ point, and again from the Sunday Mail, one line from Latho’s diaries sums up the whole:
Heh, actually I didn’t expect anyone to agree, It’s a thought bubble I had brewing and just thought I give it a run and there is no better place to do it than here….so disagree away all.
Haven’t read it, don’t intend to, but it sounds from all accounts like yet another failed attempt to write Procopius’s Secret History, something everyone seems to aspire to these days.
Geoff Honnor:-
You said, “Truth? I doubt that anyone will agree that his picture of Beazley, as a mendacious gossip merchant amassing files of supposed sexual indiscretion, is within a western plains coo-ee of “truth,” Phil.”
I’m not nearly so sure as you, even though I’m well disposed towards Kim.
Before retirement, I was a professional advisor (but not in politics) to several ministers, politicians or would-be politicians of both parties (but mainly labor). I can assure you that all except the galahs, kept records of their competitors’ successes and indescretions. As indeed I kept similar files of my clients although they were separate from the professional files (and have now all been shredded).
I’d be astounded if Beazley and Mark did not have records pertaining to both their colleagues and opponents.
“As indeed I kept similar files of my clients although they were separate from the professional files (and have now all been shredded).’
I’m encouraged by your frankness Fred but I just can’t see Beazley sniffing around for sexual dirt on anyone.
Geoff is correct.
Anyone who thinks bomber sniiffs around for dirt of any kind is mad.
Only bomber of all in Canbera could say to Journos tell anyone you know about our conversations full confident that nothing like that ever came up!
Looks like the left have failed to ignore Latham – they should take a leaf out of Howards’ book and give him the attention he really deserves, none.
Here’s a bloke on the outside pissing in on Labor’s problems
http://www.sydneyline.com/Vilifying%20Australia.htm
Perhaps he has a fair bit in common with Latham on the ‘inside’.
Are you referring to Mr Windschuttle, observa?
I know this is slightly off-topic, but ….
I read the piece from The Advertiser that Mark linked to and was rather bemused to see that the piece suggests the scrapping of the Parliamentary pension scheme was a bad thing. Excuse my cynicism, but after years of seeing journalists taking easy (if justifiable) ‘snout in the trough’ potshots at politicians about their super scheme, now that it’s gone the scheme is being described as a ‘safety net’ that stopped Parliament from being filled up with millionaires or ‘kids with no life experience’!
I think the old MP’s super scheme was unjustifiable, but I find this sudden retrsopective fondness for it amazing. Presumably now that Latham is (fairly understandably) being pilloried, every possible achievement of his has to be trashed as well?
(by the way, I agree with most of what youse have all said – whilst it may have been worth flying the kite, I think Phil’s original post doesn’t hold up to scrutiny terribly well.)
Fair enough point Naomi (especially seeing his mob voted against amendments which would have restricted the scheme for all current MPs rather than just future ones) (not that this would have affected his final entitlements much, as it only applied to future entitlements, not ones already earned)
Yes I was referring to Windschuttle Mark.
Andrew, the parliamentary super scheme was really a quid pro quo for parliamentarian’s relatively lousy salaries. If some populist political party leader like Latham was to break with the agreed political code of silence on this and scrap the generosity of the scheme, then the lousy salary issue would have to be addressed longer term. That’s where the equivocation of the punditry is really coming from now. Yes, it’s about time politicians were paid the same 9% SGL as the rest of the community, but they now need to be paid commensurate to their responsibilities, horrible working hours and insecurity of tenure. We could of course make it honorary like local govt is, since there is no shortage of takers, but that would make it a wealthy only club. I can’t see the community wanting that. Pay them well while they’re there, perhaps allowing them special personal topup super rules for their insecure tenure and then nothing when they leave. No gold cards, pension, nothing! Same safety net as any other member of the community- Centrelink. Let’s face it, not too many are going to end up on skid row.
observa
I don’t get into bashing politicians for every perk/entitlement they/we have. However, whilst the ‘horrible working hours’ is true, the ‘insecurity of tenure’ is no worse than many in the community and better than plenty. A 3 (or 6) year guarantee of employment, almost regardless of what you do (short of being convicted of a crime) is pretty good really (even though a slight flipside is that you can then lose your job as much because of what others do as to how well you perform yourself).
I really don’t think the ‘relatively lousy salary’ argument stacks up, especially when you add all the extra allowances and top-ups you get for being a Committee Chair, Whip, etc. Politicians’ salaries are in the top 5% of all income earners – I think that is sufficient.
The Greens ask for something a fair bit higher than 2% I remember.
In Queensland, Naomi, I think it’s 3%.
As to the level of remuneration, unless you’re a very successful professional or a high flying exec, very few people in the community earn 115k, as Andrew points out.
What I wouldnt do for $115k!
Naomi
I can’t speak for other parties, but the Democrats have long had a levy on their elected MPs. There is a standard national one, and all states also have a separate levy for MPs from their own state, which varies a lot in different places.
It’s probably not appropriate for me to give the precise figure, but each levy is more than 2% of the base salary – combined it is a fair bit, but that’s not to argue against my original point.