Labor's Future (1 Viewer)

[malkin86]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/07/02/1119724848403.html?from=top5

The day Beazley ensured Labor's Latham disaster
July 3, 2005

Kim Beazley was offered uncontested leadership of the Labor Party just days before the ballot that elected Mark Latham to the top job, The Sunday Age can reveal.

Labor powerbroker and former Senate leader John Faulkner secretly offered Mr Beazley the chance to lead the party again, on the condition that Mr Latham be kept on as shadow treasurer.

But Mr Beazley refused the offer because he did not want to work so closely with Mr Latham, setting the course for a disastrous 10 months of Latham leadership and a humiliating election loss.

The revelation comes on top of another difficult week for the ALP, following Mr Latham's savage attack on the party, Mr Beazley and premiers Bob Carr, Peter Beattie and Geoff Gallop.

Mr Latham is quoted in a biography by journalist Bernard Lagan as saying Mr Beazley stands for nothing, the ALP is beyond reform and the three premiers are A-grade arseholes.

In a new book on the inside story of the Labor Party in Opposition, Annabel Crabb, Sunday Age London correspondent and former Canberra political correspondent for The Age, tells how Senator Faulkner secretly tried to block Mr Latham's ascendancy to the party leadership, despite voting for him in the ballot and becoming a significant mentor to him during his leadership.

Just days before the fateful leadership ballot of December 2, 2003, in which Mr Latham replaced Simon Crean in the top job, Senator Faulkner made a highly sensitive and strategic offer to Mr Beazley.

But Mr Beazley believed that he could not sustain a workable front bench with Mr Latham, a man with whom he shared a substantial public antipathy, in such a senior position.

Senator Faulkner, as a result, cast in his lot with Mr Latham.

Five days later, Mr Latham won the leadership ballot with 47 votes, including Senator Faulkner's, a total that exceeded Mr Beazley's by just two.

After Labor's election loss, Senator Faulkner quit his leadership position in what many interpreted - although he has never confirmed this - as an act of contrition for his role in the Latham ascendancy.

Hm.. So Beazley just left the party to its own mistakes? He probably thought he was retired for good at that point, though.

 

[shady_03]

The prosecution has the onus of proof i'm afraid. The left being the prosecution because they are the ones whineing on about how he lied

Note to all right wingers: never say "proove that <leader> knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" because they automatically puts the left on a winning footing, because you are acknowledging that there were no weapons of MD in Iraq, when there was, we just havent found them yet.. Remember?

The left is in the wrong, because "there is weapons in Iraq, we simply havent found them yet, and we got rid of a horrible horrible leader."

Your agressivity towards the left is really disturbing... you must not have alot going on in your life

 

[Generator]

*bump*

Threat to lop Labor dead wood sparks seats feud

Some MPs want Mr Beazley to intervene to stop the factional brawling, but he is remaining on the sidelines. "It's an issue which takes leadership and courage to solve," one MP said.

Someone is trying to drive home the point. I doubt that Beazley would act, though, because there is no possible way that he could upset the factions.

Whether those members be deadwood by nature or not, I hate the power that is held by the factional powerbrokers and that the leader of the federal party is unwilling (or is it unable?) to intervene. Sure, they serve a purpose, and a bit of a shake-up is in order, but the manner in which the factions appear to be going about the rejuvenation process is just sickening, and it's made worse by the fact that a united Labor (with an effective leader, preferably) is needed to oppose the Government now that the Nationals effectively hold the balance of power in the Senate (even though the Dems are still a force to be reckoned with if some Coalition Senators cross the floor).

 

[leetom]

It's a shame that the 'high-profile' candidates are chosen for their celebrity popularity over their belief and loyalty in the Party.

Eddie Macguire is Labor inclined?

Edit: If the high-flyers want a seat, they should go and get themselves endorsed by the Party and start campaigning in a marginal, or in Macguire's case (at least I would have thought so) a safe Liberal seat- not just purge sitting members from their own hard-won seats.

 

[Iron]

Kim nearly knocked off a Sydney seat when he almost lost Brand in 96
But I could never look at Labor the same if Eddie makes a move.

Anyway, the polls are bad. The coalition were almost never behind the polls before they took office.
I'm not sure that anything will really happen before Howard retires.

 

[Generator]

*bump*

Latham's verdict: the system is sick


A new thread could be created for these diaries (extracts will appear in The Australian this saturday), but given that a number of Latham threads already exist (and that the regulars have made their position with regards to Latham the man known many times before), I thought that it would be best to discuss this piece (and others, I hope) within this thread so that we may place a greater emphasis upon the message rather than the messenger. That isn't to say that the message has not been tainted, but rather that I would prefer to see a debate concerning itself with Labor's future as questioned by a former leader rather than a former leader questioning Labor's future.

Edit: Of course, that is only my opinion, and it isn't as though I can stop another member of the forum creating yet another thread to discuss Latham or the ALP's future.

 

[leetom]

Latham sees Australia's middle class fleeing to an escapism in consumer culture and the media-generated cult of celebrity that rises in direct proportion to the decline of civil society.

Were I Latham, I'd blame the loss on those things too.

But it should be accepted that these things are not unique to Australia, Opposition parties throught the West have to deal with a decline in the intelligence of the middle class and the lesser peoples drug themselves with infatuation of the celebrity.

At leat, I hope they're not unique to Australia. Alternatively I've thought that perhaps due to the convict heritage of some Australians, we're biologically inclined to be of the sort Mr Latham (and I think the majority of us) so despairs.

 

[Generator]

Beazley indecent: Latham
Rudd 'no good on foreign affairs'
Latham's long trail of backstabbing
Dear diary, what a media circus I've created

Rudd is currently on AM. I'll post the interview transcript later today (then again, I may not. Edit: this will do).

Were I Latham, I'd blame the loss on those things too.

But it should be accepted that these things are not unique to Australia, Opposition parties throught the West have to deal with a decline in the intelligence of the middle class and the lesser peoples drug themselves with infatuation of the celebrity.

At leat, I hope they're not unique to Australia. Alternatively I've thought that perhaps due to the convict heritage of some Australians, we're biologically inclined to be of the sort Mr Latham (and I think the majority of us) so despairs.

Ah, even though I agree that it's a deplorable state, I don't think that it's indicative of a decline in intelligence of the middle class, and you are more than over-stepping the mark by suggesting that there may be a biological disposition towards escapism within the Australian population based upon the actions of a small proportion of the country's first European citisens. It's a baseless and racially-inflammatory suggestion (but it's true to form given some of your previous posts, if my memory serves).


Edit: September 19 - Mark Latham with Andrew Denton on Enough Rope - See this article for a bit of info.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Labor will win when it supports workers... Putting in jeporady loggers jobs to save some old growth forrests doesn't appeal to much of their more traditional base. They see that sort of thing and they think "That could be me".

 

[Generator]

*bump*

Breadth of vision should inspire reform

As with the previous bump, I'm of the opinion that there is no need for yet another thread.

 

[malkin86]

It's good that Labor is trying to get back to its roots in the workplace reform debate, but I fear it may be a case of too little, too late.
Thing is, it's hard for an opposition party to be seen as anything but reactionary - if the govt says anything, the media will usually go to the opposition for their thoughts on the matter.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well they are reactionary on buzz issues of course... as most opposition parties are. But I couldn't call their response to VSU, WorkChoices etc reactionary as they go against the parties basic platform

 

[malkin86]

Why would you say that Labor's responses to VSU and WorkChoices go against the party's basic platform?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Why would you say that Labor's responses to VSU and WorkChoices go against the party's basic platform?

I meant with

 

[Iron]

*bump*

Breadth of vision should inspire reform

.

Interesting that he didnt mention the factions, esp considering he was in Vic.

Also, Latham was anything but reactionary. He set the agenda like no other. If anything, 04 was lost b/c they werent reactionary enough about the economy. The bomber is certainly reac, but dont lay it on Latham.

 

[loquasagacious]

Agreed Latham was actually pretty progressive economically and socially speaking.

 

[malkin86]

Too progressive for the bluecollar workers? I think that his promise to save the old growth forests was blown up out of proportion to the rest of everything. Also, Medicare Gold could have been seen as just pie in the sky - where would he get the money from to do this?

It's not unusual for pollies to promise us the moon, but it seems we'd rather believe Howard than Labor.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Too progressive for the bluecollar workers? I think that his promise to save the old growth forests was blown up out of proportion to the rest of everything.

To tradies this showed where his true intentions lied... they saw those workers be fired due to a green agenda they do not care about, and they thought 'we could be next'.

The reason people are willing to believe Howard is because he has actually delivered? Due to labors economic reforms or not, the people feel happy with their current conditions.

 

[Generator]

To tradies this showed where his true intentions lied... they saw those workers be fired due to a green agenda they do not care about, and they thought 'we could be next'.

Hah. If by true intentions you mean that he promoted a progressive policy to preserve a forest and to provide a considerable monetary package to reform the Tasmanain forestry industry (so that there would be no net job losses), then yes, but I cannot help but think that as with many of those fearing for their jobs (and the Tasmanian Labor Government), you only took note of the point that said that the industry as it it existed would be reformed leading to some being required to reskill (a reskilling that was to be fully funded and accompanied by a compensation package, funnily enough). In other words, people only took note of the fact that their current job was 'under threat', despite the fact that they were in no way at risk of becoming unemployed.

Edit: Heh we appear to be repeating ourselves, again. Oh well.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I said that's what it showed the tradies... Personally I care little about the workers losing their jobs or the preservation of the forrest.