September 20, 2004

BARGSHOON BOMBSHELL

A former Labor member now running as an independent against Mark Latham claims that Latham asked him to stack two Sydney ALP branches:

Sam Bargshoon was a member of the ALP for 18 years and has admitted to extensive branch stacking during that time.

"Mark Latham asked me to wait until everyone had left the meeting of the Austral branch," Mr Bargshoon said.

"He wanted me to help him find some new members to put in Austral branch and his electoral branch."

Bargshoon says he found 49 new members whose memberships were paid by the ALP's head office; Latham says "nobody joined that branch in 2003, so the whole proposition is just a fantasy." Should be easy enough to discover who’s telling the truth; open the relevant membership accounts.

UPDATE. Via AAP:

Austral branch secretary Tony Beuk today refused to confirm or deny Mr Bargshoon's allegations.

"Whatever comments I made to the inquiry, I made to the inquiry, so I mean, that question wasn't asked of me so I've got no particular comment in relation to that," Mr Beuk said.

"I can't confirm any version of events.

"I'm not prepared to make any comment in relation to those particular allegations."

Interesting. And here’s more from branchy Bargshoon:

"He wanted me to help him find some new members to put into Austral branch because [left-winger] Paul Lynch put in 20 members," Mr Bargshoon told the inquiry.

"Mark hated Paul Lynch and Paul hated Mark ..."

UPDATE II. It’s a double bombshell day:

The federal Labor Party says it is extremely concerned about allegations that a sitting Independent MP had been offered a diplomatic posting if he agreed not to stand again.

Tony Windsor, the Independent Member for New England in northern New South Wales, says people connected with the Liberal and National parties have been involved in making the offers.

Labor's Nicola Roxon says it is a serious criminal offence to offer inducements to someone to persuade them not to run for Parliament.
Ms Roxon says the maximum punishment for the offence is two years jail or a $5,000 fine.

"Clearly this is an outrageous attack on our democracy, something that we don't expect the government to be involved in, in any way," she said.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 20, 2004 05:35 PM
Comments

Until you can show me the photocopied Memo, I'm not buying a word of it!

Posted by: Quentin George at September 20, 2004 at 05:54 PM

Proof!

To: Sam Bargshoon
From: Mark Latham:
Date: Err, sometime in 2003
Subject: CYA

Sammy boy,

Could you do us a big fucken favour and stack the Austral branch for me cobber?

That prick Paul Lynch is trying the same game on, and I'll be fucked if he thinks he can outstack me. I reckon the little toe rag can come up with 20 members tops, so if you could whistle up 50 or so stiffs, that would be tops. Just pay the membership fee out of petty cash sport.

I am going to be Leader soon (and PM when I knock the lying rodent off!) and don't think I will forget who my mates are. If you ever want to run for a seat yourself, you just let Unky Mark know.

Cheers

Mark 'Latho' Latham

Posted by: attila at September 20, 2004 at 06:34 PM

Proof!

To: Sam Bargshoon
From: Mark Latham:
Date: Err, sometime in 2003
Subject: CYA

Sammy boy,

Could you do us a big fucken favour and stack the Austral branch for me cobber?

That prick Paul Lynch is trying the same game on, and I'll be fucked if he thinks he can outstack me. I reckon the little toe rag can come up with 20 members tops, so if you could whistle up 50 or so stiffs, that would be tops. Just pay the membership fee out of petty cash sport.

I am going to be Leader soon (and PM when I knock the lying rodent off!) and don't think I will forget who my mates are. If you ever want to run for a seat yourself, you just let Unky Mark know.

Cheers

Mark 'Latho' Latham

Hang on I typed this on an old IBM typewriter and it matches perfectly.This can't be real.

Posted by: gubbaboy at September 20, 2004 at 06:43 PM

Tim,
Can you explain this Branch thing to us non Parliamentarians? Something to do with trees, and mokeyshines?

Posted by: gimpy at September 20, 2004 at 06:51 PM

What do you think will get the most media.

The Latham rumour or the LNP rumour?

I reckon the 7.30 report / SMH and Lateline will all cover the LNP in detail and the Latham rumour will disappear without a trace!

Posted by: Nuffy at September 20, 2004 at 07:36 PM

crikey!! allegations of lay-bore branch stacking? i'm staggered!! truly!

Posted by: roseco at September 20, 2004 at 07:38 PM

Well, Fuck me dead and call me Shirley! Branch stacking! Thank God we have the Libs, who we all know would never do that.

Posted by: shirley at September 20, 2004 at 08:32 PM

I notice that Windsor isn't giving much away, and this is supposed to happen two months ago.

Methinks he is in trouble and this is a very underhand political tactic.

If the LNP has done it then they will suffer but in reality, Windsor has made vague unsubstantiated claims.

Lets see the proof, but unfortunately the headlines tomorrow will be negative.

Posted by: Nuffy at September 20, 2004 at 09:45 PM

Shirl, Shirl, Shirl

Nobody suggested the ALP is the only party engaging in branch stacking. However, the only publicly available evidence points to the ALP.

It is a criminal offence to 'branch stack' and it is ridiculous to insinuate that the ALP should not be called to account because 'everybody knows the Libs do it too'.

And no, I don't want to fuck you but thanks for the offer.

Posted by: Andrew Murphy at September 20, 2004 at 09:49 PM

What exactly IS branchstacking? Is it the same as what was done for Malcolm Turnbull?

Posted by: Nemesis at September 20, 2004 at 10:01 PM

It is not a criminal offence to branch stack.

The reason that ALP branch stacking offends against the law, is that to vote in an ALP preselection one must be enrolled to vote in the electorate concerned. So enterprising types like the National Deputy Secretary of the ALP, Mike Kaiser, end up enrolled to vote in electorates where they don't live, a breach of the electoral laws.

Posted by: Just Another Bloody Lawyer at September 20, 2004 at 10:38 PM

Oh Pulease,
An angry ex-ALP person, who is standing against Latham, is making allegations he can't prove from Coward's Castle. It's hardly watergate is it.
Meanwhile you have got an independent MP claiming he was offered a diplomatic post by people in the Govt. That is a major scandal and an insult to democracy.

Posted by: jockman at September 20, 2004 at 10:50 PM

Bargshoon and John Howard share two great attributes; unimpeachable ethics and great hair.

Posted by: S.W. Aschkenazi at September 20, 2004 at 10:50 PM

Perhaps Bargshoon should take a lie-detector test. That should be enough to convince the Australian media - it has been in the past anyway.

Posted by: john at September 20, 2004 at 11:30 PM


I don't know what Branch stacking is, but I want it made illegal here in California, for sure.

Posted by: Andrew at September 21, 2004 at 12:13 AM

The only branch stacking we do around here is after a hurricane. Please explain the term to those of us who didn't take antipodean civics. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Some Seppo at September 21, 2004 at 12:14 AM

Some Seppo:

Before a party candidate can stand for a "seat" (kinda like a congressional district) he/she has to win their party's nomination for that seat. Usually the party members vote for the candidate ("pre-selection"). So to get more support for a preferred candidate, new members (if they know about it, that is) are sometimes enrolled in bulk, their party dues are paid by someone else and then the preferred candidate gets the votes of the new members. Hey presto, you have stacked the party branch (party office) with compliant new members.

Posted by: L.F. Brown at September 21, 2004 at 01:44 AM

Branch stacking: where an unprincipled party member, usually Labor, signs up (often unaware, sometimes deceased) people to a particular party branch in order to promote the chances of a certain party candidate to be nominated for an electoral seat.

Posted by: tim at September 21, 2004 at 01:47 AM

From a socialist website, a similar summary:

"Branch stacking involves the compiling of fraudulent lists of members, which the factions then use to boost the votes for their own nominees in contests for parliamentary candidates."

Posted by: tim at September 21, 2004 at 01:51 AM

<crazy-lib-supporter-mode>
This surprises me becaused I thought inducing people not to stand was standard party practice. Like, "LoLOL If you like give up preselection this year we will like totally back you next year like WTF Marmalade". But this seems to be frowned upon when inter-party relationships occur. Oh well... thats politics I guess.instea
</crazy-lib-suppporter-mode>

(Jesus Christ I'm pissed off now.. MT [or whatever commo blogging software you use] doesn't automatically include <bad-tag> and removes it.. I'm in pyscho mode now because I had to type &gt; and &lt;... oh the pain!!!)

Posted by: drscroogemcduck at September 21, 2004 at 03:33 AM

Thanks for the explanation. In the US system, anyone can stand for any seat and call themselves a member of any party as long as they meet Federal, State, or Local qualifications (mostly the posession of a pulse). We have Primary Elections to separate the wheat from the chaff in each party. Provided that more than one person from the same party runs for the same seat of course.

Posted by: Some Seppo at September 21, 2004 at 04:26 AM

Some Seppo

I could never understand the primary thing. Why not just let the paid up members of the party pick the candidate. it would save a lot of time and money.

Posted by: Toryhere at September 21, 2004 at 09:20 AM

Nuffy

I wouldn't worry too much about media coverage. The voters in the important swinging seats don't watch the ABC or read the Silly Moaning Hilmer. These two outlets have stuff-all effect at election time, as only half-educated lefties pay much attention to them.

Posted by: Toryhere at September 21, 2004 at 09:24 AM

Im amazed at the Latham lovers claiming that branch stacking isn't a big issue. Just ask Mike Keiser...

Latham has no credibility as it is over his behind the back tactics at Liverpool so this on the face of it seems very credible.

If Latham can't offer real proof against Bargshoon's allegations a full parliamentary inquiry should ensue. I know Labor would be calling for it if it was John Howard. This may mean that Latham may not be eligible to run in the upcoming election. If found to be true, Latham will be stripped of his party membership.

Now that's big news you Labor twats.

Posted by: scott at September 21, 2004 at 10:09 AM

Look I don't care much for Latham myself, but it's absolutely clutching at straws to try and pin this allegation on him seeing that not a single new member was enrolled in that branch in all of 2003. Yet Bagman Bargshoon claims that he stacked the branch only weeks prior to Latham winning the leadership. It's a bit difficult to stack a branch without adding a single member to it. And now he's standing against Lathman for Werriwa. It's a bit like taking Andrew Wilkie's rantings about Howard at face value.

Posted by: rick at September 21, 2004 at 11:21 AM

Bargshoon was talking to Ray Hadley on 2gb radio this morning and claimed that the new members all received January 2004 party membership cards, so Latham's claim that no new members were signed up in 2003 may be correct, but Bargshoon may also be telling the truth. He claimed to have all the details of the 49 people he signed up to the party. This could get very interesting.

Posted by: MC at September 21, 2004 at 12:50 PM