November 24, 2004

BOOTING ANTICIPATED

Despite all the love from Mike Seccombe and Alan Ramsey, Mark Latham is struggling to keep his job:

Senior Labor figures say Mark Latham could be dumped within weeks after the ALP leader yesterday said his state premiers were partly to blame for the devastating federal election loss.

The Bulletin magazine today quoted an unnamed Labor frontbencher and prominent factional figure who said key Latham backers had lost faith in their leader.

"I am now, sadly, resigned that a leadership ballot is inevitable, if not before Christmas then early next year," the frontbencher said.

During a difficult two-hour election post-mortem in Canberra yesterday, the Opposition Leader also cited his failure to engage with business and problems within his office as prime reasons for the poll debacle.

Despite the sometimes-frank assessment of the loss, senior figures were not impressed.

"Latham's f..king mad; he's in complete denial," one said.

One small problem: Labor has no viable replacement. Incidentally, isn't it a little unfair that the likes of Seccombe and Ramsey aren't subject to similar pressure?

UPDATE. Latham rejects scuttlebutt:

Mark Latham today dismissed reports he could be dumped as Labor leader within weeks.

Mr Latham said reports quoting unnamed Labor MPs who predicted a leadership ballot by early next year were scuttlebutt.

"I've got the support of the party," Mr Latham told reporters in Adelaide.

Posted by Tim Blair at November 24, 2004 10:31 AM
Comments

My once-great party... Scene from last night's news: "Labor MPs met today to try to work out why they have lost the last four federal elections. Party President, Dr Carmen Lawrence, opened the meeting --"

Me (switching channels): "Well, there's the 800-pound gorilla in the living room, right there."

Wife (puzzled): "Come on, Carmen Lawrence isn't that heavy."

Posted by: Uncle Milk at November 24, 2004 at 10:46 AM

Maybe he should consider changing jobs? There's an opening at CBS...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 24, 2004 at 11:11 AM

""I am now, sadly, resigned that a leadership ballot is inevitable, if not before Christmas then early next year," the frontbencher said."

Was that the Christmas promise Latham made? ;-P

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 24, 2004 at 11:14 AM

Beazley.

Posted by: Tony.T at November 24, 2004 at 11:25 AM

I looked back at the Alan Ramsay link and wet myself laughing!

Posted by: Sue at November 24, 2004 at 11:30 AM

"His state premiers"?

That's a whole new concept of Federalism.

Posted by: Sue at November 24, 2004 at 11:38 AM

No, Beazley's not 800 lb any more. He's taken up jogging.

A pretty thin crop. I'd like Michael Darby as leader, but he's got no hope with all the Yasser groupies in the ALP caucus.

Posted by: Uncle Milk at November 24, 2004 at 12:01 PM

A stupid question from an ignorant Jesuslander: what the heck is a "frontbencher"? And, do you have backbenchers and, perhaps, middlebenchers on their way to the becoming frontbenchers? And, why do you still have benches, anyway? Wouldn't nice, individual padded seats be more comfortable? Maybe your lawmakers wouldn't be such a pain-in-the-ass if they didn't have a painful ass!
Just hoping to become enlightened and progressive!

Posted by: rinardman at November 24, 2004 at 12:31 PM

"Senior Labor figures say Mark Latham could be dumped within weeks after the ALP leader yesterday said his state premiers were partly to blame for the devastating federal election loss."

Didn't the labor communications critic, Lindsay Tanner, say that the the Howard landslide played into labor's hands? Now it's referred to as a devastating loss. What a bunch of hee haws. They don't even know if they won or lost.

Posted by: Arty at November 24, 2004 at 12:44 PM

Yes, sounds like the Labour Party is ready to pull Latham out of Iraq by Christmas. Or something.

The Bulletin magazine today quoted an unnamed Labor frontbencher and prominent factional figure

Considering how many of Labour's frontbenchers have quit since the election, does that phrase really preserve the anonymity of the Bulletin's source? Just asking. There can't be too many politicians left on whom this description would fit...

Posted by: PW at November 24, 2004 at 01:08 PM

because Latham is a complete mental retard, we need to keep him on, so that the Labor party can lose again and again and again and again...

The ultimate aim is to reduce the Labor party to 50 or less seats so that they become a permanent minority party, Latham is the one who can do this.

Posted by: klein at November 24, 2004 at 01:22 PM

The ALP won't get anywhere at all if they don't face the fact that Latham is a symptom not a cause of their problems. If they are looking for the cause they should ask themselves "Do we want to be the party supported by Ramsay and Kingston?"

As long as they are, they are dead in the water.

Posted by: Allan at November 24, 2004 at 02:39 PM

I know four things that can get Labor going again, promoting gay marriage ( especially through the courts without ordinary people having a say), more Muslim immigration, be soft on terrorism and advocate higher taxes, these are things that the Left are pushing and are bound to push Labor into oblivion where they belong

Posted by: klein at November 24, 2004 at 02:53 PM

what the heck is a "frontbencher"?

Australian House of Reps resembles a sort of a horseshoe shape.

|___|
|___|
--U--

Kinda like that. The 'u' is where the speaker sits - currently the Member for Wannon (Lib).

To the right of the speaker is the government. The guys sitting on the front bench (ie, nearest the centre of the room and the speaker), are the PM, the deputy PM and the other ministers. The guys closer to the exit are the backbenchers.

To the left of the speaker is the opposition. Their front benchers include M Latham and the couple of guys who haven't bolted to the back.

The opposition backbench (again, near the doors) is currently groaning under the weight of "heavyweights" like Beazley.

Here's a link to the seating plan. Note shape of room and location of names.

Posted by: Quentin George at November 24, 2004 at 03:18 PM

One small problem: Labor has no viable replacement.

Hmmm...why not plonk newcomer Kate Ellis in the chair.

She may not do any better, but she'll be easier on the eye...

Posted by: Quentin George at November 24, 2004 at 03:30 PM

Quentin, I trust that the Coalition has it's share of attractive women on their roster of elected officials. Any links, mayhaps? ;-)

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 24, 2004 at 03:36 PM

More on frontbenchers (you also find the term in the UK & Canada):

The opposition frontbench is sometimes called 'the shadow cabinet', as it contains the Leader of the Opposition's 'shadow' ministers for things like defence, treasury, foreign affairs etc. (Unlike the US system, cabinet members have to be members of parliament.)

And why benches? Because the British parliament originally met in a chapel. Nowadays the benches are indeed nicely padded.

Posted by: David Morgan at November 24, 2004 at 03:40 PM

And The Real JeffS, here's Sophie Panopoulos for you. That gash of red lipstick could almost make me forget she's a monarchist.

Posted by: David Morgan at November 24, 2004 at 03:55 PM

Coming soon, Labor Idol. Thrill as Marcia, Mark and Dicko sift through thousands of candidates to find a frontbench top 12. Vote early and often as week by week candidates are relegated to the backbench. There can only be one Labor Idol and its your choice!!

Posted by: Greg at November 24, 2004 at 03:55 PM

There is the government front bench, then the government back bench then the opposition front bench. I think they are the 3rd team and the term "front bench" for the opposition is misleading.

Posted by: Allan at November 24, 2004 at 04:00 PM

....and the Government occupies the Treasury benches.

Posted by: Greg at November 24, 2004 at 04:05 PM

Thanks, David! No argument from me on that!

But what's a monarchist? Someone who wants the royal family to have a direct hand in affairs?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 24, 2004 at 04:07 PM

But what's a monarchist? Someone who wants the royal family to have a direct hand in affairs?

No, its someone who favours keeping the current constitutional arrangements (ie constitutional monarchy) for one of various reasons.

Posted by: Quentin George at November 24, 2004 at 04:17 PM

Treasury benches.

That's just the fancy word for the government benches. Sorta like the fact the British PM is actually "First Lord of the Treasury"

Posted by: Quentin George at November 24, 2004 at 04:19 PM

Jeff, this is Australia - like Canada, we have Mrs Elizabeth Windsor, aka Her Majesty, on our coins. And Sophie wants to keep it that way. Oh, don't get me started...

Posted by: David Morgan at November 24, 2004 at 04:20 PM

Oh, don't get me started...

You're not still sore about this are you, David?

:)

Liz doesn't actually have a surname, so to speak. Kinda like Cher or Madonna, but without the marketing clout.

As a side note, I notice Sophie's only a couple of seats away from new recruit M Turnbull.

That must be an interesting group...

Posted by: Quentin George at November 24, 2004 at 04:26 PM

Quentin - indeed. For non-Australians, Malcolm Turnbull is former head of the Australian Republican Movement. And nearby one also finds Tony Abbott MP, former head of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. A broad church.

As for the Queen's surname, I thought that it was Mountbatten-Windsor after her marriage to Prince Phillip. But before he got the title 'Earl of Wessex' Prince Edward was in the habit of calling himself just 'Edward Windsor'.

Of course the name would have been 'Battenberg-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha' if World War I hadn't happened.

Posted by: David Morgan at November 24, 2004 at 04:52 PM

I beleive the Queen officially does not have a last name, but is simultaneously the head of the house of Windsor. But her children have the last name of Mountbatten-Windsor. Except those in the direct line to the throne. Who have the last name of simply Windsor.

Or something complicated like that.

Posted by: Cheesie at November 24, 2004 at 05:06 PM

Well it's complicated. The Queen is from the House of Windsor - but she doesn't actually have a surname as you and I do.

She made it so that her non-Royal descendants (eg Zara Phillips) would inherit the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. However this doesn't seem consistent (eg Charles signed his name at his wedding as "The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George" and Prince William refers to himself as "William Wales".)

Add that to the fact that before the name change under George V, their surname (which they never used) was actually Wettin while the House was Saxe-Corburg-Gotha, and that Elizabeth II is that last monarch of the House of Windsor, as her descendants are in the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg...


...anyway, none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand...unless the ALP's new cunning plan to get into power is to marry into the Royal family and create "The House of Crean-Latham"


Posted by: Quentin George at November 24, 2004 at 05:06 PM

Yes... back to the topic.

There are four conceivable options:

Mark Latham
Kim Beazley
Kevin Rudd
Julia Gillard

Muhahahahaha

If there is a leadership spill, I doubt they will want to re-elect Mark. And if they did he'll be politically dead in the water.

Kim must now be officially a back bencher.

Kevin has all the charisma and political clarity of John Kerry. Welcome to Australian nuance!

Julia Gillard. If the NSW right can't be trusted by Australians to run the economy, can the Victorian left?

Posted by: Cheesie at November 24, 2004 at 05:30 PM

Latham is actually right on the mark in criticising state premiers as far as WA is concerned.Labor lost seats here due to the electorate's almost universal dislike of the one term gallop government.
Gallop himself has not made too many blues but is perceived to be a very cold,unattached chap who fails to connect with anybody.

Posted by: marklatham at November 24, 2004 at 07:04 PM

Actually, I think its more likely Labor lost because it simply wasn't up to the job, and the electorate knew that.

Latham went backwards in every state and territory except for the ACT and SA.

Is he going to blame all of that on state premiers?

Looks like he's going to try.

Posted by: Quentin George at November 24, 2004 at 07:36 PM

Labor needs someone who doesn't seem like a traditional Labor type.They tried it with Latham but although he appeared new and exciting he ended up stinking Labor germs. They need a Bob Hawke type(although he was bred in the union movement he wasn't totally of it), an outsider who is credible. An everyman. Where he will come from I don't know,probably not from inside their Federal ranks, maybe one of those treacherous Labor premiers that Biff owns.

Posted by: gubbaboy at November 24, 2004 at 09:23 PM

Back to the real topic ''''''''''''''

What does it say on her passport?

Posted by: jlchydro at November 24, 2004 at 10:12 PM

Back to the real topic ''''''''''''''

What does it say on her passport?

Posted by: jlchydro at November 24, 2004 at 10:12 PM

"Labor needs someone who doesn't seem like a traditional Labor type.They tried it with Latham but although he appeared new and exciting he ended up stinking Labor germs."

Latham does try to be an ideas man, though the ideas don't venture beyond the left-wing ways. So, yeah I think that's right.

He has said that Labor needs to appeal to the grow non-unionised work force, such as free-lance contractors, small business people, franchises etc. Which sounds like he is opening his view. However, then he says these people need to be proctected from big business... with a union like model.

It becomes like the Monty Phython sketch with Spam.

Posted by: madison at November 24, 2004 at 11:28 PM

Uncle Milk-Did you see the 800 lb gorilla rowing out to the U.S.aircraft carrier in Gage Rds (off Fremantle Harbour) as part of a protest contingent? Brandishing a loud hailer and demanding to be allowed to board in order that she could personally inspect it for nuclear weapons.She was annompanied by her personal protest minstrel strumming his guitar and singing..........Sandgropers lakly to have died of shame and humiliation!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: crash at November 25, 2004 at 12:52 AM

Oops- That's accompanied.

Posted by: crash at November 25, 2004 at 12:56 AM

Jlchydro

The Queen doesn't have a passport. As she is the person in whose name passports are given, it would be silly if she had to give herself one.

Quentin George,

Did you notice that on the Parliamentary seating plan they spelled the name of John Anderson's electorate incorrectly? It's spelt "Gwyder" instead of Gwydir"

Posted by: Toryhere at November 25, 2004 at 07:30 AM

Maybe the ALP will persuade Natasha Stott-Despoja to join the party as its leader.

Oh I forgot, they've been down that track before.

Posted by: mr magoo at November 25, 2004 at 10:20 AM

I was thinking of a Frank Sator type,parachuted into the NSW ministry(maybe next Premier) after being Sydney's Lord Mayor. Will they approach Clover Moore,the current Lord Mayor? I am sure she could manage to be State Member/Lord Mayor and ALP leader.
sarc off
I notice how Keating is being recast as the economic saviour of Australia in the 80's
sarc on
Perhaps he can lead the ALP again?
sarc off

Posted by: gubbaboy at November 25, 2004 at 11:16 AM

Uncle Milk: Danby is excellent value, but somehow strangely unappealing to the ALP Palestinian lobby...

Posted by: Coach_Ted at November 25, 2004 at 12:10 PM

So anyway, downunder, you sink the slipper in and get booted out?

Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 25, 2004 at 01:38 PM

Maybe the ALP will persuade Natasha Stott-Despoja to join the party as its leader.

Amanda Vanstone offered membership in the Liberal Party to Natasha on election night.

I think it was a joke, but you never know...

Posted by: Quentin George at November 25, 2004 at 03:16 PM

Quentin:
You're absolutely right about Kate Ellis. She is a Liberal's wet dream, just what we need as Leader of the Opposition, even if I do prefer Latham's voluptuous breasts. From Ellis's maiden speech:

I believe we must prioritise reconciliation with our indigenous community, embrace the diversity of our multicultural society and place confidence in our nation to be a strong and independent republic.[...]On many occasions over recent months I have been accused of being young and idealistic. To this, I plead guilty as charged.

BINGO! She didn't mention protecting the environment from jobs, but I guess that's understood. Better still if she introduced an all-girl front bench - Margo Kingston as personal adviser, Macklin as shadow deputy, Gillard as shadow treasurer, Plibersek as Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, Stott-Despoja as Shadow Environment mullah, Peter Garrett as Shadow Defence Minister, etc.

Posted by: Clem Snide at November 25, 2004 at 03:18 PM

I don't know if "Peter Garrett" belongs in the same paragraph as "wet dream", Clem...

Posted by: Quentin George at November 25, 2004 at 03:45 PM

Come to think about it Narky Latham is right about the state premiers contributing to his downfall.

Queensland: Run out of electricity
NSW: Run out of water, trains can't run
Victoria: Run out of water, run out of electricity.
SA: Run out of water, run out of electricty.
WA: run out of charisma (?) sorry sand gropers, but I don't know your problems over there

Given the above who would trust the ALP to run a chook raffle.

Posted by: Pauly at November 25, 2004 at 05:28 PM