Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

For all his faults he did seem real, but honestly, how can anyone tell, without ever being in consistent personal contact, that this was "Mark Latham" and not some cultivated image.

It's 2005 and we all think we are so sophisticated, well informed and terribly clever just because it's easier to share information than it was in 1905.

Now really, honestly does anything ever change? And by change I don't mean cycle or pattern, because the same things still occur but at different times.

Do misanthropes make "successful" politicians? Winston Churchill's words about spending 5 minutes with the average voter immediately spring to mind.

Stuart Lord, to help me understand your view, maybe you could explain to me the type of “Character flaws leading to downfall” that you mention and whose flaws exactly they were?

You seem to be forgetting one thing. Mark Latham didn’t spill any beans whilst he was leader. In essence he hasn’t done anything wrong except try to defend himself, expose the culture and tell his side of the story after he left Politics. He needed to do this because of all the controversy.

Yes Mark Latham is emotional, but who wouldn’t be when you have been through hell and everybody turns their back on you? The way he presents is a direct result of how he has been and is being treated and it shouldn’t be used against him. It's a normal reaction to this type of situation.

Mark Latham just wants to set his record straight as it is necessary in order to heal and move on. I fully understand why he would need to do this. His name has been dragged through the mud and he wants to say his piece, tell it how he saw it and clear his name as best he can. It should be his right and he shouldn’t be vilified and criticised for it.

Dear Margo Kingston and cohorts:

Your comment will appear on Webdiary after approval by a moderator?

ed Kerri: Hi Martin. We welcome your views and questions. They are off-topic in this thread so your entire comment has been reposted in this thread on moderation.

The man is a Greek tragedy. Character flaws leading to downfall. He was good to listen to - but not enough people trusted him to run the country. Open, but that openness showed something that many people found dangerous. And their mistrust was vindicated by his subsequent behavior.

Imagine if he had this tantrum while leader? The four horsemen of the apocolypse couldn't have done much more damage in that scenario.

It is unlikely that I will read the book; I've heard and seen enough already. And while Latham seeemed to have made a few accurate statements about the straight jacket of the ALP machine I doubt they will give rise to any self examination by the party. The focus will remain on the bitterness of the rest of the book.

Latham appears as a man who was trapped in a role he did not want amidst those he no longer liked. You can't help but think a better person would have left that environment long before he actually did. Someone needs to ask him several questions such as when did the party become dysfunctional? Was it at the time of his preselection? Or when he was elevated to the cabinet or the leadership role? Or was it when he lost the election?

It would seem he spent a long time betraying himself by staying around for so long harbouring those sentiments - and he now feels compelled to blame others for his lack of will power to cut his losses and perhaps get a real job.

Stuart Lord, I agree in retrospect that he was a loose canon, but God it was refreshing to hear a politician talking straight, or as straight as possible.

But he's better than Howard - he would never have gone into Iraq.

We are gasping for inspiration. Someone who will inspire our higher instincts. Wouldn't it be great if some honest brilliant wise guy became leader of one of the parties? Imagine regular wise straight-shooting! Imagine! But it might be impossible, since the parties are filled with so-called pragmatists.

Jolanda Challita, either every significant Labor personality is an idiot, or Latham is just taking vengence against those whom he feels wronged him. Iconoclastic tendencies, bad decisions, and a vile temper served him poorly as a minister, an opposition leader and still do so as a public figure.

If Labor had won and Latham was telling the truth, that government would be in the record books for incompetence, corruption and general backstabbing and greasy pole climbing.

If he wasn't speaking the truth, then apart from then and now showing his complete lack of grace, management and responsibility, if this happened while in office, it could have been disasterous, with the party possibly ripping itself apart, and the government and civil service going nowhere due to the personal battles taking place in the Labor office.

Either way, I'm glad that he didn't get in. And I think Australia as a whole should send up a prayer in thanks for deliverence.

Martin Gifford, the issue comes down to - would I rather have a competent known liar with a decent track record, or an unknown, probably incompetent straight talker with an atrocious track record? The people voted. And it seems they were right.

Margo, disaffected left and right is a sound and appealing mix, but will also position it as a protest movement. I'd also like to see a heavyweight non-aligned (and non-media) figure to form a three headed beast. I struggle to imagine who that might be at this point, tho'... Wait! how about Lachlan!

My dream ticket would be Latham and Barnaby Joyce. I thought the spectacle of him asking the various vested interests straight out whether he should vote for the Telstra sale in an open (albeit mickey mouse) hearing was delicious!

And, I love his candour in interviews. Put it down to inexperience I guess - the machine will get 'im!

Margo: David, I've been imagining my dream ticket to launch the independent Webdiary in Sydney. Watcha reckon about Hewson and Latham?

Ah Stuart, at least Latham has a character that is open to honest flaws.

Howard has never admitted any flaws and he certainly has no character beyond winning elections.

What Beazley stands for is still with the jury, but so far all he seems to do is utter “me-too” at every one of Howard's draconian laws.

Ah you're such a pro, Stuart . Your last post was the best I've seen on Latham and why it was right not to vote for him. Iconoclastic tendencies certainly did not serve him well, in the end. Of course it depends how you measure success. I remember Brian Law once said you had a future in politics and I didn't believe it but I do now. You could even end up a little Menziean Liberal, in Margo's sense of the word, as someone polite and respectful to colleagues and foes.

Stuart Lord, it isn't easy changing direction and going against the grain, to many things pop up that those involved want to keep covered up. I can understand how you can get caught up in the Culture.

Many in Government get caught up in the momentum of things and just don’t speak up because its just cause’s problems and it makes you no friends. It’s pretty much detrimental to your health and social well-being, even your position and job.

It’s a similar scenario as what happens in the school playground with bullies. So many people, even often adults see acts of bullying and things that are wrong, but turn a blind eye because it is just too hard to go there, nobody wants to stand up for the victim or for what is right as they fear that the bullies might turn on them or that their previous actions might also be questioned. Its all fear based and nobody is safe from it.

We need be understanding but we need not be idiots. We need to support those in their attempts to bring issues out into the open and be understanding of the Culture so things can change, as we should be aiming for an honest, open and transparent Government. We want leaders with Integrity and Vision!

Now, does anybody know any?

PS to last. Barnaby Joyce is a flea weight; total wimp out with Telstra, as are those who abstained. Gutless and completely failing to seize the opportunity to make a difference. Weakest of the weak.

Dream ticket candidates: Latham and Fraser; Latham and Brogden; Latham and Hewson; Latham and Bill Clinton.

The really sad thing about this entire episode for the ALP is that they had a perfect chance to reinvent themselves after the election - they didn't; they had another (smaller) chance when the decided on the leadership and the front bench - not much joy there either. Now, another opportunity presents itself but everyone, including Barry Jones is running/ducking for cover and closing ranks rather than saying (in some way) "Mark's right, we're in a mess and here's what we're going to do - total spill of all positions top to bottom, all ALP members to vote on new party leaders, get rid of the faction concept altogether, open ballot for leader and all front bench positions." Something along those lines - the reformers can try to do everything at branch level but unless the top changes big time it will just be samo samo.

I think Mark is despondent about it for very good reasons - the ALP is totally encumbered and very out of touch; Mark started to get in touch with the electorate - which is part of why Howard was so keen to destroy him with the fear and loathing campaign. Someone who genuinely knows and cares about people "on the street" might indeed become both dangerous (to both the Coalition and the ALP) and generate a ground-swell of change both at state and federal levels.

The big question coming out of this is whether ANYTHING can dig the two major parties out of the cesspools they are in. Mark has exposed the mess on one side of the house; if someone lifted the lid on the other side (we've had glimpses with Abbott and others) it would be at least as ugly. Sadly the incumbents on both sides cohere and form a skin over their respective pool and hope no one will notice how thin the skin is or how deep the pool is under it. It would take some very big leaders to change the main game - we seem to have absolutely no one on either side of the house that could do it for their respective parties.

Stuart Lord, you're correct when you label Howard a liar, that is beyond dispute.

But competent? Just barely. Sure he's not stuffed up the economy, but the idea that Howard alone is responsible for Australia's strong economic growth over the last 15 years is another myth peddled by Howard and his media mates. The truth of course is that the hard yards were done by Keating and Hawke before him, simply think of the financial deregulation and reasonable workplace flexibility put in place at the time. On top of this mix throw in the Chinese dragon roaring along and Australia's fortuitous access to the raw materials to feed this fire and you have the basis for our current economic prosperity.

Howard and his media mates would never admit any of this of course, because it rightly dilutes their claim to economic omniscience. Howard's bare competence lies in his success in not allowing the wheels of the economic train to fall off.

His gross failure is in not setting up the economy for the next wave of prosperity and in not equitably distributing the prosperity we currently enjoy.

Latham's call for the Federal government to promote a skills based policy was correct when he said it and it's even more urgent today. We cannot compete with India and China for low wage jobs and we shouldn't even try.

Oh, one other thing Stuart, you're also incorrect to label Latham a Greek tragedy. What do you mean by this anyway? In what way is Latham's story analogous to a Greek tragedy?

Latham's story is more of the Shakespearian flaw variety. Latham appears to me to be a man brought low by the same strong emotions which fuelled his rise. It's a common story, a person's greatest strength's prove to be their greatest weakness.

There's a bit of tonight's Lateline in today's ABC-AM transcript

I really want to know what exactly what scenarios people like Stuart Lord are grateful did not eventuate out of a Mark Latham Prime Ministership. So the man has a dummy spit. Is he not human like the rest of us?

OK, it isn't exactly statesman-like behaviour to swear a bit, chuck a tanty or break someone's arm, but the actions and policies of the Howard government have led to infinitely more serious outcomes. They just won't own up to the fact that those policies wreak much of the suffering on the weakest in our community. From the lock step loyalty Howard gets, I'm tipping that what happens behind the closed doors of the Liberal party room is much, much, uglier any tanty Mark Latham could turn on. We just don't get to hear about or see it. Much like the facts of the Parkin case...

Stuart, the four horses of the apocalypse have already bolted. John Howard rode them home in 96, and he's been riding increasingly roughshod over us ever since.

Imagine if he had this tantrum while leader? The four horsemen of the apocolypse couldn't have done much more damage in that scenario.

I was shot down before for suggesting that you were too immature to have a firm grasp on reality Stuart. And God forbid I should give you a chance to use your favourite protective charm (repeat Ad Hominem 3 times and click your heels!) But lets visit that statement of yours.

The 4 horsemen were of course Death, Famine, Pestilence and War. So should we dummies have been been duped by the Latham charm (as opposed to being duped by the Howard fear campaign) Australia would now be faced with gutters overflowing with dead and war at our doorstep? Did you evisage us at war with the US Stuart, or did you imagine a more localised civil war, perhaps Tasmania tries to annex the Docklands in Melbourne?

Another hypothetical is of course that he DID win and DID have this tanty whilt PM and cleared a lot of parasitic deadwood from the party and went on to become one of the most just and responsible PM's in our history.

Fantasy is a great thing Stuart. Just don't let it overtake reality.

Jolanda Challita Reagan had a vision. He saw what needed to be done, and did it. And it worked. But for what we have, I would rather have a leader with competence at administration and reasonable foresight of problems, rather than an incompetent, tantrum throwing visionary.

P. Jones If what Mark Latham has been doing can be called a 'dummy spit', then the Roman Civil War between Pompey and Caesar can be called 'a minor altercation over differing visions for the future of the Republic', Napoleon's conquests can be called 'a minor redistribution of power in Europe' and nuclear war could be called 'a slight upheaval in the social and econonmic conditions in the affected areas'.

And Liberal politics is far from the disaster zone of Labor factions, and far less divided. There are no factional allocations, or any such rot, rather loose alignments within the upper levels. And true debate does run through, as can be seen with the changes in immigration policy. It's just that ranks close to outsiders, so that when the decision has been made, it isn't ruined or have the attention stripped away by idiotic statements or rumours.

Solomon Wakeling Can I have a fan club? With posters of me looking distinguished?

And would it mean I have to give up my membership to the Right Wing Death Beast Club?

Honestly, I care for politics, but little for the grind that is involved in becoming a politician, or staying one. I'd rather write from the sidelines.

Margo: 'David, I've been imagining my dream ticket to launch the independent Webdiary in Sydney. Watcha reckon about Hewson and Latham? '

I'd certainly turn up to watch. The fireworks between the two would probably be impressive. But why go with rejected outsiders?

" I'd rather write from the sidelines."

That, Stuart would be fiction, would it?

Stephen Callaghan 1 - the four horsemen comment was said in jest.

2 - Considering the statements and actions by the man post election loss, which of our scenario's is more likely? Latham the tragic, iconoclastic, failed leader after running into hardship and the battles of internal politics as PM, or Latham the magnificent, spreading social justice and economic performance and moral righteousness over the country? Somehow, my side seems more played out. We saw what we wanted to see with Latham, instead of what he was - a man with flaws too deep to have as the leader of the ruling party of the nation. The Australian people (or at least an electoral majority) saw it, and it looks like they were correct, no>?

Stuart, yes absolutely. We'll get busts of your head, in profile, looking tall and proud. I'll join your fan club. I've never really been one for joining of anything; in fact I've done absolutely everything I can do avoid joining anything but now I'm exhausted and will happily join almost anything. Surely it can't be that much of a grind. Somebody has to lead the country in twenty or thirty years time.

Margo, would this be the best thread in which to point out the results of a recent BBC / Gallup survey of world wide public opinion?

"World public opinion suggests that only 30% of people feel that their country is governed by the will of the people."

The survey also shows that the numbers who feel their elections are 'free and fair' are matched by those who do not believe so.

It's also in today's SMH.

Stuart Lord, I did not vote for Mark Latham. Although I thought he had good ideas and I was ready to give Liberal the flick as they have been there for too long and are stale and stuck, Mark Latham scared me because of his intensity. I thought he was too young to control his emotions and temper and it worried me given the present climate. The handshake was just the icing on the cake for me as it confirmed what I was feeling.

I think that what Mark Latham has done by exposing the culture and the bullying and bickering within the Labor party was needed and I am glad that Mark Latham has written the diaries. However, it’s not really how we would want our ex-Leaders to deal with issues!

You see, here is the problem. There is no good way or right way, or any way, of dealing with these issues or addressing these types of problems. There are no guidelines and Legislation prohibits allegations of moral misconduct from being investigated.

If you don’t toe the line, make a complaint or bring up issues you are automatically discredited and vilified and they do this to justify ignoring you and not addressing the issues. It’s the culture.

Mark Latham is no different to those he is criticizing; they are all playing the same game.

The people are the ones that need to do things differently and not get caught up in the culture. We need to listen to everything that is being said with an open mind and challenge and ask questions and fight to change the rules to make them fair. Nobody should be above the Law.

For sure that’s why our Prime Minister John Howard won the election. It’s the old saying, "Better the devil you know, than the devil you don’t know".

Caesar, Pompey, Napoleon...er, Latham? Stuart ? I think you will find the only record of his contribution to world historical events will be a few books gathering dust in a small corner of Canberra. Even if he'd made the office of PM, I doubt a predilection for fits of frenzied backstabbing or even a record bestowed by Guiness for arm breaking would have earned him the historical notoriety of the figures you've mentioned.

I would really, really like you to take up my invitation to outline some scenarios in which any eruptions Mark Latham could have potentially unleashed in his imagined role as PM, and how these scenarios could cause more damage than the four horsemen of the apocalypse. But of course the task has been made easier for you. John Howard has already come to the party with War and Death, so you only need to think of how Latham could have achieved the other two.

P. Jones Ok. Firstly, what I said about the horsemen was a joke. Do I have to repeat myself a third time for you to get it?

And secondly, I wasn't making reference to Latham as par to those figures, simply saying that Latham was having 'a dummy spit' was a gross understatement, and then proceeded to show the size of that understatement by trivialising some of the more momentous events in history. I should have used natural phenomena, no? Or would I get 'I don't see how Latham would be an earthquake'?

And as for Famine and Disease? Well, Disease after Medicare Gold comes into play, hospitals are packed out with senior citizens getting all the small things they never wanted to spend the cash on being fixed, the bird flu comes along, hits the hospitals, wipes out the old people in close proximity. Again, in jest, but you asked.

And famine? After neglecting the bush, the bush stops producing for the cities. The police and military are ordered to gain the produce off the land and into the cities, and so the farmers burn it all in chaos. Famine.

Again, in jest. Get it?

Adam Rope Well, think about the population of the world, and take out the democratic societies. You are left with well over half that are not represented, or only represented in sham elections, such as one party elections.

Kevin De Bonis I agree that Howard isn't responsible for all of the economic success, but the Hawke and Keating reforms would have stopped driving economic growth a long time ago, really. You have to give at least some credit for keeping that particular ball rolling.

And Greek tragedy - think of Achillies. His quest for glory also lead to his doom. His name remembered, but losing his life.

But the general idea behind Greek tragedy is that the properties that built you up also will often break you down.

Solomon Wakeling Busts, eh? Excellent. Though I want those several story high posters on buildings as well. 'Stuart knows the way' would be a good slogan, don't you think?

And yes it is a grind. Getting your name known, getting pre selected, campaigning, winning, corresponding, publicity, debating, campaigning, winning, corresponding, legislating, debating, campaigning, winning, corresponding, leading, legislating, travelling, debating, campaigning, winning, retiring.

It's a lot of work. But, alas, if I am chosen to lead, who am I to deny the will of the people?

Really, it's much easier to just know the people who do make the decisions. The parties are great, so are the kickbacks.

Mark Latham said to Andrew Denton:

“A great and powerful nation like the United States, but nonetheless a different country to us, with different values and priorities — and we should stand up and do our own thing as Australians, you know? We've been in this sort of international debate for 30 years now, and I think we've got the maturity as a country to step forward and be much more independent and strong about it, proud of our own decisions, instead of thinking that our foreign policy has got to be made out of Washington.”

Headlines in the Weekend Australian: “Ditch the US alliance”

Mark Latham believed the US alliance should be ditched and calls it “The last manifestation of the White Australia mentality”

Further in the Australian: “The Diaries reveal an extreme view of foreign policy and Australia’s role in the world.” Mr. Latham opposes every war Australia has fought, except World War II. He blames the US alliance for dragging Australia into unnecessary conflicts. His preferred foreign policy model is based on New Zealand’s.”

Why is Mark Latham’s view on foreign policy extreme? A large percentage of the Australian population would agree with Latham on this. I am sure most Kiwi’s don’t view their foreign policy as extreme.

It’s a pity that the ALP didn’t support the Latham view on foreign policy - maybe they would have had a chance of winning the election.

It has been shown to the World that the US is over stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. It can not defend its own citizens in time of crisis; just look at the response to hurricane Katrina.

Australia is alone in the world and we should develop much more independent policies. This idea is not as extreme as the Weekend Australian would have it.

John Pratt. Latham's views on foreign policy are those of a very provincial and inexperienced man. Latham was far too typical of too many in the ALP. He was molly-coddled his whole life.

He had never travelled, lived or worked outside of the western suburbs of Sydney where he was born for goodness sakes. He had never worked overseas, or indeed worked outside the Labor crèche.

He was unworldly, immature, unimaginative, a plagiariser, and quite ignorant of the Australian psyche; just as Keating was.

One of THE key reasons for Labor's loss was Latham's laughably crude foreign policy.

Damian Lataan, first of all, as you show us daily, you know absolutely nothing about geopolitics and the drivers of Australia's national interests and foreign policy. Secondly, you show us daily that you have no idea about what Australians think.

Riddle me this. The majority of Australians prefer Latham's attitude towards our relations with the US, and this same majority hates Howard and his 'lies'. Yet they voted for Howard.

Noelene Konstandinitis reckons: “One of THE key reasons for Labor's loss was Latham's laughably crude foreign policy.”

This piece of nonsense was just plucked out of the air in the hope that none would see it for what it really is – unsubstantiated garbage.

The Lying Tyrant Howard had such little support for his foreign policy, particularly after the lies about WMDs, etc., that he had to lie about domestic issues - ie interest rates rising under Labor - in order to win the election.

Noelene Konstandinitis, Australians think far more about their hip pocket than they do about Australian foreign policy. It’s not rocket science.

And if Australians actually vote for Howard despite his lying, what does that tell you about many Australians?

Noelene Konstandinitis, I find it hard to accept Mark Latham’s views are not valid because of his background. You will need more than personal slurs to convince me. We can see through our own eyes and ears that the Iraq war is in chaos. I see no international advantage for Australia and we have set ourselves up as a bigger terrorist target. We have weakened the United Nations, by introducing the concept of a preemptive strike.

I fought in Vietnam, Borneo and Malaysia. My experience in these wars leads me to believe that we have had a flawed foreign policy as these wars cost many Australian lives and again achieved nothing. Mark’s views on foreign policy are more mature than Howard’s. We need to let go of the apron stings and stand up for Australian interests. Now I don’t think you can call me provincial or inexperienced, I have lived and worked in most Australian states; I have traveled to Europe, fought in three wars and lived in Hong Kong for three years. I think I have a good idea of the Australian psyche, and I have seen the cost of war.

Noelene, I think Mark's background left him with few options. He did the correct thing which was to turn to the only institution that could assist him, use it, then escape from it once he no longer needed it. Your assessment of his personality is of course, totally correct. The problem to me is that the Labor party were so disconnected from the electorate that he was some authority on ordinary Australians. I'm shocked that nobody sat him down and told him that blaming parents for the behaviour of their children was NOT the right way to win them over.

I never for a second contemplated the thought that he was 'blokey' or would appeal to people in the western suburbs; I saw him as an outsider that walked and talked in a crass way, to fit in, early in life. A victim, rather than a bully.

So if your comments about the potential destructiveness of Mark Latham's tantrums were made in jest Stuart, how much do you believe Mark Latham's penchant for vitriol would have made him a bad leader? Would they have made him a worse leader than the one we find ourselves under? I'd rather someone telling it the way he believes it to be, and getting it wrong, rather than getting it wrong on purpose (with saccarine sincerity to boot) for personal political gain. I don't think there's any reason to believe his tantrums would have hurt anyone but himself, as we are now seeing.

Have now looked at the Lateline interview and is it me, or does Mark seem to be talking sense? He knows from the inside that the Labor party is a mess, but couldn't stay to change it. Who will change it now?

(I can't wait to see how Paul Kelly will respond to stuff about him in tomorrow's Insiders.)

Something that annoys me to no end about Mark Latham, and he still does it, is that he uses certain phrases and then re-uses them over and over in answer to different questions that are going in a similar direction. He reminds me of a robot when does that!

I don’t blame Mark Latham for leaving. There is no way in the World with what was going on etc that he could have changed anything in the Labor party room. He would have been crushed, they would have destroyed him and ensured that took his family with him. Sure his career in politics is probably going to be destroyed for a while anyway, but this way at least he can look at himself in the mirror and feel good about himself because he stood up for himself and for what he believes is right and he did what he could to set the record straight. That means a lot to people and that is probably the only thing that will stop him from succumbing to mental illness and depression as he is the one in control.

It cannot possibly be easy to go against the grain in the way he has. I say good luck to him and I hope more people have the guts to stand up against what they know is wrong and show us the different perspectives so that we can get a better understanding.

The most concerning of Latham's comments, to me, were the extent to which the union heavies successfully leant on the ALP to modify the anti-war, anti-free trade stances, which the ALP's supporters expected the party to take.

The most distorting of his emotions appears to be jealousy.

P Jones, it wasn't just tantrums, though.

It was iconoclastic tendencies.

It was unformed and underformed policy in health, in defence and foreign affairs, in tax, and a fair bit of the rest, such as a tax and welfare policy that left three out of ten people worse off.

It was a personal flaw on his part to really be unable to control his emotions, to adjust to the realities of losing an election. If he handled it better, he may have won in the next election, instead of being forced to resign over what was seen as inaction over the Boxing Day tsunami, etc. And even Wayne Swan has now said that the Australian public was perfectly right not to elect the man.

When his own collegues say that, what can you really do to defend him and his rep?

Stuart Lord: "If he handled it better, he may have won in the next election, instead of being forced to resign over what was seen as inaction over the Boxing Day tsunami, etc."

If you had watched the Enough Rope interview or read the transcript you would have seen this:

MARK LATHAM: "Well I had a pancreatitis attack in late December and all the other things that had been happening, and this health issue. I had to make a choice between family, health and work and I chose the family and health option of getting out of politics and becoming a home dad. Wild horses couldn't have dragged me back into the political arena for some façade. It would've been totally artificial for me to get out there, speak on behalf of the Labor Party about the tsunami when I'd made a decision to go, and clearly wasn't going to be coming back as the Labor leader."

Obviously a different take to yours.

Poor research or are you accusing him of lying?

If the latter, then I suggest anyone who wants to balance credibilities on this issue go to the New Terrorism thread and check your performance there.

So, he had made the decision to resign in late December, Bob Wall?

Has he given a reason why he didn't act on it then?

F Kendall: "Has he given a reason why he didn't act on it then?"

Did you notice I provided a link to the interview? Perhaps it is too much trouble for you to read it and find out what Mark Latham had to say.

Stuart Lord: "...such as a tax and welfare policy that left three out of ten people worse off."

Whaaaaa?? Does Mr Lord now have free reign in Webdiary to spout unfounded bollocks? Maybe I should go away again and come back in six months to see if WD has stopped pandering to this ill-informed callow youth!

Ed Hamish: Please Stephen, do not ask us to censor the views of others.

Anyone see the SMH canine survey where J Howard is seen as a fox terrier (ie. a small but loyal defender), and Kim Beazley seen as a labrador? (Golden retriever, spaniel? - can't remember exactly, but as a loyal, loving, cuddly and adorable rather useless mutt).

Where would Latham fit here? An unpredictable rabid feral?

Likeable or not to those who met him, to my mind he had no chance of being elected or ever leading a party to victory.

Reading to your children is a suitable platform for the local child health centre, not a platform for a national election. Redistributing money between private schools has not got a wide appeal to that majority of people who send their chldren to underfunded public schools (where many chldren do not have, for example, maths textbooks). 'Earn or learn' is not a Labor attitude... providing 'mentors' was a hokum nonsense. The troops home by Christmas seemed an arbitrary policy, unlikely to be delivered by a party which refused to oppose the war. The personal history of foul language was a negative not only to the 'nice', but mainly to the aspirational, who are trying goddam hard to get their children out of the environment where such is commonplace.

If I call a poster a 'skanky ho', I assume that it will be moderated here just as it would be at the ladies' bridge club. But, it's ok in a PM? I think not, and so evidently does the electorate.

'What was seen' is not 'what was', Bob. I never said that he actually was deliberately or negligently inactive over the tsunami, only that he was seen to be.

And, not only did it take a few days for anyone at Labor to come out with this statement regarding his health, or any sort of statement. Reports that he had been staying at a resort at Terrigal playing with his kids didn't help.

Again, you put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Or at least tried to. And how are you going with, Saddam rejecting the 1992 food for oil plan?

Stephen Callaghan Go look at the pre election coverage, Steve. It left three out of ten worse off, because he didn't treat family benefits as 'real' because families often had debts. However, cash amounts don’t change simply because they pay off debts, so three out of ten were worse off, such as a one income family with two kids on 30k. Again, look it up before you saddle me with lies.

Stuart Lord

Have you no shame?

ON this thread I addressed your comment:

"instead of being forced to resign"

I directed you to the transcript of the program. Your comment:

"'What was seen' is not 'what was', Bob. I never said that he actually was deliberately or negligently inactive over the tsunami, only that he was seen to be."

Is irrelevant to the point of what Mark Latham said about his decision to resign and the timing of it.

"Again, you put words in my mouth that I didn't say."

So who is doing that?

I remind you of something you did say:

"Bob Wall I suggest that you go and read the terms of the armistice made at the end of the first Gulf War, Bob. You know, the one including no-fly zones, ... It's a legal document, but it's set out nice and easy to read. It's a legal armistice, ratified by the UN."

Funny, after you were finally cornered and tried to provide the evidence for this claim all you could do was:

"Bob Wall link here "

Not only did you not produce a copy of the armistice - the legal document - you claimed included the "no-fly zones" provision but the above link only referred to a claim of authorization.

I provided the evidence that they were not authorized.

Further, if you googled to find the Wikipedia reference you must have studiously ignored all the other links that said they were not authorized.

As to the comment:

"And how are you going with, Saddam rejecting the 1992 food for oil plan?"

My point on that was directly addressed to your comment that the sanctions were not the problem. Nothing more.

I must ask you why you think, as in the above example of the "no-fly zones", you can fabricate evidence on a forum where there are many people well-informed on these matters. Not least myself. This seems like very poor judgment as well as breaching WD ethics.

So why should anyone take any notice of you? You have no credibility at all and this has been shown time and time again.

F Kendall, I have been deliberately quiet on this issue, waiting to see if anybody else has tweaked to the obvious. They haven't, so here goes.

I am so bemused that Labor stalwarts have allowed their knickers to get in a twist over this. Latham is hardly a trail-blazer with this putrid bile and arrogance. He learnt it all from the master: Paul Keating. ;)

F Kendall, I agree with you at how explosive his revelations about Greg Combet and Bill Shorten have been. I caught the ABC 'News' at midday today, and Combet's rebuttal was VERY lame. It is way past high time that the ACTU was blown apart to reveal what a hypocritical, manipulative, and deceitful cabal it is.

Of course, then we have the media! Did you catch Fran Kelly and Michelle Grattan this morning? Stunned mullets trying to deflect the painful truth as revealed by Latham. Pathetic.

This whole circus is turning into a runaway train! What a hoot! Today we have the Beazley daughters going into bat for their Dad on the front page of the Oz, which Latham ridiculed and Beazley responded to.

But wait there's more! Now Pru Goward has come out denying THAT affair!

I haven't had so much fun in years. As a very wise and profound man once said, "what a pack of suck-holes!"

Bob Wall, if it was his health, and his immediate health at that, and he had chosen to step down from the party leadership in December, why did he wait so long, until after the issue with the tsunami, and the reports he was seen at Terrigal playing with his children in January? Why did the acting leader of the Opposition say that the reason that Mark had not spoken to the public was because of his health, and yet it was later claimed that it was because Latham had been out of communication with everyone in the Labor party for so long? And if it was his health causing his resignation, why did he wait so long to say anything about it?

And if it was his health, why did he write the book he wrote? Was it innate in him or the Labor party, this bile spewed out on the pages? Or is it because he has greviences about his leadership period, and his removal?

And as for the no fly zones, Bob, can you cite me a court case or any other binding ruling where the no-fly zones were declared to be illegal? Especially when the US, Britain and France had been enforcing them after the Gulf War obviously thinking that what they were doing was legal under the terms of the treaty.

Or would you rather they didn't, Bob?

And as for my disregard for food for oil, and the impact - I have revised my decision, in the light of better (or at least more independent) evidence since the war occured.

But again, you still skirt around the food for oil incidents. Who rejected the food for oil scheme, Bob, and caused all of that starvation? And which organisation was in charge of food for oil when it came into play in '96? And which organisation just released a report blasting almost everyone who had anything to do with that scheme? And which dictator used the funds that were supposed to feed his people to build palaces and extravagant items for his two favorite psycopathic sons?

Stuart Lord, never give up do you?

On your first point you were directed to Mark Latham's comments on the issue. They are in the transcript. If you have a problem with his answers, take it up with him.

On your other, Iraq, points you are trying to engage me on digressions and diversions. My points made on these issues were directed at your errors and fabrications, the evidence for which I have detailed.

Your latest example:

"Especially when the US, Britain and France had been enforcing them after the Gulf War obviously thinking that what they were doing was legal under the terms of the treaty."

You have no basis for that comment. Just more of your evasiveness when exposed as a fabricator.

That you persist in trying to evade the responsibility for your breaches of WD ethics is evidence of a lack of intellectual integrity and courage.

This I find particularly galling coming from someone who tries to introduce a moral element into issues and who supposedly lives by the Commandments that Thou shall not kill and Thou shall not bear false witness.

So think about what I have said and try to engage in debate under the principles set out by Margo.