Thoughtful article. I too have wondered about Latham's place in ALP history. I thought he was a Labor 'original' and one of Keating's 'maddies'. He had a first class intellect - smart enough to see the shadow side of the cliques and factions that comprise the Federal ALP.

The problem with Latham was that he internalised it - took it personally.

I'm not sure losing the Senate set up the ALP for victory but the author is right about the party understanding the need to adopt a conservative economic approach. Unfortunately being an economic conservative is exactly what we've had for 20 years.

I personally don't think either the ALP or Libs have had a bold 'economic moment' since 1983.

From within the ALP let me tell you only in his defeat did Latham help us.
No ALP we know how to hate talk the man was a fraud!
No one in this country held more hope for him than me.
His first speech in the house was on display I read his web page daily.
He was nothing like his promises.
He hurt the party with his support for Crean and public fighting.
Crean hurt him and the party by giving him the votes that bought him to the leadership ,to early at best.
I followed him on that bus trip, seeing him 3 times and was truly concerned.
My 4th exposure to him came the day he put Garrett into a seat a local had worked hard for, he was less than impressive and it was clear that day we had no hope.
He was a shadow of the man we thought he was , a mist that would no stay but drifted.
before his loss it was clear to the realists we had no hope.
His books his rant during the election, he is no Labor hero.
Yet his part in the election may well have been of use to the ALP John Howard seemed to forget the ALP could do far better we did Latham like Howard is history.
At least Howard could still visit his party if he wanted to.

Although I never quite understood why that one handshake was so significant I do believe the electorate generally understood what the Parliamentary ALP had not - that Latham would never do as PM. For all his intellect and acknowledged achievements in formulating policy there was an underlying instability of character which communicated itself beyond the political persona. I'm a rusted on ALP voter but they almost lost me when Latham was elected leader when people like Kim Beazley, Lindsay Tanner and Simon Crean were available. What were they thinking of? How could they not know Latham, his temperament and his way of relating to others well enough to understand he could never be their leader in Caucus much less of the nation? Even Julia Gillard seems not to have sensed the volcano smouldering alongside her throughout 2004.

I logged on to this article half expecting to read that "Latham may have set Labor up for victory.....because he gave Kevin Rudd time to achieve the profile and credibility he needed to challenge for the ALP leadership successfully." I could not see that a 2004 win for Latham, or even Beazley, would have ensured a long term Labor government. Since then the years of hubris and ineptitude have entirely discredited the Coalition leaving them scandal-ridden, leaderless and denuded of any policy clothes. Shadow Foreign Minister Rudd meanwhile was able to exploit the Asian tsunami and the AWB scandal to become an impressive, familiar and reassuring voice on our airwaves. We were ready to accept him long before the ALP finally came to its senses and elected him leader. We now have a talented and cohesive government team, a functional national ALP and policies which seem to match the urgent needs of our environment, economy and sense of ourselves as the country of the fair go. It's a constellation of events, circumstances and personalities which could never have been achieved or exploited by earlier ALP leaders. Kevin Rudd was the man able to seize and build on the moment made possible by the volatility and frailty of Mark Latham.