The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Why use Latham?

Why use Latham?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All
Using Latham is simply a journalistic stunt - no more no less. This must be the biggest circus of an election.

However, I liked Latham - he actually stood for something. If you read his book From The Suburbs it is clear he had some good ideas for poorer suburbs and was quite innovative and forward thinking. He was one of the first Labor leaders (other than Hawke/Franklin Dam) to side with conservation over forestry interests in some instances.

His downfall was his temper and his ego and later his anger and desire for revenge which to his detriment only goes to diminish and make a mockery of his very real experiences within the ALP.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 9:58:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I thought it was great!

Latham was always a boofhead, taken in by the Clinton-Blair 'thirdway' nonsense and spruiking his wares through some fairly light-on book 'Civilising Global Capitalism', and various articles, even in Quadrant as I recall.

That people are upset with 9 makes me really laugh.

When has any commercial TV station bothered to dish up serious journalism in the news or current affairs areas?

Laurie Oakes is lauded as a 'great man' of TV, and maybe he is? To be honest, because he works for 9 (I think) I never bother to watch him, knowing that his reporting will be of the 'cupcake' variety.

Mel and Koshie provide the same, with all her 'Wow's' and his grovelling adoration of all things Pentacostal they make a perfect commercial TV team.

And so it is with Latham. What was he expected to do? Appear as a 'serious journalist' like Hawke did when he was dumped?

No, Latham's role is to be a boofhead. He did it for the ALP, and they loved him for it.

And, hang on!

Wasn't Gillard his best mate, defender and promoter, King maker even?

Like Mel and Koshie, Latham and Gillard deserve each other.

Game on.... let's move forward with a bit more, I say.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 10:19:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houlle “Many a true word spoken in spite.

To be fair they should also employ Fraser.”

Ah yes,, the embarrassing face of past leaders....

(I am always surprised we do not hear more from Gough, I am sure someone must be heavily sedating him in the foray before general elections)

However as things go, you will find Latham will stand as an eternal reminder, a beacon, no less, to the extremes labor will go for power and the risks that sort of desperation implies

Fraser, on the other hand, is just too old and too irrelevant to matter

Belly "he (Latham) certainly is not the man he once looked to be."

and nor was Kevin

of course, Julia still has currency, until 21st at least....

but that is always the problem with labor

they are never the people they "look to be"...

they look like one thing and end up just a bunch of power crazed narcissists (Latham was at least honest, he displayed his "thuggery" on the hustings, rather than hide it until in power - like Rudd)

Australian Elections always come down to


Liberal "Leadership" versus Labor "Rule"
Posted by Stern, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 10:21:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

the topic was "why use Latham?" not 'what do you think (sic) of Labor's leaders'.
Is there any one on OLO who doesn't know
a. How you are going to vote in any election?
b. That regardless of who is head of the Labor party to you they are a sub species?
c. That when the media kick Labor you believe them implicitly but when they disagree with you they are pro socialism.

In truth the media are all about sensation/ conflict because it sells papers to surface (superficial) feeders and like fish their reactions are influenced (panicked) in mass by large splashes and predators.
Latham, was employed to be controversial*make* copy.

Personally I think it will back fire because he's a bully by nature and it's only a matter of time before he goes over the top...he is expendable but it is calculated by 9 he'll get attention.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 10:36:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stern... '"Liberal "Leadership" versus Labor "Rule"'... or is it Liberal born-to-rule leadership vs. ALP 'not quite sure what it's there for'?

I think we agree Stern, that there is something very amiss with the contemporary ALP, quite what that is might not be so easy to agree on though.

But really.... Menzies was just as keen to 'rule' as Gillard is today.

You seem to imply a certain Liberal finesse in these things, denied to the ALP but quite where that might be spotted I am not sure.

The Menzian noblesse-oblige, the clear headed 'Thinker' channelled via Tony Abbott vs. the harsh toned shop steward (with a full-on Baptist life experience stashed away under the lunch Vegemite sarnies in the Gladstone bag, packed adoringly by 'Mother Tim'... with a banana).

It just doesn't wash here I'm afraid.

There is a shortage of 'leadership' all round, I'd say, along with a surplus of 'rules' desires all round too.

I don't know about other posters here, but I cannot see much to brag about anywhere from either side of the near-identical political camps, and I certainly see no hint of leadership whatsoever, from anyone
Posted by The Blue Cross, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 10:41:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< …I cannot see much to brag about anywhere from either side of the near-identical political camps, and I certainly see no hint of leadership whatsoever, from anyone. >>

Blue Cross, likewise!

So, we should all….. vote for NO ONE!!

Neither of the near-identical Liblabs deserve the vote of any person with a considered opinion….and of course they don’t deserve the vote of anyone who is apathetic!!

Don’t vote for the slightly lesser of two fundamentally flawed evils!

Don’t vote for any other candidate, except perhaps in seats where they have a realistic chance of winning or of being one of the top two contestants. Otherwise your preferences will very likely filter down and count for one of the two big bad bogie-man parties, even if you are specifically voting against both of them!!

A blank ballot paper, with notes scribbled on it to the effect of – ‘compulsory preferential voting is an antidemocratic RORT’ and ‘reduce immigration to net zero’, ‘a sustainable Australia is URGENT’ or ‘end oil dependence ASAP!’ would be good!

NONE of these things are being discussed, or realisitically discussed at least, in this election lead-up.

Now, if Mark Latham was serious in stirring the pot, these are some of the things that he should be evoking! (:>)
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 12:48:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy