Labor party imploding!!!!

[BlueBoy83]

Latham got killed in the election ...

Now it seems the ppl who were supporting him have decided to jump ship and leave the front bench ... 6 experienced front benchers have walked out on latham so far!!!

Thank god he didn't get elected ... how could this divided party possibly have run our country???

My hunch is latham wont be there for very long!!!!

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11124628%255E421,00.html

 

[Wicked Lester]

Is it imploding or just undergoing the difficult post loss analysis it needs to have?

Nevertheless I think you're right on one thing.

Latham may well be in real trouble. Political parties will put up with autocratic leaders if they deliver the goods - winning elections.

But when they don't - and particulalrly when they go backwards - they're in real trouble as is the case now. Latham's reported to be in denial at present and is now contemplating the idiotic move of promoting Gillard into the treasury role. Now Julia's been a reasonable perfomer in the health portfolio but IMHO the former Slater and Gordon lawyer will not win the hearts and minds of the Australian people. Add in the fact she'll be the first person in Labor's treasury portfolio from the left of the party since Jim Cairns and you can almost semll trouble.

He'd be better off with someone with genuine economic credentials such as Smith or Rudd (who's not a happy camper either) but may turn to Gillard becasue he doesn't regard her as a leadership contender......yet.

To top it all off Whitlam conceded yesterday that in all reality the ALP are staring another 6 years in opposition.

Still as one senior ALP figure declared yesterday, "at least we have a very strong back bech."

 

[Pessimistic]

Needs to complete the revolution Crean tried to start. Make Crean ALP president and let him finish the job.

 

[bunsen burner]

Thank god he didn't get elected ... how could this divided party possibly have run our country???

If they won the election they wouldn't be as divided as they are now. I'd bet they'd be quite united. Such a big loss has forced them to question Latham's strong arm leadership and try to pinpoint blame - and everyone has a different view of where the blame lies so it's no wonder they have divided.

 

[dan warna]

liberals campaigned more effectively

simple messages every election

beazleys black hole, foreign devils, interest rates.

people weren't fooled, they chose the according to their assessment. of course there are some who are morons, but this was a slaughter.

I think the last time labour won an election was basically 'GST GST GST'. the last time they performed well was beazleys first crack when he won close to 52% of the TPP with a basically anti GST platform.

negative campaigns win.

labor were running an alternative govt platform, they SHOULD have run a fear campaign.

in fact BUSHs ONLY platform is 'Kerry won't stop the terrorists'. kerry is winning on every other issue.

every poll in Aus showed libs winning on two issues, economy and defence, every other marker, hospitals, education, aged care etc, folks had labor way way in front.

similarly in US, bush ahead in security issue, kerry pantsing him in most others.

if labor want to win govt, they need a KISS campaign, focus on one issue, be it war, hospitals, etc and running adds non stop.

labor had too many issues, and too many policies for simple folks.

30 % always vote lib, 30 % always vote labour 10% each generally vote left or right, and 20% swing, and some of these swingers are smart, some are stupid.

libs have been very good in single themes and hammering them, labour fought on all fronts and weren't effective.

howard is the great politician, even if he is a slimy sycophantic, brown nosing, paedophile protecting, traitor...

 

[Contra Mundum]

Latham got killed in the election ...

Now it seems the ppl who were supporting him have decided to jump ship and leave the front bench ... 6 experienced front benchers have walked out on latham so far!!!

Thank god he didn't get elected ... how could this divided party possibly have run our country???

My hunch is latham wont be there for very long!!!!

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11124628%255E421,00.html

Success has many fathers; defeat has none

 

[coasting]

Latham is right to get rid of the dead wood. I think a Latham/Rudd team would give them the best chance to win. Actually I think with Rudd as leader it would give them the best chance to win but he has no factional support in the party so it will never happen. But if it did happen it would give Labor more credibility because it would look like factional infighting was truly in the background. The next 3 years for Labor should be about establishing themselves as a legitimate alternative govt with sound (esp economically sound) unspectacular policy. Then hopefully for them something in the next 3 years will pop up in which they can run a fear campaign on. If it doesn’t, they will lose again regardless of who is leader, but they should get a lot closer. History shows they won’t get in without a fear campaign so its so important to establish themselves as a legitimate government within the next 3 years and let the election be about policy and issues that have happened in that time and not about Labor's lack of credability. If he stays as leader Latham has to distance himself from Gogh, that scared the willy out of a lot of people - thats why the libs used him in their election campaign.

 

[Weaver]

Quite frankly you have to wonder why Kim Beazley even contested the election. He is not going to be leader again, he refuses to serve on the front bench, he has allready had 9 terms and been there 24 years. Similar story with Faulkner. I could understand him stepping down if he had 3 years left on a 6 year term, but he ran again and won a new 6 year term. Why run if you have no intention to contribute to the best of your ability?

Beazley, Crean, Faulkner, McMullin are yesterdays' men and them stepping down or into other roles is innevitable. They've all had ample opportunities. Emmerson was knifed by his faction and Ellis won't be missed either.

Tanner was a bit of a suprise but there were 14 candidates from the left for 13 spots and so solves a problem.

 

[Mead]

Basically, they're the liberals circa 1986-89, and they could have as long to run in the wilderness as the above did.

There will be another 3 years of factional infighting, another wipeout at the election, and then as a result of all of the factional crap they'll find someone who is smart enough to unite the factions and rebuild the party. Basically, they'll find a John Howard- very unlikely looking person who eventually comes out on top once everyone else has ********ed up.

Have a sneaky suspicion the next labor PM might be Kevin Rudd, around 2010.

 

[Dry Rot]

Yes, what Rudd odes now will be very interesting.

Either way, I'll be surpised if Latham is leader come December 2005.

 

[Dry Rot]

#7 frontbencher Daryl Melham just gone.

How many more to go?

 

[pazza]

Maybe this clean-out is what Labor needs...take a young, fresh team into the next election and not have so many of the ghosts of the past.

It's the way Victorian Labor sorted itself out in the Kennett years, so it does work.

It could even result in a change of demographics vote wise.

In the mean-time, Larry Anthony has conceded defeat in Richmond, ending 55 years of family representation in that region. Bonner, Hindmarsh, Swan are still to be decided.

 

[DaveW]

In the mean-time, Larry Anthony has conceded defeat in Richmond, ending 55 years of family representation in that region. Bonner, Hindmarsh, Swan are still to be decided.

Sciaca looks gone in Bonner.

Kingston is the other one to watch. The Liberal candidate has moved ahead (for what I think is the first time) today.

 

[pazza]

In a way, it kind of puts a lie to the emphatic win Howard was talking about, as the incumbent has still lost a few seats whilst winning.

While I'm having a go here..how's the NSW Libs..banning Peter King's wife from even being a Liberal Party member, just because her husband ran against Malcolm Turnbull..can't wait for that situation to be taken to court in Sydney.

 

[coasting]

Yes, what Rudd odes now will be very interesting.

Either way, I'll be surpised if Latham is leader come December 2005.

If I was Rudd I would say to Latham 'Give me treasury or I'm going to the back bench.' Latham knows if Rudd goes as well that would probably be the end of him.

 

[DaveW]

In a way, it kind of puts a lie to the emphatic win Howard was talking about, as the incumbent has still lost a few seats whilst winning.

Whilst Labor have unseated three incumbents, I don't agree that it wasn't an emphatic win. For a government after three terms to increase its overall House majority and win a Senate majority is no mean feat.

While I'm having a go here..how's the NSW Libs..banning Peter King's wife from even being a Liberal Party member, just because her husband ran against Malcolm Turnbull..can't wait for that situation to be taken to court in Sydney.

As I understand it, she was banned for campaigning for her husband. Her husband was standing against an endorsed Liberal candidate. Thems the breaks.

 

[Dry Rot]

Whilst Labor have unseated three incumbents, I don't agree that it wasn't an emphatic win. For a government after three terms to increase its overall House majority and win a Senate majority is no mean feat.

Agreed.

I'm no Liberal supporter, but this has to be the greatest Federal election win I can remember.

Arguably each change of govt was inevitable, so you have to look at incumbent govts winning. Keating against the odds in 1993 doesn't quite compare (Howard also got control in the Senate) so you'd probably have to go back to 1966 for a similar victory (which I don't remember )

Seems that many here don't quite understand the magnitude of winning the Senate and making most of their marginal seats safe.

A stunning victory.

 

[evo]

A few times during the lead up to the election I posted the bookies odds.It was mainly in response to a few people who thought the ALP could win or that it was going to be a close result.From a long way out the Coalition was always a fairly short priced favourite.After following the odds of various elections over recent years, I've found that they never get it wrong.


Incidently ......the latest U.S election odds on Betfair for those that think Kerry has a good chance....

Odds for $1.00

Republicans 1.70

Democrats 2.45

 

[pazza]

A few times during the lead up to the election I posted the bookies odds.It was mainly in response to a few people who thought the ALP could win or that it was going to be a close result.From a long way out the Coalition was always a fairly short priced favourite.After following the odds of various elections over recent years, I've found that they never get it wrong.


Incidently ......the latest U.S election odds on Betfair for those that think Kerry has a good chance....

Odds for $1.00

Republicans 1.70

Democrats 2.45

Bloody hell..GET ON IT!

 

[DaveW]

Kerry is definitely over the odds there.

At this point I favour Bush to win, but only slightly. I don't think supporters of either candidate should be feeling particularly optimistic at this stage.

 

[pazza]

And it appears their vote early thing isn't working either, as there have been problems.

Another questionable election coming up if we take that into account.

 

[evo]

The odds in favour of Bush aren't as overwhelming as they seem at 1st glance.For example the day before the Australian election the Coaltion was something like 1.30

Bush's lead is not insurmountable but it's larger than the media would currently lead us to believe.

It'll be interesting to see what will be this times version of the "pregnant chad"

 

[BlueBoy83]

A few times during the lead up to the election I posted the bookies odds.It was mainly in response to a few people who thought the ALP could win or that it was going to be a close result.From a long way out the Coalition was always a fairly short priced favourite.After following the odds of various elections over recent years, I've found that they never get it wrong.


Incidently ......the latest U.S election odds on Betfair for those that think Kerry has a good chance....

Odds for $1.00

Republicans 1.70

Democrats 2.45

there ********ing good odds for the republicans imo ...

here is a good article outlining how kerry's opinion polls have slumped and a bit about the US electorate.

my prediction is republican win!



US opinion polls show Bush in the lead PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
AM - Monday, 18 October , 2004 08:20:00
Reporter: Leigh SalesTONY EASTLEY:

three new polls released today all have President Bush ahead in the race for the White House.

North America Correspondent Leigh Sales reports.

LEIGH SALES: In the past two weeks, John Kerry trounced President Bush in two debates, and narrowly won in a third, yet he's still trailing in the polls.

Here's why.

VOX POP 1: John Kerry's performance again, it did well, but just the same things over and over.

LEIGH SALES: Is there anything he could do from this point onwards to change your mind?

VOX POP 1: No, definitely not.

VOX POP 2: They did well, both of them. I'm pretty independent, so I wouldn't want to guess which one won.

LEIGH SALES: Did it influence how you're going to vote at all?

VOX POP 2: No, no it did not.

LEIGH SALES: Less than five per cent of Americans are undecided about who to vote for. The rest of the population is strongly and firmly divided. So no matter how well Kerry did in the debates, he was never going to budge many voters.

Three polls out today support that. The surveys, by Newsweek, the Washington Post and Time Magazine, all have Kerry trailing the President anywhere from two to six points. Taking into account error margins, that still makes it a tight race.

The Kerry campaign's chief strategist, Bob Shrum, is focusing on a breakdown of the polls, rather than the overall voter intentions.

BOB SHRUM: Inside these polls, all of them, there are numbers that should be very troublesome to the President. For example, in the Newsweek poll, 47 per cent of people give him a job approval rating… below 50 per cent in job approval – very hard to get re-elected.

55 per cent say the country is on the wrong track, so I think Bush has got some big problems and I think the country is asking a big question – who can defend America and fight for the middle class? The answer to that question, I think, is going to be John Kerry.

LEIGH SALES: The Bush-Cheney campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, prefers a straighter reading.

KEN MEHLMAN: But I think those polls reflect where most things are. If you look at most of the public polls, we lead by anywhere from 2 to 6 points.

I think people looked at those debates and they saw some important things – they saw that John Kerry is in fact the Masachusetts liberal who will increase taxes and increase government involvement in health care.

They worry about the notion of a global test, they disagree with his vision of the war on terror, dealing with it like a nuisance.

LEIGH SALES: Several of the major newspapers in the United States have begun endorsing candidates in the election.

In its editorial today, the New York Times demolishes the Bush Presidency, describing it as "heartbreaking" and a "disaster".

It reads: "With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.
He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq.

"The President's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances."

Another important publication, the Chicago Tribune, has gone for President Bush, saying he has a broader vision for America's security than his Democrat opponent.

This is Leigh Sales in Washington for AM.

 

[DaveW]

So how much money are you putting down on Bush, BlueBoy83?

 

[- PC -]

Maybe this clean-out is what Labor needs...take a young, fresh team into the next election and not have so many of the ghosts of the past.


It could even result in a change of demographics vote wise.

If the predictions are correct and a more than 5% swing is needed to win then IMO it wont happen for 6-7 years say 2010 so all they are doing is recognizing ''generational change'' is needed but also give the new caucus time to find its feet and strengths. I think that is what will save Latham in the long run..short term yes he might be challenged by a hack who feels its their time to step into the light..maybe Carmen Lawrence? Or would she wait the 7 years?

I am not as concerned as some by the stepping down of the older guard though McMullan was a concern as that was over portfolio issues and not generational issues.