Time To Go Latham

[thetigerman]

Well Mark Latham , you lost so it's time to resign , the people of
Australia did not want you, so in the best interest of the Labor
party, it's time to go.

 

[tribey]

Well Mark Latham , you lost so it's time to resign , the people of
Australia did not want you, so in the best interest of the Labor
party, it's time to go.

Yet people were advocating that Beazley was the man to lead the ALP into this election - despite the fact he was rejected twice previously.

Latham was Opposition Leader for 10 months against an entrenched Goverment with a fine economic record - what were you expecting him to do? Procure a miracle?

Reading drivel like yours, you'd think he was John Hewson circa 1993.

 

[DaveW]

Even Hewson stayed on as leader for a year or so after election defeat.

 

[Docker_Brat]

Short memories. How many goes did Howard have at the leadership of the Libs before becoming the "Greatest Ever PM"?

 

[timelord]

Well Mark Latham , you lost so it's time to resign , the people of
Australia did not want you, so in the best interest of the Labor
party, it's time to go.

That is a ridiculous statement. He didn't lose this election. Howard won it - and there IS a difference. Latham didn't do anything wrong, and I expect him to be still ALP leader come 2007.

 

[Dry Rot]

Latham didn't do anything wrong

Really?

Didn't stuff up the launch of tax/family payments policy, didn't create winners and losers with his policies, didn't miscalculate his Tassie policy, didn't leave releasing his policies too late?

I can only hope that the ALP takes a lot harder look at what was done, or we'll have the Liberal Liars in until 2020.

 

[timelord]

You can nit pick all you want, Dry Rot. The only reason Tassie failed was because Howard trumped him with a policy that appealled to the loggers better and that's what put Braddon and Bass under the pump. Howard's policy was wrong, and Latham didn't have time to counter it and that wasn't his fault.

The tax and family payments policy - nothing wrong with it. The Coalition twisted it to make it look bad and got away with it.

Neither side created winners AND losers. The only losers that Howard spoke of was everyone if they voted for Latham - and that was his whole spiel.

Maybe nit picking might improve the next campaign. That's fine. But that's no reason to chuck Latham out as leader of the ALP.

 

[pazza]

Really?

didn't leave releasing his policies too late?

Interesting point.

Remembering back to Fightback..when did that come out. I can remember getting a copy of that in March 1993 and election was at the end of that year..so parties on both sides have become wary of releasing their policies too early..and we all know where Fightback ended up.

 

[timelord]

Actually Pazza, Fightback was released long before March 1993. Hewson introduced it when Hawke was still PM - and it was his struggle against that which was the trigger that cost him his job favour of Keating. And that was in 1991.

 

[pazza]

I just remember doing my major Economics assignment in Year 12 on it in 1993 (pretty sure it's still in the house..with my many texta marks )

BTW..no email..can you remember the addy Phil?

 

[timelord]

It's on the forum members list, and there was two - one Hotmail and one Yahoo.

 

[DaveW]

Hewson is the reason why every opposition leader since has adopted the "small target strategy."

 

[teams]

Interesting point.

Remembering back to Fightback..when did that come out. I can remember getting a copy of that in March 1993 and election was at the end of that year..so parties on both sides have become wary of releasing their policies too early..and we all know where Fightback ended up.

The 1993 election was early Feb.

 

[Dry Rot]

You can nit pick all you want, Dry Rot. The only reason Tassie failed was because Howard trumped him with a policy that appealled to the loggers better and that's what put Braddon and Bass under the pump. Howard's policy was wrong, and Latham didn't have time to counter it and that wasn't his fault.

I'm not nit-picking, I'm talking about substantial mistakes.

Obviously Howard would counter it. Cheap stunt by Latham to grab green votes and stupid if he wanted to win the election. Soon as I heard it, I said there goes 2 or 3 seats in Tasmania.

The tax and family payments policy - nothing wrong with it. The Coalition twisted it to make it look bad and got away with it.

Really? I recall a small problem with tables. Inexcusable stuff-up, really buggered their message and immediately put them under the pump. Best present Peter Costello got all year.

Neither side created winners AND losers. The only losers that Howard spoke of was everyone if they voted for Latham - and that was his whole spiel.

No losers? The poorest families had their payments cut back under the tax & family policy. Students and families had payments cut back to richest schools (I liked this but they are still losers)

 

[timelord]

Obviously Howard would counter it. Cheap stunt by Latham to grab green votes and stupid if he wanted to win the election. Soon as I heard it, I said there goes 2 or 3 seats in Tasmania.

What cost the seats in Tassie was Howard's response, not the ALP policy at the start.

Really? I recall a small problem with tables. Inexcusable stuff-up, really buggered their message and immediately put them under the pump. Best present Peter Costello got all year.

That was a small problem. Hardly worth the song and dance Costello made about it - and besides, it was Costello that garbled the message, not Latham.

No losers? The poorest families had their payments cut back under the tax & family policy. Students and families had payments cut back to richest schools (I liked this but they are still losers)

Over the calendar year there was no such cutback to the family policy. You're thinking along the same lines as Costello was and that line of thinking was flawed.

On the education, those students and families could have gone back to the public system - which would have been better funded under the changes and eliminated a lot of the problems that were driving the richer away and depriving the poorer of a decent education.