The pick of the bunch for me from the election analysis is Gerard Henderson's article
Face it Latham has failed
sums up what happened pretty well.
Ross Gittins opines on the extra welfare going to retirees in an interesting column
Pandering to Howard's whingers
Gerard Henderson puts it bluntly.
It's a bit sad really. But perhaps it is all that Latham could really put forward. Latham's philosophy seemed to be what was driving him, but his philosophy was a weird blend of Whitlam and the Third Way. I read as much of his book from the suburbs as I could stand. It was all rhetoric and slogans. He didn't spend enough time praising the most successful post war Labor government, that of Hawke and Keating. Kim Beazley said on Saturday night that Latham's campaign should not have been looked at as a failure, but rather as a success in clawing back from the Crean inspired demise. But that was pretty generous. Howard has told lies, he has led Australia into an unsuccessful war, although with minimal engagement and his staunch conservatism bothers many people. After 8 years you would have thought that his position in parliament would weaken. Latham's campaign was bold, which was a mistake. After the Liberal party tried a bold strategy, in 1993 with Fightback, they then changed their strategy to what Howard used to get into power. He offered very little specifics and basically made people as comfortable as possible about a change. Latham did the opposite, he came out trying to show how visionary he was and what a bold leader he was. He pushed the Whitlam connection, which was unwise.
Kerry was not a happy chappy which is a little weird in that he does not seem to be a fan of Latham. But really, sympathies came out. The two questions now arise for the ALP, leadership and policies. Hopefully ALP discipline will stay in force and Latham won't get dumped for a little while at least. It's hard to say if he should be kicked or not. He is a dynamic speaker and appeals to many Australians, on the other hand his reputation as a bit wild, which has been reinforced by the 'boldness' or foolishness of the campaign may not be a good thing. As for policies, does the ALP veer to the right to get in, risking the Greens outflanking them, or do they hope that they can keep to the left and hope that the economy tanks and that Costello makes some bad decisions? Ross Gittins talks about how there are real problems and the election campaign didn't address any of them. He points out that the subsidies that Howard is giving to pensioners are not wise and are just vote buying. Why didn't Latham go and say this? Gittin's finishes with a quality quote
There is a disturbing resemblance between the Coalition's immediate response to defeat in 1993 and Labor's immediate reaction to defeat in 2004. But no amount of rationalisation can disguise one central fact. Last Saturday Mark Latham led the ALP to a catastrophic defeat. The Labor Party's primary vote was almost its smallest since the end of the Second World War.
It's a bit sad really. But perhaps it is all that Latham could really put forward. Latham's philosophy seemed to be what was driving him, but his philosophy was a weird blend of Whitlam and the Third Way. I read as much of his book from the suburbs as I could stand. It was all rhetoric and slogans. He didn't spend enough time praising the most successful post war Labor government, that of Hawke and Keating. Kim Beazley said on Saturday night that Latham's campaign should not have been looked at as a failure, but rather as a success in clawing back from the Crean inspired demise. But that was pretty generous. Howard has told lies, he has led Australia into an unsuccessful war, although with minimal engagement and his staunch conservatism bothers many people. After 8 years you would have thought that his position in parliament would weaken. Latham's campaign was bold, which was a mistake. After the Liberal party tried a bold strategy, in 1993 with Fightback, they then changed their strategy to what Howard used to get into power. He offered very little specifics and basically made people as comfortable as possible about a change. Latham did the opposite, he came out trying to show how visionary he was and what a bold leader he was. He pushed the Whitlam connection, which was unwise.
He also went on release policies in a way that made him look wild. Releasing the bizaare and unwise Medicare Gold plan one week followed by the even more unwise and bizaare forests policy days before the election was foolish. Also, Latham didn't mention the strategic Senate vote that was coming up. There was an article in the Financial review by Malcom Mackerras weeks before the election about how the Liberal party would probably get control of the Senate. If Latham had mentioned this to people he might not be looking at the total train wreck for the ALP he caused. The reaction of the left, and many journalists that Henderson remarks upon was amusing.
And then there was the Gough Whitlam effect. In August, Latham's portrait appeared on an "It's time" flyer - imitating Whitlam's (successful) slogan in 1972. Later, one of the most memorable images of Labor's official campaign launch occurred when Latham embraced his mentor Whitlam. It provided a compelling image for the television and print media. Compelling, provided the cult of Whitlamism does not send negative vibes. But it does for many.
The previous Wednesday, journalist Matt Price told ABC TV's Insiders viewers that he had a "feeling" that Iraq was "still irking people" and that this might work in Latham Labor's favour. A failed projection, as it turned out. The week before Maxine McKew had declared that, whatever the outcome of the election, this was the age of the Latham ascendancy. On election night, ABC TV host Kerry O'Brien expressed the view that Latham had grown during the election campaign. And so on.
Kerry was not a happy chappy which is a little weird in that he does not seem to be a fan of Latham. But really, sympathies came out. The two questions now arise for the ALP, leadership and policies. Hopefully ALP discipline will stay in force and Latham won't get dumped for a little while at least. It's hard to say if he should be kicked or not. He is a dynamic speaker and appeals to many Australians, on the other hand his reputation as a bit wild, which has been reinforced by the 'boldness' or foolishness of the campaign may not be a good thing. As for policies, does the ALP veer to the right to get in, risking the Greens outflanking them, or do they hope that they can keep to the left and hope that the economy tanks and that Costello makes some bad decisions? Ross Gittins talks about how there are real problems and the election campaign didn't address any of them. He points out that the subsidies that Howard is giving to pensioners are not wise and are just vote buying. Why didn't Latham go and say this? Gittin's finishes with a quality quote
Pity it's being said after the election.....
Today's young people are compelled to save for their superannuation while also paying taxes to cover their parents' and grandparents' pensions and prescriptions. They've been lumbered with HECS debts. And the Howard Government's economic miracle has priced them out of the housing market while delivering a huge, tax-free windfall gain to their home-owning oldies.
Comments