The Bomber Gets Bombed.

September 20, 2005 4:34 AM

While the Democrats seem a spent force in the United States, fighting to hold its political relevance in a political system dominated by the Right, here in Australia, our own Centre Left party is facing a similar battle. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) is being attacked not by Prime Minister John Howard but by one of their own, former leader Mark Latham. In his new book The Latham Diaries, released today, Latham ferociously attacks the party that paid his way through University and gave him his first job. His major claim is that current leader of the ALP, Kim Beazley, waged a six year smear campaign against him and that this disloyalty, as well as an antagnostic press, resulted in the devestating defeat of the ALP at the 1996 general election.

To say that this book, which seems to be based on one man's vitriol rather than solid, well researched facts, has created a storm in a teacup would be to understate the media circus that has erupted since News Limited, Rupert Murdoch's publishing empire, began to publish exerpts from the book a week before it's launch. In this media circus, we have seen court battles, internal media-institution bickering, and article after article after article. Meanwhile, the ALP has closed ranks and rallied around it's embattled leader, though some Labor MPs have suggested that Latham's claims may hold more water than many would give him credit for. Others, such as Beazley's own daughters, have simply dismissed the claims as "bitter and hateful rantings" at their webblog.

But what is the real effect of the Diaries? What was Latham's intent in releasing them? Was it merely to make money? Are they simply the ramblings of a bitter loser? Or in his own, twisted (and probably ill-concieved) way, was he aiming to achieve the change of culture in the ALP he believes needs to occur? And, perhaps sweetest of all things to ponder over, has Latham used the media he hated so much to acheive all of this?
posted by Effigy2000 (17 comments total)

Mate, great post, but not even the longest and best posts don't go to three paras on the front page. This needed a [more inside] tag. You and I might know all about Latham and Australian politics, but there's an international audience here that's only going to take a passing interest.

For my part, I think Latham is the sanest man in Australian politics. And that's a sad indictment on them all.
posted by bright cold day at 5:01 AM on September 20, 2005

Do either of you know why the Australian Labor Party use 'Labor' and not 'Labour' in their name?
posted by biffa at 5:07 AM on September 20, 2005

From the ALP website:
http://www.alp.org.au/about/history.php

"During the early years of the ALP, the Party was referred to by various titles differing from colony to colony. It was at the 1908 Interstate (federal) Conference that the name 'Australian Labour Party' was adopted. In its shortened form the Party was frequently referred to as both 'Labor' and 'Labour', however the former spelling was adopted from 1912 onwards, due to the influence of the American labor movement."

See also: King O'Malley
http://www.answers.com/topic/king-o-malley

(Sorry, the link button's not working in Safari.)
posted by bright cold day at 5:17 AM on September 20, 2005

Echoing bright cold day's comments about the posts form: Great post, marred only by too much on the front.

Thanks!
posted by eriko at 5:22 AM on September 20, 2005

The motives are hardly opaque. It's the rule, not the exception, for a politician on the outs to be both (a) bitter and (b) looking to make up for all the years of earnings he forwent while pursuing his political career. A juicy screed against his enemies kills two birds with one stone.
posted by MattD at 5:30 AM on September 20, 2005

Cheers bright cold day.
posted by biffa at 5:32 AM on September 20, 2005

The reporting on this issue (IMO) is highlighting the thin skinned nature of the Australian press corps - who seem incapable of taking a reasoned approach to what he's been saying.

There's been a lot of conjecture across the board leading up to this, prior to any study of the text itself (the book only went on sale yesterday), and for the sake of hypocrisy, I'll not add to it until I've actually read the book myself.

What really irritates me is the widely held view that you can't criticise your own - the ones that paid your way, the hands that fed you. Fuck that.

Surely he's the best critic, he's seen it first hand.

Party politics stymies individual opinion - now he's providing it, I'm listening. His take on the decline of social responsibility particularly resonates with me - it's something that doesn't resonate with Beazley - remember Tampa?

Australian politics has slid back into the 50's - it is fucking depressing to have to endure.
posted by strawberryviagra at 5:39 AM on September 20, 2005

Which party is in favor of exporting Hahn's Premium to the U.S.? **redefining self-interest group**
posted by spock at 6:48 AM on September 20, 2005

strawberryviagra writes "Surely he's the best critic, he's seen it first hand."

The first half of your statement does not necessarily follow from the second. Payback, vindictiveness, tabloid hyperbole to boost book sales, historical revisionism ... there are plenty of reasons for his criticism not to be given the credence that Latham thinks it deserves. From what I've read/seen (and even John Howard was moved to disavow belief in the sexual harassment allegations) it is more about pointscoring and personal vendettas than it is about constructive criticism.

Admittedly I groan at the cannibalism that occurs on the left side of the aisle because I'm sick of Howard inc. being in control so my observations may be slightly tainted. But are this guy's rantings really being taken as credible? I'm asking because I've only seen scattered news reports and the swing against Labor on the weekend in the byelections are probably no real indication.

Now Gillard (who I think is a bit of a dolt but perhaps reflective of the general quality of talent available to the Labor party at the mo') is right anyway, to say that Latham's words should be examined in case there are any underlying truths that will help pave a way forward. But the book should be moved into the light with a 10ft barge pole and salted liberally (does I pun?) before tasting IMHO.

Oh and very good post Effigy2000 and also: what others said about length - but it's only a small complaint.
posted by peacay at 7:03 AM on September 20, 2005

If you want to see ugly politics, you should come to the US. We have like 10-20 a year books a year smearing the other side.

In this country a documentary slamming the president became a blockbuster hit, ferchrissakes!
posted by delmoi at 7:14 AM on September 20, 2005

You have to ask yourself, if the ugly politics were "pretty" politics instead, would you trust them or continue to distrust?

To me, ugly politics shows more about a person under times of distress and opposition, which is more important than if they are polite.
posted by cleverusername at 7:20 AM on September 20, 2005

delmoi, in US terms this would be like Kerry spitting the dummy and ripping the democrats a new one. Only more so. Maybe more like Clinton doing it, if he'd never won an election.

Personally, I think Latham is (a) bitter enough to be a little paranoid and unhinged, lashing out blindly at everyone and everything he feels is responsible, and (b) probably hitting closer to the truth than anyone on either side of politics here cares to admit.

The Australian press, at least the parts of it which gain national attention outside of Sid-er-nee, is essentially Murdoch - not so much Fox-like, but a more considered, reasonable-sounding version with solid right-wing credentials and agenda. Hell, I've taken to reading that bastion of left-wing propaganda, the Australian Financial Review, every day just to get away from the never-ending pro-Howard bias and manufactured issue-of-the-week. And, having read about 1/2 of Lathams book (and skimmed the other half - it's pretty tiring reading), I can say that the excerpts the Murdoch press has published are pretty much the unhinged, sensational bits.

The Enough Rope interview with Latham I thought was pretty unremarkable - the better interview was on Lateline.

And just to finish, I think he's pretty spot-on with his assessment of Rudd - I'm in the unenviable position of having to vote for the dick, as he's the local Labor member. Most people in this electorate (old-style solid Labor, rapidly becoming gentrified Liberal) think he's a wanker - mainly for his grandstanding over some non-issues in the local electorate. The first thing I did when I got the book was skim through to the bits talking about Rudd, and had a good laugh.
posted by Pinback at 9:23 AM on September 20, 2005

An Australian David Horowitz of sorts?
posted by nofundy at 9:32 AM on September 20, 2005

Politics aside, he justified his entire existence the day he refered to his colleagues as a "congaline of suckholes". Sheer poetry! Sing it with me, chant it, dance it with me...
"CON-ga LINE o' Suck HOLES!
CON-ga LINE o' Suck HOLES!
CON-ga LINE o' Suck HOLES!"
posted by cookie-k at 3:08 PM on September 20, 2005

What a whiner. It was everybody's fault but his own. Yeah, sure, Latho. Grow up and cop it sweet.
posted by Wolof at 7:07 PM on September 20, 2005

Nice and incisive Wolof.
posted by strawberryviagra at 12:10 AM on September 21, 2005

Personally, I think Latham is (a) bitter enough to be a little paranoid and unhinged, lashing out blindly at everyone and everything he feels is responsible, and (b) probably hitting closer to the truth than anyone on either side of politics here cares to admit.

My view as well. There's a lot of distracting nastiness in there, as well as a lot of very uncomfortable home truths. His criticisms of the media are spot on, and he didn't really get a fair go from them. The Liberals response to his comments about Australia having the right to say no to the US have been absurd, except they've been lapped up by the Murdoch press. Apparently it's orthodoxy now, we have no independent foreign policy.

I'd love to see the Costello diaries, in some fantasy scenario where he challenges the rodent and fails, and retires bitter and hurt. The shit that could be written about Abbott I predict could fill a couple of volumes.
posted by wilful at 12:21 AM on September 21, 2005