Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

I'm looking forward to seeing the Latham interviews. Conflicting information got the better of me tonight, so I've only read the stuff in The Australian today, and the comments in Webdiary tonight.

Until now I've been suspending judgement on what to do in the next Commonwealth election. I knew I could never vote for an ALP led by Kim Beazley. Not because of anything Mark Latham says, but because of the transparent inhumanity and insincerity of the Homicide Bomber.

As Defence Minister he wanted the Australian Defence Industries to create a thriving export trade in... land mines. He has aided and abetted Australia's involvement in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

This week, when Beazley signed off on the deportation of Scott Parkin, I began to contemplate the truly awful thought of campaigning FOR the coalition (as a second preference after Greens) at the next election.

I'm putting all you Labor types on notice that if Kim Beazley still leads the ALP at the next election, I will do exactly that. Many of my fellow peaceniks, greenies, and social justice advocates will do the same.

Mark Latham is right when he says that the way Labor does politics has to change. The way we activists do politics has to become deeper and more effective.

Bob Brown has said "We're not here to influence the ALP, we're here to replace them".

BT,W I've been a home dad for seven years now, and it's the best part of my life. I still find time for politics, and I see that mark Latham does too.

In 2007 Vote 2, the Rodent.

Margo my expectation was a result of the way mainstream media had built the story during the last few days. The headlines, the most repeated lines, the conflict building stuff, you know.

Couple of questions -

Do you know who is the Liberal (I think it was said he is a Minister) not named by Latham in the book? I racked my brain trying to decide which would have had such decency and reasonableness to send that note of support to Mark Latham. Was it Joe Hockey?

Margo: I don't know. My guess? Nick Minchin.

Do we know yet what the arguments were that got the injunction and then got it lifted? Margo: Yes, in part. See ABC wins right to air Latham interviews.

And a final comment for the night-

Anyone who thinks being a "house dad" is somehow of less value than any other activity in life is wrong. I'd love to be able to do what Mark Latham can do now for a few years - those crucial early years - and I'm certain that does not involve mooching about at home all the time.

There is much good work that can be done that doesn't involve receiving money as the pay off. As a "house dad" I reckon Mark Latham will set a better example to his boys than many of those sad men who think the business of money making is more important than making great relationships in a family whatever shape that family is.

Margo, I was reading the report on Vivian Alvarez while watching the interview.

The two are a metaphor for today, the today Latham was talking about.

I cried when I watched him too, he is clearly ill. The pasty skin that goes with treatment for pancreatitis is there, the pain is showing. As someone who has suffered from Crohn's disease most of my life I know the pain and horror fo something people know nothing about.

I won't be reading the book as political bios are enormously boring to me. I have other fish to fry.

Like the incompetent fools who falsely deported Vivian and did nothing.

That culture is in DIMIA the it started with Bolkus, Hawke, Beazley, Sciaccia, Hand, Keating and the rest and was made worse under Ruddock and Vanstone.

They are liars, frauds, cheats and torturers and it happened because none of the dinosaurs in the ALP or the facists in the tories bothered to stop it.

When Mark Latham wanted to stop the Iraqi kids being bombed, and he said it from the bottom of his heart, we won me. And when he said "stop locking children behind the razor wire".

Read to our children - he was scoffed at, but how do our children learn how to BE otherwise? How do our children ever learn to care otherwise? I read to my kids from birth and they are both socially aware human beings. My grand-daughters have been read to since birth - my oldest girl Stephanie spooks me sometimes with her awareness, she sounds and looks just like me at 14.

Give the state schools enough money.

Good for you Mark, but I will still never again vote for my old party. It broke my heart one too many times.

The TAMPA was hideous enough, but Beazley agreeing not to allow Sondos Ismail to come and join Ahmed after their little girls died was too much to bear and four years down the road it still is.

Of course Laurie Ferguson added the icing on the cake of my disgust with his agreement with the government that the poor Bakhtiyari kids had a fair deal.

Watch this space on that front - I do believe some big news is about to break.

Latham was impressive as it turned out. On reflection honesty was never the problem with him. Perhaps that was part of the problem.

Also a question of priorities. In the old days there never was any question about what had to be sacrificed if it came to that if you aspired to the leadership of a nation or an important political movement. The country,the people and the party came first. The family second. You last.

It is a statement on how easy our country has had it that someone in his position at the time could now refer to it as "the job" and even take the occasional sickie so he could spend the day with his wife and family rather than face the horrors and drudgery of the workplace.

I find that warming and reassuring. It's also very worrying.

I watched the first half before falling asleep on the couch (busy second last day at work before I reinvent myself). He really did come across as the soul of reasonableness, didn't he? Calm, relaxed, smile on his face. Yet I can't square that away with the absolute bile that appears to permeate every single extract I've seen (of course, the extracts are picked to gain maximum impact). Can anyone else reconcile the two halves of this intensely interesting man?

I think the time has come for those of us who supported Latham to admit that we got it wrong. We misjudged the character of the man and saw only the man we wanted to see. We also have to admit that despite what we wanted to believe Latham probably would have made a dud Prime Minister. Although it could have been possible for Latham to grow into the position much like Howard has done, in all likelihood he didn’t have the emotional strength to deal with the daily crisis and excruciating banality of being the Australian Prime Minister.

I liked Latham. A friend of mine from high school put me onto him way back in 1994. Latham was talking a different talk and his vision of a different Australia has always appealed me. But the problem with Australia today is that the majority of Australians don’t really want things to change. They are happy for things to pretty much stay the same. As long as people can go to work, put the kids through school and go down the beach on Sunday the rest doesn’t really matter. I think it is this realisation that really broke Latham’s heart.

I remember when he came to Queensland for one of his public forums and I remember how down he looked when speaker after speaker was haranguing him over state or local issues or demanding that he ‘buy back the farm’ or cut Asian immigration. For a man who dreamed of a smarter, brighter more vibrant Australia discovering the ignorant, backward looking truth surely would have crushed his spirit. Couple the reality of Australian apathy with the corrupt Labor Party machine and I can understand his malaise.

The telling point in the interview was Latham's apparent failure to understand Denton's question about the hurt done to millions of people who were happy to vote for Labor with Latham as leader. No insight, no regret, no compassion. And no resolution, either, if all those obsessional references to the 'dirt' were an indication. This is just a guess, and Denton dropped it in right at the end - Narcissist.

There is an article on Narcissistic Personality Disorder at Wikipedia.

I hope his book sales make him feel well enough to seek a bit of help.

There's an uncanny similarity between Mark Latham's 'goodbye presents' to the ALP and his previous 'bosses' and my own 'feedback' to the many employers, who first, when they contracted me for the jobs, gave me the impression they're keen "to improve the process, also using my input and feedback", but who then proceeded to smear me, blacklist me, shun me, spread slander and sexual allegations about me, when they - usually when they least expect it, or when I discover lies and corruption - received that "input and feedback" from me.

Mark may not have been PM material or whatever. He had and has the right to give unsolicited feedback - and as we know, he has - feedback to a system that's in serious crisis: the old political system of bosses and hacks, of factions and power-mongrels. And he shows them up, and they're scurrying for cover, and try to throw allegations back at him.

An uncanny similarity: in my case they did their best to throw the dirt back at me as well.

Mark's motives may not even be OK, and his personality, which I thought was rather "unmature", may have partly produced an agenda - feedback and input, also unsolicited, is a fine instrument and should be made useful in a system.

And the more a system is in crisis, and the more norms and values are in a transformation phase (I believe politics as we know it, and the structure of political parties as we know them is in a dying phase), the more that this feedback bites.

Margo: Hi Jack. Webdiarists, for more on Jack's story, see Citizen Jack: how a man with a computer and a passion for justice can make a difference in today's Australia.

Trevor Kerr, I thought Mark understood the question, he just didn't see it as such a major thing. I must say given how it all came about I don't blame him. Why should Mark Latham have any feelings left, especially given what he has had to endure and given the farce that Labor appears to be.

It's a job for goodness sake, and by the sounds of things a bad one at that.

I think people should be supporting Mark Latham and congratulating him for being open, honest and transparent. Isn't that what we want from our Politicians? He isn’t gossiping behind closed doors, he isn’t spreading rumours; he has set it all out openly and has put his name to it. It’s about time our Politicians opened up and came clean with the primary school yard antics that go on in our Government.

The witch hunts, bullying, discrediting and vilifying tactics that appear to be the norm are not just used in Government, they flow out of Government into the public service and into the community as they set the standard and example.

The culture of covering up, denying, vilifying and bullying anybody who tries to expose a problem is a serious issue for our society as it comes with a double barrel because it destroys the complainant and it ensures that those that are abusing their power get more power.

I don’t blame Mark Latham for writing a book. One day soon I am going to write a book about what the department and government has done to my family. There is this idea that its alright for the government and others to spread rumours, criticism and innuendo’s about an individual but see if somebody wants to bring out the truth about a government department and wants things debated openly and honestly, well they get their head cut of. It isn't fair or right.

I guess my younger daughter (9) simplified it when she said to me that she understood the culture and that it went like this "They punch you in the face and they want you to say Sorry".

I have decided Kevin Rudd can win!

His voter appeal is to be found, and should be targeted towards the male population of Australia. The slogan to all must read 'The joke you are, is the joke you could become'.

Vote 1 a Pixie.

Margo: Hi Jay. What was your personal reaction to the Latham interview?

I wish Mark Latham all the very best for his future. Perhaps in time, we will realise that in his ideas he was a man ahead of his time. I like his honesty and admire that he gave up the froth and bubble of a 'career' to look after his children, especially as that career was so high profile. He had the courage to accept that he didn't want to be in the job anymore and took the steps necessary. If nothing else, he's shown us all that politics is a very very dirty game.

I think that the best leaders are those who do it reluctantly. It's the ones who actively seek the leadership positions and enjoy their power too much who we need to be careful of. J. Howard is a case in point.

The only quality that Latham lacks that prevents him from becoming one of the best politicians Australia has had in decades is a total lack of thick skin.

But therein lays the Latham conundrum; in order to have a thick skin Latham would need to unload one of the qualities that would have made him such great politician – his compassion.

Now, if he could just compromise a bit and back-peddle on his seemingly ‘no more politics’ stance…

To my mind, Latham has always been a utopian. His books are full of dreams of a society run on trust and 'mutuality', what he liked to call 'social capital' In my reading of his books, he was always very, very down on government. He hated the nanny state. He seemed to want it all swept away in favour of an almost homespun communist lifestyle, but with global capital running everything else.

From Civilising Global Capital:

“Reformers need to recognise, particularly given the dilemmas of overloaded government, the limited scope of collectivism expressed through vertical structures.”

Maybe this is why he is so bitterly disappointed. Did he ever believe he could help bring about the changes he desired? In Civilising Global Capital: (I think it was that book), he lamented the fact that Australia did not have high levels of social trust.

What a terrific interview on Andrew Denton's behalf. I found the first half a bit boring, and thought it might be a fizzer, but the second half was riveting. Denton asked all the questions I wanted to ask.

I liked him. Loved him, even. At least I said so just as soon as I saw the wolves (media) come out to feed on his carcass. My hope is that his comments will act as a liberating force for the Labor Party and that they start to relax and enjoy themselves a lot more. It's also a pleasure to watch News Ltd scramble over his every word. He has a job with Murdoch if he ever wants one. The man makes great news-copy.

Latham certainly looked a lot more relaxed than he did as a politician and obviously made the right choice for himself by leaving. I liked Latham a lot. He reminded me of an old style Labor politician from the 40s or 50s but with new ideas, some of which I didn't agree with.

When he was first elected as leader and began to get a dream run in the media I knew he was being set up for a fall. If we believe him, his own party helped and that really doesn't augur well for politics in Australia, which has become so devious that a politician has to hide his/her true self.

Howard has accelerated the process of devious politics by making blatant lying and deceit acceptable. It really gets me that he is constantly paraded by media commentators as being such a "clever" politician when they know his character is so flawed that winning at all costs is preferable to honesty.

If Mark Latham has given everyone a serve in this book, including journalists and government members, then he is doing us a service. Everyone who watched last night must have heard the spontaneous applause when he said the media should have the spotlight turned on their private lives as well. Sadly I think it will all be forgotten soon and politics in this country will continue as before.

Margo I hope you had plenty of tissues. As might be obvious from my top of mind thoughts last night posted in the other thread, I'm grasping for coherent messages out of the Latham interview and surrounding hype.

1) Political system in crisis. Maybe, it has been the way it is for a long time, and entrenched duopoly is how most things work here in Australia. We have to ask why is that a problem with politics. I believe it is, though I've not managed to articulate reasons for this yet. Perhaps the changing dynamic of the relationship between a political duopoly stuck in old ideaologies but using the inertia of their duopoly to "keep the bastards out", aided and abetted by a self serving media.

2) Labor party an evil, self-serving machine full of self-serving opportunists. Yes, so what? Didn't we know that already? Isn't that also the case for the Conservatives? See point 1 above.

3) Latham full of BS, narcissist, self-serving etc etc. It is telling that he seemed to show no remorse for imploding as leader and great whote hope to half the electorate. There's more than a whiff of self-justification. At the end of the day he was a product of the machine, just up one end of the bell curve within manufacturing tolerances.

4) Latham stepping back from politics to tend to the family. No way jose. Why did he drop the "G Bomb" on leadership, slam the party and Beazley. Simple spite, maybe. If not, a desire to make a lasting impact.

5) Margo I just can't fall for the "sincerity" and "victim of the system" pitches. Latham's body language, vocal inflection and obtuse choice of words signal when he's lying. I find him pretty transparent. eg: "I'm happy being a House dad" I can't believe he means that.

Margo: Hi David. He has revenge in his heart, and that's not good for him, and, I think, for his health. I hope that phase will pass, and if it does, I think Mark has a lot to contribute to Australia. I thought his comments on the media were close to the mark. I'm going to Melbourne to attend his free public lecture at the University of Melbourne on September 27. When I RSVP'd, the Uni organiser of the meeting said no cameras were allowed. Mark wants to talk to people, not the big media. I like that.

Margo, I like Mark Latham. I always have. I think he is a honest politican. I personally would not like to be caught in a trench with him or have to vote for him. Honesty is only one ingredient of a great leader.

He was way to young to lead the nation. The same way John Brogden was to young to lead the state. I think one day he will regret many of the things he said last night.

That does not mean he was not telling the truth. It just means there is a time and place for everything. I don't think you win a award for knocking people such as Gough Whitlam for example.

I thought Gough's Government was the worst Australia has ever had. The man himself even in his 80's is still impresive however. Only a fool would deny that and I am not that fool.

I think Latham made a mistake pointing him out for treatment. Apart from that even Labor people would secretly admit to agreeing with Latham on many other matters.

However a rat is always a rat.

Margo: Hi Jay. Well, well, we have something else in common - we both like the bloke, and we both didn't like what he said about Gough, who mentored Mark for a long, long time. I'd like to meet you one day.

I haven’t voted for Labor for the past 10 years. Why? Because they are going backwards and they keep dropping the standards....

Notice that the Liberals don’t allow standards to drop; think Private Schools, Private Hospitals etc. Labor has a lot to learn from the Liberals in that respect!.

Just look at our Public Schools, look at our Hospitals, look at our Transport System, our Criminal system. The whole thing has been run to the ground because our Governments are too busy socialising, bickering, carrying on and covering up their maladministration and misconduct to do their job. Labor are acting like the Liberals they despise and they are treating us like peasants and fools.

I believe that the Government should at this point offer anybody in Politics who doesn’t want to change an opportunity to retire. Then the Government can start moving ahead, addressing and dealing with issues and working for the good of the people.

This is a perfect opportunity for all Governments to change the culture of the system. Its time to change! I even have a suggestion for them. They could start by ordering a proper and fair open and transparent investigation into my family's allegations of continuous and systemic bullying, bias, victimization and misconduct by the Education Department against my children and family.

If Labor does the right thing and shows the People by way of action, not words, that they are changing and that they are really going to be tough on corruption, bullying and misconduct, they will even get my vote back.

I am a Labor at heart but I cannot vote for a party that keeps lowering the standards to such 'POOR' levels for us people.

On the news today Howard was talking about what a great guy Kim is - now if every there was a reason to worry about Kim as leader that is a big one! Talk about the "club" :-(

It is a sign of how used we have all become to the "typical" politician (either side of the house) that this interview of Mark's was so remarkable. Maybe Mark's honesty can help rekindle some of the passions in the Australian electorate... I hope so.

It was moving. Whether people like it or not at least he had the guts to do it and in full view. Now if Brogden could write his version and Catter his we could have a trilogy that might help revitalise politics in this country.

Margo, I think you need to get on to Mark and do one of your exclusive interviews for Webdiary as well as ask him to write a piece for Webdiary on the future of political processes in Australia.

Margo, why do you say Nick Minchin was Latham's encourager?

Just a hunch that he's one of the more decent people in parliament?

David, I wish I could be there. In fact I wish was studying at Melbourne University. I'd transfer but UWS (where Mark Latham opened the moot court) isn't a real university and from what I've heard, I'd be frowned upon and patted on the head and told to go away.

I was going to go see Mark after the election, at a speech nearby, but he was obviously dreadfully sick then and so I didn't bother to see if he showed up. I wonder what he meant by "community". I'm his bloody community. I'll go walk his (what looked like) a Corgi, if he wants.

Considering that the federal Labor Party has been unpretentious opposition for nearly ten years I think Mr. Latham’s tell all diaries are a blessing in disguise.

I watched mushy Denton palavering with Latham last night and thought, “Thank god he’s out of politics! What a messy human being. What am I watching this junk for?” I wished my record of events exposing the important, under-handed and imperious state of affairs in the jazz dance fabrics industry were published.

Latham is now and has been a loose goose with cannon, but one with such purpose and assured splattering aim. Now, Latham wants to be remembered for overweening his mongrels while his wife brings home the bacon she’s been out makin’. Hopefully he will stay in blithering parental hiding for some time to come.

He is only the latest mad-as-hell messenger saying the system he’s made out from like a bandit, the same we’re all so overconfident about, is broke, is dirty, is unethical, and relies upon it’s participants to have very little moral certitude. We know it’s not nice Mark, it is politics! I do have to agree with him about Beazley and Rudd, these two alone stink-up the Labor atmosphere, but keep in mind Howard is still widening the ozone hole we should be constantly watching. Howard is terminable. The whole bloody lot of them is!

Australians who voted for Latham should be prepared to correct their supine passivity and get busy. Should we have to endure any more cavalier nonsense from the likes of Abbott and Co., I’ll be packing my bags and farnarkling somewhere else! And I’d hate to do the one thing Junket Guts would like me to do.

Labor looks clapped-out up against this government’s well rehearsed despotism and Latham is obviously hurting, but this is not a day to give up hope. I have to admit, I respect whistle-blowers. After nearly ten years we can no longer deny there’s something very wrong with Labor. It can’t go on any longer. Let Latham join the breeder hordes with nothing better to do than warmly Wiggle themselves to their plot. He’s delivered his message. It’s over. Labor must undergo rejuvenescence and let Latham slide.

To react too harshly would be acting badly. Menzies said it and Margo knows that, “the truth is that it requires more strength of character to sustain adverse or bitter criticism than to say, with a grand gesture, "Off with the critic’s head!” Now if you don’t mind I will return to reading my signed copy of the formerly underrated and excellent Joan Collins bio-tome “Past Imperfect”! Conga-line. Suck holes. Junket guts! HYSTERICAL! Oow…you’re awful!

Garry Russell, I also was a supporter of Latham's: "until he became Leader, when his unsuitability for the role became clear. But I am intrigued by your embrace of Latham because he represented a break from Labor's "right wing economics."

Now, I wrote my Honours thesis on Marxist economics, so I would be very interested to hear what economics of the ALP were "right wing," and how Latham's were not "right wing."

I too was a supporter of Latham. As a Labor Party member disallusioned with its right wing economics and small target social policies he seemed to be a new light on the hill. Alas it seems the glow is just that of a burning martyr still clutching his petrol can and matches.

It still amazes me how perceptive the Australian voting public continues to be. If Latham had gone into meltdown as PM this whole messy incident could have been catastrophic rather than just sad and pathetic.

Yeah, rock on! Campbelltown. Market review. I take back all the things I said about you, Mark, you're a gem. There was no melancholy there in talking about the electorate, only joy.

Trevor Kerr, Narcissistic Personality Disorder occurred to me too. There was such a disjunct between his sensitivity to his own situation and his awareness of the ramifications of his actions. He quite obviously doesn't "get" it.

I was talking to a clinical psychologist friend of mine today, and she's considering her diagnosis. I'm waiting with interest!

As Denton said, it's sad that his excessive scattergun attack is going to make his more important messages about the Labor Party and politics generally inaudible. But they will. Had he taken a more restrained stance, he might have been listened to. Now, he's just going to be dismissed. Fodder for Abbott and Costello to make cheap jibes in Question Time, for a week or two, and that'll be it.

I was really surprised at how much I liked Latham last night. I was prepared to hate him but he spoke some sense, and I believed him. I love the spray at the media - the false friendships, and the comment about Jeanette Howard attributed to Kim. Some of it was a laugh, but at the heart of it I felt, though it was sad, he had plenty of good points. Labor is a diaster unless it rids itself of the internal fighting, spineless policies and dishonesty. Labour might not like it but he can't be making ALL this stuff up!

Margo, the audience's spontaneous applause when the behavior of journalists in relation to the sexual and other rumours about Mark Latham was an good indication of how the general public rates journalists. Other than that I can only say what a waste of a person who, whatever his faults, had the potential to contribute to our ever dimishing polity.

I was never a fan of Latham and his comments, as reported, more than confirm my original view. Before, I thought that he was a big mouthed lout but his comments as reported shows him to be someone who blames everyone else for his problems with no fault attributed to himself together with a strong streak of hypocrisy.

Politics along with business is not a game for the faint hearted and most of us expect our leaders not to be soft. Surly most of us can remember the campaign run against Beazley the last time he took the Labor Party to an election – he was accused by all and sundry of having no ticker. In other words he was not up to the task because he was 'too soft'.

In rebutting Latham’s accusations yesterday Beazley denied that he had behaved as argued by Latham and had challenged journalists to disclose any occasions where he (Beazley) had briefed any journalist as contended by Latham. Some 24 hours later I have not seen any headlines accusing Beazley of being a liar.

Part of Latham’s argument is that those within the Labor Party are not sensitive to the needs of others. Ignoring the impact Latham’s spray will have on all within the Labor Party the attack on Rudd was particularly bad. Here was Rudd the day after he had buried his mother, who he was very close to, discussing his future with Latham and Latham holds him up to ridicule because he was upset.

How low can you go?

There is no doubt that politics is a tough game and that there is no room for the faint hearted and if one chooses to go into politics then one should be prepared for the knocks and bruises that undoubtedly will come your way. One only has to consider that pursuit of Keating for years after he left Parliament in respect of the 'piggery affair' to realise how hard the 'game' is played.

It's easy to be a house dad on an 80k pension, you know. Let alone with the book sales.

How many books will he sell? Five hundred thousand? One million? Two million? Three? Punts anyone? In our society a person who sells so many books and makes vast amounts of money, is viewed as a raging success. Aren't they? It presents us with an interesting paradox. Doesn't it? Will he be seen at the end of the day/year/decade/his life as a 'success'? Will he think so? (Probably) - and he'll be laughing all the way to his off-shore tax haven.

Who will be the first to interview Mr Latham in twelve months time with the intro - "Welcome Mr Latham - sir. Congratulations on the success of the Latham Diaries. It has made you a very wealthy man indeed. Onya mate. (Sorry) onya 'sir'."

Margo having now read the quoted note from the 'senior minister in the Howard Government (p21) I'm kinda stumped by the specific reference to admiring what Mark Latham did at Liverpool Council. It sounds like the writer was in some way a stakeholder in the outcomes there, but perhaps I misread it and in truth the writer is simply admiring the method or achievement of this kind in general. Has anyone in media circles, other than your good self, floated a name for the Liberal 'truth teller' quoted on page 21 yet? Could it have actually been Bredan Nelson who is not mentioned in the Diaries as far as I can see?

Hi Margo,

As a Labor member I have been intently watching the Latham events of the past week, both with interest and with sadness. This has been a long time coming! I know that many people are viewing this as Latham venting his spleen, and to a certain degree they are right, but if he didn’t do this, what would bring about the urgent change within the party that is so very long overdue?

Like Mark, I have reached a point where I say ENOUGH! There are so many “issues” that remain undealt with, that our leaders will not even discuss. One of these has been given to me in its original format and is a proposal to help fundraise utilising the grassroots members eagerness to participate. Alas, it has landed on many deaf ears, those ears including all the office bearers at NSW Head Office and National Office.

I have included it here for everyone to read for themselves, and for some it may read as being fanciful and naive, but it’s intentions were true and aimed at strengthening the party. It was about giving the power back to the rank and file members to select and have elected, THEIR representatives in parliament, not some personality who is good at singing, sport or is selected by those faceless, nameless ‘power brokers’ to achieve what ever it is their current goals are .

There are two things to remember with this proposal. Firstly, it was an opportunity to get more members involved and participating at a financial level. The downside for those in power would have been that they would have had to interact with members, when in fact they are doing their best to avoid them. It would also mean that candidates would have to work more closely with members instead of treating them solely as ‘workers’ only during campaigning. Instructions are easier than discussions.

Secondly, the money that would have been raised would have been invaluable in many marginal seats giving many candidates a really good push over the line. The downside for this facet would have been that the party would not need to be so reliant on corporate ‘donations’ with the resultant strings attached. Big business within politics has taken the power from the people and concentrated it in the hands of the few at the top, and I’m not talking about those in the party, but those in big business.

I am not going to put in the names of the members who submitted this proposal to safeguard their confidentiality, but it will be interesting to see if these people get a response once this goes on the website.

A Plan to Gain Government in 2007

“The Australian population seems to have believed the lies from the federal Liberal party. We seem to have not only lost our voter base but we don’t even know where to look to find them. Therefore we need to approach the problem from a different direction.

Q. How does an independent candidate get elected?
A. They are well known and respected hard working community members.
Q. What got them that recognition and respect?
A. Constant involvement with local community groups and issues in the electorate
Q. How long do you need to get “Community Credentials?”
A. At least 40 hrs a week over about three years.

We believe we need to have our own opposition member in residence for the entire term of the current Government. This does not mean that they are unable to have a life, education or family. The fact that they are there and involved in the local communities throughout the electorate will bring recognition through constant participation on an organizational level similar to Rotary, Lions etc.

To all those who wish to have their candidate elected

Our candidate represents a huge number of voters who did not want a liberal member for our electorate. As a party we have a formal opposition in Parliament comprised of elected members. Why should the many of thousands of voters who wanted our candidate have to be content with a member that many perceive to be unaccountable, unreachable and ineffective in resolving community and national problems?

We need and deserve a constant formal local opposition member acting on behalf of those many thousands that feel unrepresented.

All to often we are told that if one candidate has a couple of thousand votes more than your candidate in an electorate of over 92,000 registered voters, that we must be quiet and accept whatever is dished up as policy and meekly obey.

Well we’re here to break the rule and show you how to setup an effective “local opposition” to this notion. In order to effectively represent these voters we would like to propose the following:

To have the public recognition of our candidates raised to the same
or better level than any sitting member.

Why? Because voters don’t get to “know” who will represent them in government over a decent amount of time eg. 3 years. This will require our candidates being involved in many committees and community projects throughout the electorate, where they can be seen and remembered as hard working and honest community members over a long period, not just a few months.

This will give “Community Credentials” and “Community Credibility” to our candidates, which is something that people respect and remember.

There is always a rush to gather funds and push a new face on the community within months of an election. If we were able to have a “Labor member” (read member of the Labor party) for our electorate he/she would espouse Labor polices and make representations to the federal member on behalf of people, who are frustrated with inaction. This would show not only credibility, but stability and genuine care for constituents. The results of these actions and labor policy could be published in a quarterly 4 page news insert in all local papers in the electorate thus keeping everyone informed of current issues and planned events.

We need to lead not follow, setting new direction and enthusiasm for our supporters and members. Do unto others, but do it first and do it better than they can.

To do this will require a considerable amount of money.

500 Club

This is a fundraising club that will be open to a core group of 500 supporters who would come from the thousands who voted for a Labor candidate and who will contribute $10 per week. This will be drawn down monthly to an FEC account via direct debit to enable the FEC to employ our candidate full time on a salary similar to a back bencher.

It will also provide funds to rent commercial space and employ a full time secretary with appropriate skills.

The total funds available over a three and a half year period will be around $910,000 with expected costs of:
Salary $70,000
Shop front: $25,000
Secretary: $45,000
Petty cash $3,000
500 club $16,000
Marketing $41,000
Total $200,000

Income: $260,000 per annum ($10x500x52=$260K)
Investment: $60,000 per annum invested for campaign
This would leave a $210,000 campaign fund provided by the electorate.

What will it have to offer once it is running and fully funded?

- A monthly newsletter keeping members and supporters informed of “Watt’s Happening” in Eden-Monaro (for example)

- A Membership badge and certificate displaying the Logo and motto “Nil Illegitimatus Carborundum”

- An invitation to a quarterly social gathering to be addressed by the “Labor member” (light refreshment provided)

- Eligibility for a quarterly draw for eight $500 cash refunds to members conducted at the quarterly social nights (Must attend to win)

- Social gatherings will be held in four different locations during the year
- A support and resource network to rival Rotary, Lions and other community minded organizations in our electorate

- The opportunity to participate twice a year in a community event to gain recognition as a large community group backing our beliefs (hospital, charity events etc.)

- Social functions eg. dinners with guest speakers such as Federal and State members whose visit would be to support the ‘candidate-n-waiting’ and bring those present up to date on Federal and State issues

- The functions would be organised by a 500 Club Committee comprising 5 members of the club plus the ‘candidate-in-waiting’ who would be the President of this club.

This is an opportunity to “PUT UP or SHUT UP” do we want to be in government or opposition? The choice is yours. This is the best chance possible for Labor to take Government.

We believe that if this is effectively explained and sold to members and supporters instead of last minute fundraisers in the dying throws of a campaign, we will win government.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Poor Performance

The next election campaign started Sunday 10th October 2004, so let’s win the next one. The harder you work the luckier you get. Everyone sees a successful person who planned and worked hard to achieve results and says “look at that lucky bastard”. So let’s get lucky.

The detail:

1. Pre-selection must be available within 1 month of the election. This is to enable any prospective candidate to put forward a CV to the FEC to give us the best candidate with the best chance. We must take into account personality, skills, ability to attract enthusiastic people to them and the ability to communicate effectively. This combines into an efficient “salesperson” for the developed and developing policies of the party, as well as communicating needs and aspirations of the communities that they are to represent back to the policy developers.

2. Training of a “sales team” which must be selected and trained to perform required tasks and achieve acceptable goals will be essential to success. To this end, we need competent marketing people from within our own ranks to provide time and resources in selecting, preparing and supporting a “sales team” to sell our proposal not only to members, but to supporters and businesses within the electorate.

3. Put your money where your mouth is! Money is what is required in each seat. If the candidate and Co-worker/Secretary are properly prepared and trained, the potential income to fight a campaign over the 3 ½ year period is $910,000 per electorate. This is at least 3 times what is spent on the most marginal seats. It will require meticulous planning and execution, but in the current world economic and social climate there is nothing else to be considered.

4. The “sales team” will comprise of 4 people prepared to give 1 day a week for 6 months to be trained and sell our proposal to the wider electorate. We are prepared to teach the prospective trainees how to approach individuals and businesses with the proposal, give full explanations, answer questions and engender enthusiasm and close the sale coming back with completed debit authorities.

5. Four people have a target of 125 sales each in 6 months. This breaks down to approximately 5 per weekend. This amount I believe is achievable as it took me 2 days of explaining this to 10 people with not 1 negative response, with all 10 prepared to participate. The initial target group would be the membership and known supporters at branch meetings and functions, which must involve constant reinforcement and promotion of the proposal which will be essential in maintaining enthusiasm.

6. The collection of funds would be via bank debit monthly, paid to an FEC account to be administered by the FEC Executive, making each donation tax deductible as a donation to a political party.

7. The running of the 500 Club would be the responsibility of the Office Worker/Secretary, who would prepare and distribute newsletters via email and hard copy where required to 500 Club members. The organizing of functions and coordinating guest speakers etc will be the responsibility of the club committee on advice of and in conjunction with the candidate and the office worker.

8. The candidate would be required to investigate and identify 10 major community organisations in 10 separate communities within the electorate, keeping in mind what nights/days they meet and join those organisations so that they are seen to be actively participating in local community events around the electorate. The concerns and answers to them can be published as part of the monthly newsletter.

9. The formation of a club with so many members would by default make it the most relevant community group within the electorate, rivaling for membership Rotary, Apex, Lions etc. The membership would be asked to give 1 day of their time twice per year to attend community functions as voluntary workers, wearing an appropriate 500 Club badge, T-shirt etc. Events such as field days, local shows, major school events where voluntary workers are required, could have a group from the 500 Club as volunteers. This would give us an unprecedented community profile in such a short period of time. Our candidate would also be the President of the 500 Club allowing them to represent the members and be identified more closely as a caring, well-organised community-credentialed local.
10. With again meticulous attention to detail, the 500 Club itself can become a community force to be reckoned with giving unprecedented recognition to its President.

11. The initial funding would be by donation from our current sitting members of $10 per week, for 10 electorates which would cost them $5200 per year. This is again putting your money where your mouth is! If we would like to win 10 seats, they need immediate support in putting this proposal together and selling it as previously stated. The total number of people required to sell this to the 10 seats we want to win is obviously 40. It would be impracticable to get all the people from each electorate together in the 1 room 1 day a week for 6 months. We therefore would propose to train 1 person from each electorate for an intensive 2 day session in the ACT at a time to be advised.

12. Each electorate has approximately 80 booths. If each booth required 6 workers between members and supporters there’s already 480 people. We only really need 448 as we have 52 sitting “donors”. The 448 divided by 76 booths in Eden-Monaro equals 5.9 people per booth which is an achievable goal based on the nearly 40,000 people who didn’t want a Liberal member in Eden-Monaro. Chasing 500 people from this number of voters means approximately 1.12% of the non-liberal voters are needed to support this proposal to provide all the funding. Multiplied by the 10 most marginal seats this would raise approximately $9.1million, which is a significant amount.

13. We have amongst our members and supporters a wealth of talent both working and retired. We should identify and utilise this resource.

We believe this document in part or as a whole will go a long way to preparing us for a successful 2007 campaign.”

This document is dated 12th October 2004 – it is now 19th September 2005 and not a single phone call, letter of recognition or receipt, just silence. Disillusionment runs deep, but before people start to get the whip out just remember that it is time for Labor members to start talking about the internal decimation that has been taking place that has sold out the people. Members voice amongst themselves their concerns but never do anything about it. They are not prepared to act cohesively on internal issues for fear of a backlash, especially if they harbour any political ambitions, so they apathetically tow the party line.

As a member I want to know what deals have been done between the two major parties that neither party wants the public to know about, and I bet there have been a lot. If what Mark Latham has been saying is correct, even 10% of it, we are in unbelievable trouble. Unfortunately from what I have seen during my Labor years, I believe that the stories that Latham is now expressing is a fester sore of many many years, that is only now seeing the light of day.

Stuart Lord and anyone else with the same thoughts in mind please start reading Mr Latham's book.

If you do you may recognise that Mr Latham probably would have made the choice to make his family the central thing at this time in his life, even if the monies he has after all earned were not available.

My interpretation of the material I've read so far is that he'd do it even if it cost him a substantial drop in income, because the love of your children is more important than money. Seriously there is a lot of bullshit flying around and when you actually read the book you start to see who is really enjoying flinging it here and there.

Take for instance all that is written and spoken to microphones that says that nowhere has Mark Latham accepted responsibility or acknowledged his failings. The people behind that bullshit have not go to page 4 where it is black and white summed up in a paragraph.

The just concluded interview between Latham and Adelaide ABC Radio's Matthew Abraham is one of the "cattiest" interviews I've ever heard.

I'm not fast enough to transcribe q and a, but here's Latham's responses that I caught.

"It's hardly innuendo to publish a book. Unlke Wayne Swan... I actually put my name to the material."

"Everyone in politics does the odd "background briefing" Latham said that the normal information ratio was "five per cent public, ninety-five percent behind the scenes."

At one point Latham said "You're talking about obsession... at one point the media had a pretty fair obsession with me."

"The allegation was that I was sitting in a chair having someone's breasts rubbed in my face..... that's scary stuff."

"Why should the public know a bit about the way the media operates? Why shouldn't they know that a Mike Riley goes through politicians' garbage bins to get the stories?"

On discussing giving everone nicknames (in reference to News ltd's Samantha Maiden being named in the book as The Barfly): "In the Australia I grew up in every second person had a nickname and that was known as a form of affection."

When Abraham suggested it might be damaging that raising rumours raises stories people may not otherwise have heard, Latham responded "Maybe in your perverted mind it does."

Latham had a few words to say about the tone of the interview: "You've got your highlighter out and look for any form of sexual titillation that you can find...your approach heretoday which is some form of juvenile sexual titillation" You should go and see someone who's read Freud and can give you better advice." He then referred to Abraham as a "perverted commentator".

"..good to know that you haven't changed one iota.
You and the other gibberer (presumably Abrahams on air partner David Bevan) were well-known in my office"

Callers responses have critised both Latham and Matt Abraham

Audio will be available on the ABC 891 site "in a few hours".

You vote for these morons that make up political parties, and you get what you they want. As long as the people of this country continue to put their faith in the lies of political parties, then our world will get worse and worse.

It amazes me that with the amount of so called intellegent people that contribute to Webdairy no one comes up with solutions except self interest, so we deserve what we get. That appears to be closer and closer to falling of the cliff of social, ecological and economic disaster. Or have we done that already, just haven't hit the bottom yet?

Cathy Wilcox cartoon in today's SMH—absolutely hilarious.

Here's where you'll find the broadcast replay of Mark Latham's Adelaide interview. It's twenty four minutes of "good radio"

My gut feeling was that Joe Hockey was the Federal Minister who sent this lowing letter used to end the introduction of Latham’s Diaries:

Whilst there will always be some things you and I will disagree on, I admire the contribution that you have made to public life. At Liverpool Council you changed the Old Guard and put in place a dynamic infrastructure. In Federal Parliament you took risks that gave you opportunities to change the nation from Opposition. I admire that. Now is a time for you and your family. I genuinely wish you a good life ahead. Enjoy the time you have with family. In a number of ways you have made Australia better.

In today’s Crikey email (subscription recommended) Stephen Mayne points out that Peter Fitzsimons outed Joe Hockey for this letter in The Sun-Herald. Of course this is not actually confirmation, but if it is true then it makes sense to me. I respect Joe Hockey because he displays respect for others.

Richard, this radio broadcast is absolutely priceless. Essential listening. I've never been so happy listening to a politician.

In the Andrew Denton interview, Mark Latham made comments concerning the rise of personality cults as a large part of what keeps politics from being an effective way of running a country. It's a point that a lot of people keep making, but nobody seems to know how to solve. It is ironic that he has chosen to make this point in the midst of a number of other comments about others, which just re-enforce the very problem he is pointing out.

Returning to his point, most commentators who identify "personality" as a hindrance to decent public debate then go on to talk about "policy" as the solution. They then look to media outlets to provide this rigorous forum for "policy", but find that it's either been "strategically repositioned" to make way for the lifestyle section, or simply isn't noticed by the majority of the public. The debate is happening, it's just that hardly anybody is taking notice. For many voters then, politics is pretty much another version of "Big Brother" except you have to get off the couch and go to the local primary school to get your name ticked off and to keep your favourites "in the house".

"Big Brother" is worth considering for a moment. It has opened a different way for people to consume media (albeit in a fairly voyeuristic Christians vs. lions kind of way, where the audience can pay to be the lions). If emerging communication and media technologies can transform something as inane as game show participation then maybe it can do the same for serious journalism. Up until recently the media was used mainly to broadcast "professional" opinions in much the same way that television drama was reserved for professional actors. It's this tendency of traditional media to focus on transmission in a one-way direction (professional to public) that feeds the very problem that Latham describes. Traditional media presents the personality with or without the policy attached and members of the public either accept or reject them.

But in the complex world we inhabit, quality ideas don't come from individuals - they're the product of conversations and relationships. Our responses to one another create or exclude possible ways of thinking about the times in which we live. What we think and talk about is influenced by how we connect to one another. This website is an attempt to facilitate these processes of relating and conversing - and seems to do so successfully. It is demonstrating that new ways of talking about what matters are as important as the very subject of our conversations. Perhaps as this site evolves its participants will find new ways of connecting more and diverse members of the community in a mature policy debate.

So it’s a shame that Latham has taken the kamikaze approach to getting his message out, because all he’s doing is adding more fuel to the personality media furnace when what is really needed is widespread participation in a more serious questioning of the conversations and relationships that are the Australian Labor Party.

Bobbi Bassett, the fact that so many are trying, indeed needing to try, to create 'Community Credibility' is a sad indictment of the quality of so many of Labor's candidates previously and currently (look at the shadow bench at the time of the last election - would you really want them there?) and an indicator that it will be a significant amount of time before anything is done about it.

Having watched Kevin Rudd’s performance on Tuesday’s ABC 7.30 Report, I realise that Latham has tagged his opponents with a subtext. While I viewed Rudd bravely soldiering on, all of Latham’s observations about him filled my mind.

True or not, Latham has got me thinking more deeply than ever about Labor politicians. The same goes for many of the political commentators described in the Diaries. Hopefully all that silly ABC Insiders giggling and general atmosphere of self-satisfaction will be somewhat muted in future. 'Celebrity' commentators have also had their personas tagged whether they like it or not. They need to adjust.

Margaret Morgan, I am appalled, though sadly not surprised, at your glee that your friend, a 'Clinical Psychologist!' is in the process of making a psychiatric diagnosis of a human being she has never even met, let alone in a 'clinical' setting! Is this friend's 'work' always so professionally venal and inappropriate?

Last Saturday a Dr Martyn Baker wrote a Letter to the SMH insisting that, "Mark Latham's behaviour since the election smacks of a narcissistic personality disorder." I shall be making a representation to the appropriate authority that this Dr Baker should be rebuked.

Margaret, at least Baker and your little 'Dr' friend have some training and professional accreditation. What is YOUR excuse? Or can we treat all of your views as little more than Oprahesque whimsey?

Oh, and by the way, tell your 'Dr' friend s/he had better take a refresher course or two. If Latham does have a personality disorder, it is of the borderline type, not narcissistic.

It seems Mark Latham isn’t as isolated in his views within the ALP as some would have him portrayed. Dennis Shanahan’s piece in today’s The Australian explains (extract only):

"MARK Latham's anti-US sentiments and doubts about the ANZUS treaty were shared by one in five Labor Party candidates going into the last election. ALP candidates also lined up almost unanimously with Mr Latham's scatological attacks on President George W Bush."

"In an academic study of their views during the election, 31 per cent of candidates said they had little or no trust in the US coming to Australia's defence."

Richard Tonkin, having just read your account of Latham and Matt Abraham on Adelaide ABC 891, I am again drawn to reflect on the tangibility of your status as a resident of our fair city. Amazing how many folk from Adelaide contribute to these threads, coincidentally.

I wonder if your feelings concerning the Adelaide ABC are similar to mine. No I'm not going to 'lead'; the mere fact that I even raise this should be clue enough as to what I'm getting at, as per the Adelaide ABC and Adelaide media such as it is, in general.

By the way, as per next weekend; "Go you 'Dogs'!!