Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:38 am Posts: 5575 Location: Sydney, NSW
Kind of a shame I think... 'cos I think he's a good guy. Just a few too many stuff ups he really ought to have avoided (especially with the likes of Howard and Costello there to pounce). And his health has always been a worry. After that election loss, the writing's really been on the wall.
If his health is alright... I say bring back Beazley.
_________________
Jammer91 wrote:
If Soundgarden is perfectly fine with playing together with Tad Doyle on vocals, why the fuck is he wasting his life promoting the single worst album of all time? Holy shit, he has to be the stupidest motherfucker on earth.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
How good of a party leader has Latham been? From comments I saw earlier, it seemed like he didn't really mount a good ALP counter to prevent Howard from gaining.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:43 am Posts: 427 Location: Australia, Brisbane
Why did Labour elect this guy in the first place.Might be a nice guy but there were far better candidates than Latham,Stephen Smith comes to mind or Rudd. Labour needs to get there shit together if there a chance at the next election which is unlikely with a swing against them.
_________________ YessCode wrote:
2003!
State College, Boston Shows, New York shows...numerous 2 and 3 encore shows that last 2-3 hours...its like a sore dick....can't beat it
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
I don't think he's been the best leader but it's more a case of there not being anyone better right now, or not many better candidates. I guess i'm expecting a leadership challenge relatively soon so the new leader can become more familiar to the public, because they haven't got much hope of winnign the next election otherwise. I dunno, maybe he'll hang on, but I don't see it. They need another Gough, although I guess that's kinda the angle they were going for with Latham.
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
Kommienezuspadt wrote:
who's latham?
the leader of the federal opposition here, the australian labor party.
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Julia Gillard has announced she will not stand for the Labor leadership.
Her decision leaves former leader Kim Beazley as the sole candidate for Friday's caucus ballot.
Ms Gillard, the opposition health spokeswoman, said her decision was based on the belief she did not have the backing of the majority of her colleagues.
"In these circumstances I needed to make a determination as to whether or not to noiminate for a ballot I would not win. I have determined not to nominate," she said.
"I have not been subject to any pressure not to nominate," she said.
Ms Gillard pledged to loyally serve Mr Beazley who she described as "a big man with a big heart, and a big commitment to the Labour Party and a better future for this big country of ours".
"I have always been completely loyal to the leaders of the Labor Party under whom I have had the privilege to serve.
"My loyalty has not depended on whether times were good or bad or the leader was perorming well or badly.
"I will certainly be displaying such unfettered loyalty to Kim Beazley"
However, she sounded a warning that the kind of bitter infighting that had seen the demise of former leaders Simon Crean and Mark Latham in a little over year had to end.
"What we do lack at present is a culture that can allow us to move forward.
"Our recent history demonstrates that electing a new leader, even unopposed, does not guarantee party unity.
"Labor caucus needs to pledge complete fidelity and loyalty to the leader
"This requires the leader to stand aside from factional influences and move beyond any circle of advisers."
Ms Gillard brushed aside suggestions Mr Beazley had jumped the gun by welcoming her decision not to stand before she had announced it as a "logistical thing" brought about because of Mr Beazley's Australia Day commitments.
_________________ YessCode wrote:
2003!
State College, Boston Shows, New York shows...numerous 2 and 3 encore shows that last 2-3 hours...its like a sore dick....can't beat it
Last edited by Luke on Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
The thing is, Beazley couldn't beat Latham, Latham couldn't beat Howard,... and Beazley could never beat Howard... point being... Labor are fucked, and that means we all are.
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:43 am Posts: 427 Location: Australia, Brisbane
vacatetheword wrote:
The thing is, Beazley couldn't beat Latham, Latham couldn't beat Howard,... and Beazley could never beat Howard... point being... Labor are fucked, and that means we all are.
I tend to disagree.IMO Beazley is the only man that can defeat Howard. You do remember that Beazley has defeated Howard twice winning the popular the vote in 98 and the 2001 Tampa election but didnt have enough seats to govern. Pre 2001 election, according to the polls,Beazley was set to defeat the Howard Government but we all know what occured, a leaky boat arrived and two planes slammed into the WTC and the rest is history.But I do agree its going to be a struggle with a swing against Labour.
_________________ YessCode wrote:
2003!
State College, Boston Shows, New York shows...numerous 2 and 3 encore shows that last 2-3 hours...its like a sore dick....can't beat it
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
Luke wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
The thing is, Beazley couldn't beat Latham, Latham couldn't beat Howard,... and Beazley could never beat Howard... point being... Labor are fucked, and that means we all are.
I tend to disagree.IMO Beazley is the only man that can defeat Howard. You do remember that Beazley has defeated Howard twice winning the popular the vote in 98 and the 2001 Tampa election but didnt have enough seats to govern. Pre 2001 election, according to the polls,Beazley was set to defeat the Howard Government but we all know what occured, a leaky boat arrived and two planes slammed into the WTC and the rest is history.But I do agree its going to be a struggle with a swing against Labour.
Even so, Labor didn't get enough seats, so they lost the election. I'm not denying that he's probably the best person for the job right now, more.... dissapointed that they can't find someone better, which stems purely from my left wing howard-hating stance in general.
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
