Mark Latham has failed to gain traction in this campaign so far. Despite that he’s had an easy ride from the media pack, which is more concerned about perceived fairness and balance than pointing out mistakes.
Kim Beazley’s campaign was certainly no worse in 2001, but the hounds were howling.
That’s why I appreciated Richard Flanagan’s travelogue in today’s Age. Flanagan, a left-wing author, spent a week on Latham’s campaign bus. He gives a good insight to how journalists are manipulated and controlled, and he comments with impartiality on Latham’s presentation.
It’s the first decent commentary I’ve read on Mark Latham, apart from Andrew Bolt’s ongoing observations in the Herald-Sun. Flanagan writes:
“The problem is that Latham isn’t performing. He seems listless, flat. Day after day, Latham is underwhelming in his speech and manner.”
I’m disappointed in Latham because he was meant to reignite Labor and Australian politics. He’s a man of ideas, open to impromptu outbursts and colorful language, but the minders and hacks have got to him, transforming his personality into just another flat-talking suit.
The political and economic advice he’s getting isn’t all that flash either. The tax policy announcement was meant to be a crowning moment, but as Flanagan observed:
“Latham looks waxen, listless and unwell. His manner is edgy and abrasive, and if it is not aggressive, nor is it endearing. The conference goes badly. Latham struggles to express anything simply.
“Under questioning, it becomes apparent that the package details do not seem to bear the grandiose ambition of Latham’s claims. At such times, his nervous tics become more pronounced: his tongue darting out, bluetongue-like, to lick his lips; the slight raising of the head and closing of his eyes as he says no; along with that habi that has become standard with many Australian politicians of repeating a pointless phrase — A POINTLESS PHRASE — with pointed emphasis.”
I can understand Latham being evasive under questioning on his tax policy. How he hopes to win votes when three out of 10 people will be worse off under his complicated alternative is totally beyond me.
Even the people who will be better off probably won’t be able to determine that fact for sure given the complexity of anyalysing various tables, estimating income and considering current family tax benefits. So the people who may be better off will worry that they may be worse off and vote accordingly.
Where to for Labor if it loses this election? I can only think of two viable options:
1) Latham remains, takes charge and runs his own agenda, sacking his minders, seizing control of policy and pressing ahead with his personal vision; or
2) A new leader, untarnished by defeat, is elected. Forget Latham, Crean and Beazley. One of the women, Julia Gillard or Jenny Macklin, would be a fresh option.
×0
