Contempt for a fallen leader who put his own interests before those of his party

Mark Latham in The Australian Financial Review on Thursday:

IT is incredible to think that [John] Howard, knowing that the government was about to lose office, and with it the seat of Bennelong, could have persisted. It confirms [Peter] Costello's depiction of him as mean-spirited and disingenuous. Let me add another adjective: irresponsible. By his own confession, Howard's long-standing insistence that he acted in the best interests of the Liberal Party has been exposed as bunkum.

Enough with the Libs: Latham in The Monthly:

ULTIMATELY, [the] radical centre is too radical for modern Labor. Its union and factional leaders have become part of the establishment, actively socialising with Australia's media and business elites. One has even gone as far as to marry into the family of a Tory millionaire and then of the Governor-General . . .

Bill Shorten, now married to the Governor-General's daughter, in June 2005, after Latham labelled Kim Beazley a stand-for-nothing leader and three Labor premiers "A-grade arseholes":

MARK Latham displays all the attributes of a dog, except loyalty.

Not so bad, Joe. Michelle Grattan in The Age on October 29:

THE opposition, meanwhile, is caught between wanting to exploit a populist issue, such as the anti-competitive practices of the banks, while needing to avoid trashing the economic credentials that have usually been a plus for the conservatives. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey has had a wildish ride with his attack on the banks, although by yesterday he was increasingly scoring some hits.

The dangers of Hockey-bashing. Grattan on November 5:

LABOR probably would be better off if it hadn't gone overboard in pursuing Joe Hockey over his banking remarks. When the Commonwealth Bank behaved badly, Labor had helped Hockey appear prescient, while it seemed slow-footed.

Bad Joe! Laura Tingle in the AFR on October 22:

THE more shadow treasurer Joe Hockey talked yesterday, the worse it became. The banks might be a frustration for both sides of politics, the government even more than the opposition. But to suggest re-regulation of a sector purely on the back of a sniff of political opportunity, and without having thought through what you are actually saying, is one of the more spectacular own goals by the Coalition on economic policy of recent times, and that is saying something.

The saga continues. Tingle on November 1:

THE shadow treasurer has been heavily criticised, including within his own party, over his attack on the banks and suggestions he wished to see them re-regulated. The political brawl over banks and bank competition is likely to be shaped by the Reserve Bank of Australia's interest rate decision on Tuesday and whether the major banks decide to lift rates if the RBA doesn't move. [We await Tingle's next instalment.]

Inappropriate Joe! Australian Bankers Association chief executive Steven Munchenberg on October 21:

WE'RE very surprised with suggestions coming from some quarters of the Liberal Party that they would contemplate price controls. There's been longstanding bipartisan support for the fact that price controls are distortionary and ultimately end up harming the economy. So we're very surprised by those suggestions. And obviously we would think any such move would be very inappropriate. It would be a dangerous suggestion to play with those regulations in a way that is intended to punish the banks.

A week is a long time, etc. Munchenberg on October 28:

IN a statement: "There is no doubt that the global financial crisis has meant there is less choice." And on ABC radio, he suggested Hockey's nine-point plan had "some merit".

[e-mail]