Talk:John Latham (Australian jurist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
John Latham (Australian jurist) is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
[edit] Redirects
Hi, I was just wondering why you chose to move John Latham (Australian jurist) to John Latham (jurist). The reason I ask is that this has created some double redirects from John Latham (Australia) (the original location, and the one I prefer). --bainer 04:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- Disambiguation language should be as succinct as possible. (Australian jurist) is too much information....unless there was a (Canadian jurist) by the same name. John Latham (Australian) doesn't sound right...he is notable for being a Jurist, not for being Australian. Therefore, John Latham (jurist) is the most succinct and logical. Kingturtle 07:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC) P.S. i'll go and fix the double redirects. Kingturtle 07:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Left out
What this article fails to mention that if Latham had not stood aside for Lyons he would have become Prime Minister. He sold out on himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Shadow Treasurer (talk • contribs) 02:53, 14 June 2005.
- It's a bit more complex than that: Latham did not have the popular appeal Lyons did (or at least it was percieved by those who ran the party that he didn't). There was no guarantee that he would become Prime Minister: he had to face an election, and there was a real risk that he would either form a minority government, or not win at all. How much of this chance was, I cannot say: Scullin was in deep trouble, but a disarrayed Opposition, and a 'sympathy' vote for Scullin, might have scuttled the chances of a Conservative Victory. But again, Latham may well have done himself a disservice by moving Lyons' nomination for leader...
- 61.68.37.248 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Recently added: He was the first former Opposition Leader to become a Minister without having to serve as Prime Minister. I can't make any sense out if this statement and have removed it for the time being. I'm sure that there is an intention there to say something sensible, but I'm darned if I know what. Perhaps it could be re-phrased so that it has a plainer meaning. Tannin 28 June 2005 09:06 (UTC)
The statement is self-evident meaning that of all the Opposition Leaders who did not become Prime Minister and aside from Joseph Cook who was Opposition Leader in 1908-09, a Minister in 1909-10 before becoming Prime Minister in 1913, he, Bill Hayden (I confess I have completely forgotten about him when I made that statement) and Alexander Downer became Ministers after their tenure as Opposition Leaders. I mean study the history of what I am saying before making your snap edits. In case it still isn't clear let's look at the former Opposition Leaders who did not become Prime Minister who wasn't a Minister afterwards. Mark Latham 2003-05. Resigned from Parliament in January 2005 without having been a Minister. Simon Crean 2001-03. Time will tell whether he would be a Minister again. John Hewson 1990-94. Resigned from Parliament in 1995 without having been a Minister. Andrew Peacock 1983-85, 1989-90. Would probably have become Foreign Minister in a Hewson Government but when that didn't happen resigned from Parliament in 1994.
Of course the list will go on with Snedden, Calwell, Evatt, Charlton and Tudor. --The Shadow Treasurer 29 June 2005 00:23 (UTC)
