http://news.smh.com.au/insipid-swan-trying-too-hard-latham/20080320-20oz.html

When federal parliament rises for a seven-week break on Thursday Wayne Swan will be the most relieved politician in Canberra, former Labor leader Mark Latham says.

He has had an unsteady start as treasurer, Mr Latham wrote in The Australian Financial Review, and other than the odd flourish, his performance has been "insipid".

"Three years ago he couldn't pull himself together to make a 15-minute speech criticising Peter Costello's 10th budget," Mr Latham said.

"Now the opposition is targeting him in question time as the most vulnerable member of the new government."

Mr Latham said parliamentary performances for a treasurer were "critical", as business investors and consumers must have confidence in the government's economic management.

"As Costello and Paul Keating showed, bravado is an important part of the job description."

He said Mr Swan's body language in the house was too cramped and his delivery too rapid.

But Mr Latham said away from the House Mr Swan was a different person - more confident and capable.

But "treasurers overwhelmingly are judged by their peers on their parliamentary presence."

Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard was the government's best performer and has long regarded Mr Swan as out of his depth in the house, he said.

"If in the lead-up to the next election (the prime minister) decides to cut his losses with Swan and reshuffle his ministry, Gillard ... will have first call on the Treasury.

"She will not hesitate to take it."

The House resumes on May 13 for the Labor government's first budget.

The use of "Costello" and "bravado" in the same sentence make me laugh.  If he had any "bravado", he might have even had a stint at PM by now.

I don't think there will be any great rush to mount a challenge to Kevvy. They had a long string of bad leaders, then Kevvy reversed all of their fortunes. They will cling to him, even if he ends up as little more than a poster child.

deepthought wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 5:19pm:


How do you think julia will go DT..? objectively speaking [if thats possible]..

How do you know Kevin is despised..and why is that so?

Who is Alan Ramsay..is he anti Labor?

As for Swan..I do remember that particular incident..he  [ Rudd]was pressured by Howard and Costello on who his line up would be..Rudd DID panic and yes he announced , I believe against his own better judgement, that Swan woulf be treasurer..Media had been showing Swan up as a bit of a dud treasurer and Rudd caved because he didnt want to lose face.

I felt then[prior to the election] that Swan was not right for the job..not because he couldnt do the sums ..but because publicly he is a non performer. He performs badly in Parliament and doesnt really inspire confidence in his ability to do the job. The  the budget might reveal more.

This:

Quote:



.............is news to me.


Where is your evidence, DT?

and yet he is now pm and the benefactor of millions of ordinary australians by simply abloshing workchoice legislation.  how do you explain that away?

The treasurer is taking a strong interest in the health of your prostrate. Let's hope he doesn't team up with Brendan "I'm a doctor" Nelson for a getting to know you tour:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s796549.htm

KERRY O'BRIEN: There's a fascinating row brewing within the medical fraternity over one cancer specialist who doesn't want to know whether he's got a particular cancer or not.

It's particularly intense because the specialist is also President of the Cancer Council.

Prostate cancer kills more than 2,000 Australian men each year, and almost half of all men over 60 may develop some form of the cancer.

But often it grows so slowly that men can lead normal lives without damage to their health. And that's why Professor Alan Coates doesn't want to undergo a blood test that might identify the cancer in him.

He says it isn't accurate and leads many otherwise healthy men to undergo radical treatment with possible serious side-effects.

His critics want him to resign, as Sophie Scott reports.

WAYNE SWAN, OPPOSITION FAMILY & COMMUNITY SERVICES SPOKESMAN: I just felt a little run-down so I went to the doctor and I had a physical examination and I had a PSA test, and when the results of the PSA came back, it was through the roof.

SOPHIE SCOTT: After undergoing a simple blood test two years ago, Wayne Swan was diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer.

WAYNE SWAN: I was aware of the medical evidence that if I didn't take some radical action, then the best outlook that I could have would be another 10 years. I wouldn't see my kids grow up and I was quite prepared therefore to have the radical prostectomy.

SOPHIE SCOTT: Now in full remission, the Labor frontbencher is a passionate advocate for prostate cancer screening.

WAYNE SWAN: I believe that screening did save my life. My father had died an extremely painful death from prostate cancer. I think it is absolutely critical that men who are particularly at risk, if there's a history in their family, that they should be tested. I guess the point is that early detection is the best protection.

PROFESSOR ALAN COATES, CANCER COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA: I decided that personally I will not be tested and I've held that decision for over 10 years, and I believe for me that's the right decision.

SOPHIE SCOTT: As head of Australia's peak cancer organisation, you'd expect Professor Alan Coates to be lining up to take the prostate cancer screening test. But he's reignited a passionate debate within the medical profession about the value of such tests.

PROFESSOR ALAN COATES: If there was a really good effective screening test, then we mightn't be having this discussion because it would be like it is for women with breast cancer or for people with bowel cancer. We know those screening modalities work. We know they save lives. We just don't know that for screening for prostate cancer.

DR PAUL COZZI, UROLOGIST: I don't believe it's appropriate for Professor Coates to give a personal opinion in this media under the auspices of the Cancer Council of Australia. I believe it's up to the individual patient to discuss with the GP the pros and cons of PSA testing prior to proceeding with testing.

PROFESSOR ALAN COATES: It may not be the right decision for other men and I don't advocate it to other men, but I do use it to illustrate that choice means just that: you could choose one thing or the other.

SOPHIE SCOTT: The blood test measures a substance produced by the gland called prostate specific antigen, high levels of PSA indicate there's a problem with the prostate but not necessarily the presence of cancer.

Professor Coates argues that a positive test can lead to otherwise healthy men being treated as cancer patients.

PROFESSOR ALAN COATES: If treatment was harmless, that wouldn't matter. But treatment does have some real side-effects. We don't know exactly how often because numbers vary about that. But impotence and incontinence are unpleasant side-effects. If I knew that there was a benefit to put against those, then I might be prepared to take those risks.

WAYNE SWAN: I'm absolutely appalled by what he has said. This man is the head of the peak cancer organisation in this country. People would regard him as being highly educated and highly knowledgeable. I believe that the statements that he has made run against the weight of medical opinion.

SOPHIE SCOTT: But unlike Wayne Swan, not all prostate cancer patients want or need radical surgery.

PETER BROWNIE: I go to my specialist once every six months and if I'm worried, more frequently, but I haven't needed to do that. SOPHIE SCOTT: Five years ago, Peter Brownie was diagnosed with the disease after a PSA test and a biopsy. But he decided to take a watch and wait approach.

PETER BROWNIE: I'm not very brave so I wouldn't like to go and have that invasive surgery, but I'm not being pig-headed and so on. If I had to do it, I'd do it. But I probably am going to die of heart attack or stroke rather than prostate cancer.