So with Albo it will be Roman Catholic Albo + plus Roman Catholic missus versus Roman Catholic Abbott plus Roman Catholic missus?

After the attention poor Tony Abbott has been getting for his Catholicism from the very upset anti-Christian 'Progressives' and equally anti-Christian atheists, he and Margie will be pleased to have Anthony Albanese and Carmel to share the spiteful tirade.

Bit of a grin for the rest of us who reckon that while we ourselves might not be church goers, we would still defend the right of all including politicians to their religious beliefs. It is called tolerance, although there is not much of it about among the serial whingers, particularly the religious atheists (well, that is how some behave).

Fun times ahead with plenty of buzzing apparent in the hive.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to discern what the Labor Party stands for any longer, except as a featherbedded home for superannuated union officials and party apparatchiks.

We now have the ridiculous situation where the "faceless backroom powerbrokers" have actually turned up in the front line. How on earth either of these two career politicians - the most pejorative term I can think of short of libel - can expect to engage with the general public is beyond me. And the thought of either of them representing Australia to the rest of the world is depressing.

Politicians never seem to learn. The UK Labour Party has provided a perfect example of how it can be achieved, sustained and then lost. Create a charismatic figurehead who speaks directly to the people (Blair), and you sail through consecutive elections. Put up a dyed-in-the-wool party faction-fighter (Brown), and you fall at the very next fence. Replace him with an even more inner-sanctum party factotum (Milliband) and you forfeit every gain you have made, and are back fighting the same tedious class-war games that bore people to tears.

Neither of these candidates deserves to lead a political party in Australia, since both prove beyond doubt that we have permanently dumbed-down our aspirations for inspirational leadership and genuine, issue-driven, debate.

p.s. I always thought that Blair was a charlatan and a narcissistic hypocrite, by he way. But he did win elections by connecting directly with the populace, rather than through the lens of this-or-that ideology-driven faction.

Pericles, a long-winded way of saying you like conservative politicians and you don't like Labor ones.

"Neither of these candidates deserves to lead a political party in Australia, since both prove beyond doubt that we have permanently dumbed-down our aspirations for inspirational leadership and genuine, issue-driven, debate."

If any party has tried to break through to debate policy and not slogans it is Labor. Abbott, Hockey et al aspired to power with a simple vision, to dismantling Labor's progress on every front, from disability insurance, super reform, NBN, education, climate, the list is long.

The "faceless men" slogan has run its course. Albanese and Shorten were a part of formulating the Labor vision and would make a good Leader, Deputy-leader team. But that cannot be so, and Plibersek has shown herself to a worthy 2IC. Of course, she will have to deal with being demonized should the next election look like a contest, but she'll handle that

I'm not sure where you pulled this from, Luciferase, although I do have a suspicion.

>>Pericles, a long-winded way of saying you like conservative politicians and you don't like Labor ones.<<

If this thread were about Liberal politicians, I would have offered an opinion on them. It isn't, so I didn't.

But you do highlight an interesting aspect of OLO comments in general. The assumption of so many one-eyed supporters of one political colour is that anyone who doesn't share their every party-related opinion, must automatically represent the most extreme opposite view. It spoils so many otherwise potentially profitable lines of enquiry, when bigots from both sides simply wade in with their shallow pet theories.

>>If any party has tried to break through to debate policy and not slogans it is Labor<<

Oh, come on. They are as bad as each other, a fact that you would recognize if you took off the eyepatch over your right eye.

>>The "faceless men" slogan has run its course.<<

Wishful thinking. Once again we have two backroom numbers-men fighting over the opportunity to represent their faction. Not the Labor party. Nor the populace at large. Show me how it has changed for the better.

>>Albanese and Shorten were a part of formulating the Labor vision<<

This might well be true.

But do they actually have a vision, apart from the desire to acquire more votes than their opponents? And how does it differ from what Rudd and Gillard offered us?

Graham, it looks as though Shorten nobbled the Caucus with promises of jobs for the boys and girls if he got the nod.

Of course, it would be hard to prove anything but votes gained in the Caucus were much higher in value than votes from the members, unfairly so.

Our Shorten is quick on the uptake when he needs to be! I guess you don't get rid of two Prime Ministers unless you are Machiavellian by nature.

You reap what you sow eventually! Ask Gillard!

It appears that Caucus was put off by the initials AA, but not BS.