Albanese won the popular vote with an enviable 60%.
Shorten got the job.
How does that work again?
And my feeling is some of those on the Left went with Shorten in the Caucus vote so Plibersek would be the Deputy.
Conroy is still there. Yuck! Factions rule.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cartoons/gallery-e6frg6zx-1111119669474?page=1

It's probably symbolic of the ALP predicament that Albanese didn't win the vote. Albanese came up through the branches, in fact he was delegate to Young Labor in the the electorate he now represents. He obviously has good people skills and is well liked, and that is why he won the popular vote.

In comparison, Shorten was chosen by the Labor elite but rejected by the masses. Labor won't come out of the wilderness until they elect an Albanese to the leadership.

I believe that Abanese was nobbled by the Machiavellian Bill 'WIV' Shorten perhaps via promises he may have made to advantage Caucus members if they voted for him.

Bill knows his way around the political circus (he's got two Prime-ministerial scalps hanging from his belt as proof) and he worked out that the Caucus was where the leadership election would be won. So Anthony did his best but he couldn't beat the system.

So Mr 40% beat Mr 60% and the factions still rule as do the internal hatreds (Roxon, etc).

The LABOR Party is still up the creek without a paddle!

So the ALP keeps talking to itself about itself. Perhaps, at some time in the future, the party will notice that it lost the last election. It might also notice that it did so because it has become a regressive rather than a prgressive party. How else to explain the gradual but constant transfer of wealth from the poor to the well to do as a result of the carbon tax and the myriad other 'green' schemes that accompany it.

It's the poor who are struggling to pay their energy bills while rich business people benefit from wind farm subsidies and carbon credits and the inner urban elite get cheap power because they can afford to put solar panels on their roofs. And all this from the party that went to the 2007 election expressing its concern for 'working families'.

Perhaps, someone in the ALP will look at the history of the corn laws in Britain and learn from it, though that seems unlikely given the nonsense that passes for History in the ALP's national curriculkum.

Senior Victorian; I get what you're saying about the ALP 'talking to itself about itself'; But only the other hand this is necessary in order to democratise the Party; and as a consequence reform the Platform and party policy. Once the PROCESS is invigorated in a way which empowers the party's mass base - then you can expect more egalitarian policies. But without process there is no policy.

re: the National Curriculum - My belief is that there is too much emphasis on academic excellence as 'the only thing that matters' - and not enough on life skills. That said, academic excellence is central. But people need to be endowed with a disposition towards civic participation if our democracy is to thrive. And in order to do so responsibly, it is also important to develop political literacy. That is: understanding of processes, ideologies, and their social basis... But this needs to be communicated without prejudice towards the Left or Right. Rather we need a curriculum which provides people with the information they need to make their own commitments - on the basis of developing a sense of their own interests; but also of their own values....

I believe Bill Shorten understands that the real aim of Labor is the treasury benches.
And getting there will require even more democratization of the Labor Party! No if buts or maybes, or fractional prevarication or obfuscation!
Labor needs to be far more inclusive and attractive to people outside the union movement or the usual working class rank and file.
The job is only just started with the election of the new leader.
If unions want more say, then let them and their membership join the labor party! And Labor needs to get to a point, where the rank and file, which includes every member of the caucus, gets an equal vote.
Had it been entirely down to the rank and file and TRUE democracy, we would have been saluting a different more politically popular leader today!
Bill is a better hustler, and performed very well, with more self evident passion! Hence the result?
Finally, all future leaders simply cannot be tested through the very fickle prism of often all too brief public popularity, but rather, the more knowlegable judgment of their pre-selecting peers?
Rhrosty.