<< The problem is more fundamental than that. >>

I agree Jardine that the problem with Labor and indeed with our whole political makeup is much more fundamental than which leader Labor may choose.

But I reckon Thomson would not be afraid to tackle this sort of thing head-on, whereas Shortarse, Albanese, etc would remain embedded in the current system and mindset, and consequently remain absolutely beholden to big business and continuous rapid growthism.

One of Thomson’s fundamental desires is to make Labor much more tuned into the people and less influenced by the big end of town. He reckons that if this can be achieved, we would be well on the way to achieving a sustainable future.

So it is not a matter of the leader being irrelevant until the basic problems are fixed up, it is a matter of them installing a leader who will move in this direction.

Again, there is an absolute world of difference here between Thomson and the three others whose names are being bandied around as leader and deputy.

We'll know in a few days time the make-up of both parties.
I would like to see new ideas, new unities emerge. I would
like genuine conversation about policy free of the backroom
manipulation that normally accompanies the development of
platforms. I would like to have Labor get closer to its
base and map out a strategy of opposition that shifts the
public dialogue in favour of politics for the common good
instead of the politics of envy, greed and selfishness
so effortlessly mastered by some politicians.

I stated earlier that I don't know enough about Kelvin Thomson.
But whoever is appointed as the leadership team of Labor -
my fingers will be crossed that new ideas, and new unities
will emerge resulting in better outcomes.

We tend to focus far too much on the flim-flam
possibly because things have been dour and lifeless.
Let us trust that in the future we shan't be deprived of
serious analysis and scrutiny. That there will be lots of
good stuff out there and that we shall have forensic
interviews. Perhaps then we shall all do better as a result.

Labor would benefit greatly from having someone like Kelvin Thomson as leader or deputy. Yabby, Kelvin Thomson is my local Member and I have seen up close his deep understanding of Australian biodiversity and farming systems. His family has farming background in Western District of Victoria and he able to speak sensibly on agriculture (see his speech during recent Federal election campaign on food and agriculture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpYi6zwXnz4). I heard that one of Kelvin Thomson's uncles owned farms that adjoined Malcolm Fraser's Nareen property and set up his own branch of Labor Party. Kelvin Thomson is in touch with what most Australians want and that is an end to the cruel Live Trade Export Industry, a sustainable population policy and proper planning to end urban congestion and loss of green wedges, conservation of our unique and threatened biodiversity, real action on climate change etc. Kelvin Thomson has also made his views known on plans to sell off our agricultural land to overseas owners see http://kelvinthomson.blogspot.com.au/

Alexander, most Australians are city based and live in Eastern Australia. The live trade is all about WA and NT, its a complicated debate and most Australians are not against it, as they are unable to pass an informed comment about it. Living in Melbourne or Sydney and owning a poodle or similar, does not qualify people to pass judgement about the live trade. That is the job of qualified livestock experts. Just because some people have been sucked in by propaganda on animal liberation websites, does not make what they read as objective, up to date or correct. Having relatives who own farms, does not make people experts about farming and farming in Victoria is quite different to farming in WA or the NT.

Yabby, I did my PhD dealing farming systems in southern Australia and Agriculture in south-western and south-eastern Australia has similarities and similar challenges like frequent drought, dryland salinity etc. OK farming systems in Victoria and NT (and NW Australia) are quite different. People with an interest in animal welfare, including many farmers, are just horrified by the poorly regulated live trade industry. Have you ever been in Fremantle or anywhere else and seen a live trade vessel being loaded?

I find the knowledge that large tracts of Australia
can be sold to foreigners deeply disturbing and
regardless of whether the buyers are from Indonesia,
China, or elsewhere, such enormous areas of country
must remain in Australian hands for future generations.
As one reader asked in Saturday's The Age, Sept. 14th, 2013,
"What's wrong with a clearly defined long-term lease that
includes immediate annulment should land, water, or animal
mismanagement occur?"

Once the land has been sold, they can do what they want.

BTW: - Not all opinions need to be brushed aside as
being made by city-dwelling "poodle owners."

Some of us
actually happen to come from farming backgrounds,
and also happen to have in-laws that still own and farm
cattle properties.

Indonesia won't lift a finger to stop the boats yet we'll
apparently willing to let them buy our cattle farms and
give them millions of dollars in aid.
No wonder they don't take us seriously.