caw-cuss....lest..we forget
if the libs..had the same vote..we would have pm..whatshisface*

but...its not my party..its theirs
can we now talk.,..of..the more important things?

things that really matter
things that need higher thought..than..mere opinion

we..all got that..only cause media can sell that[impotent][sport]
yet..it cant inform..us of the really important..cause money talks louder than words

especially..if its free lunch/travel money..for elites
media dont want revealed as the crime it is

my work related costs..arnt even tax deductible
let alone refundable..how do they..get to feather their nest..with our feathers?

bill is what we earned
the..bill..is what they must get
if they dont..bill is gone..and he dont got the nutts..[nor the guts]

The most puzzling aspect of Labor's insistence on ignoring its membership in this leadership election is that they have taken such a huge bet against themselves.

Logic would surely dictate that the "rank-and-file", as everyone seems to call them, are closer to the electorate (remember them? the ones who actually vote in elections?) than a bunch of self-serving inner circle jobsworths. Which will come back and bite them when those folk are once again asked to troop off to the ballot box.

I guess it's unsurprising what people will do for some temporary job security. Presumably they are banking on the fact that by the time they are themselves voted out by those people whose views they have ignored, their pensions will have stacked up to the point where they just don't care.

Political commentators are telling us
that the "government has already moved to paint
the new Labor leader as the choice of the
'facelless men in the factions'."

This is rather
odd coming from a party that elects its leaders
through its caucus - and as Gerard Henderson stated
on the "Insiders" on Sunday morning, "politicians
should elect their party leaders."

The Labor leadership was a very tight result.
63.95 per cent of Caucus voted for Bill Shorten and
40.08 percent of membership voted for Antony Albanese.

Thus giving a 52 percent of the combined vote to Bill Shorten.

Tony Abbott won his caucus leadership by only one vote.
Mr Abbott polled 42 and Mr Turnbull 41.

In Mr Abbott's case it would appear the caucus were not
overwhelmingly in favour of him. At least Mr Shorten
got 63.95 percent from his party caucus.

Labor ran a good and fair competition which showed that
both men were popular but Bill Shorten a little more with
the caucus which is what counts in the end since they
know and work directly with the candidates.

Gerard Henderson's comment appears to be a fair one:
"Politicians should elect their Party leaders,"
they're the ones that do know and work directly with the
men.

I think Labor have shot themselves in the foot to a degree in trying to be democratic and at the same time maintaining the factional influence in leadership through the parliamentary members.
I do like the system The Greems employ, where you cannot contest any election be it from the local council to federal parliament, regardless of who you are, or what position within the party you may hold, unless you are endorsed by the rank and file. There cannot be any of this parachuting of people into seats, or the so called 'captains pick' etc, and Labor and Liberal do it all the time. A perspective candidate, even if they are a sitting member, have to front the rank and file and be voted on. The membership are given the opportunity to refuse the persons nomination, even if they are the only candidate.
The parliamentary leadership is then the responsibility of the parliamentary membership. I also prefer to see the person responsible for a particular area of policy doing the talking on that policy more so than the leader, not standing in the background nodding their head in agreement.

Foxy, "40.08 percent of membership voted for Antony Albanese"

How do you get that? See here,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-13/bill-shorten-elected-labor-leader/5019116

The overall weighted result (not vote which is a different thing) and despite the strong structural gerrymander to favour the Caucus, there was still only a small margin in it:

Shorten, 52.02 weighted points, not actual votes
Albanese, 47.98 weighted points, not actual votes

From the start it was rigged in favour of Caucus, so why not just admit that instead of pretending that votes carried the result?

You can spin until you puke, but what happened is that the Caucus elected the leader.

How he was voted in is totally immaterial, as is how Abbott was voted in.

It is what & how he does now that will either lose or gain votes.

He is obviously not very politically dexterous, or he would have avoided answering the global warming/carbon tax question. He has shown that he will probably bumble along, appealing to the Paul's, Killarney's & Poirot's, but actually getting no closer to reality than the last two.

Pity, it would be nice to have an alternative, & I hope I'm wrong.

If you look at how they have started, Abbott is the one who is likely to be still in the same job 9 years from now.