Individual,

Malcolm Turnbull - described himself as a "crybaby"
he cried on so many occasions - visibly upset about
the Port Arthur Massacre. Malcolm Fraser fought back
tears after losing the 1983 election. Julie Bishop
talked about Tony Abbott crying after he got the chop.
Bob Hawke wept over his daughter's drug addiction,
and the list goes on.

So as mentioned earlier it is not unusual for Australian
Prime Ministers and politicians to cry both in and out
of office. Most normal people have come to accept
outbursts of emotion from our male political leaders as
displays of genuine human feeling.

Your trying to make this political - says more about you
than it does about them.

Foxy my regards, that post/reply to indy was needed
But in the end no level headed clear minded person would not see it as foolish
It, from my point of view, looks like Morrison is doing more than his whole party
Maybe for the best some truly uninformed folk on what is left of his front bench
Many abandoned the ship before he called the election
Will he remain leader after defeat? on form maybe not

Of all the others there was a moral & personal good reason to get emotional, Shorten did for strategic reasons !

Individual,

No. Shorten did not do it for strategic reasons.
You need to read other sources then The Daily
Telegraph - which according to the Essential Report
is the least trusted newspaper in Australia.

Scott Morrison and other politicians also disagree
with your and very biased Daily Telegraph's actions
and take.

This link may help clarify things for you:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/why-this-was-the-most-compelling-moment-of-this-election-campaign-20190508-p51l9i.html

Shorten is no cry baby he like me, like every true man, was upset at the awarful smear that used his mother
In the next week, and what is left of today smear will be used often
And that, in the end, is hugly funny
Informed voters, including a lifeboat full of front bench refugees know this is the end of a divided party
I highlight the link that started this thread and say if other links are unwanted why did this one get a run

Aidan, anyone can make claims like that. The piece is unbalanced - it doesn't have anyone defending the purchase - and it doesn't give examples, just makes generalised claims. That generally indicates the complaint lacks substance. Specifics indicate a case. Generalities indicate a smear.

You're always very keen to see faults in the Liberal government, and I think that blinds you to the truth. You also don't seem to be worried about proven corruption from organisations like the CFMMEU.

For balance here is a media release from the department http://www.agriculture.gov.au/about/media-centre/on-the-record/eastern-aus-ag-water-purchase.