Labor’s leadership selection process has concluded with a narrow win for Bill Shorten, whose decisive victory in the caucus vote was enough to outweigh rank-and-file support for Anthony Albanese. As foreshadowed in news reportage over the past two days, Shorten’s caucus support was in the fifties, at 55 votes against 31 for Albanese. The rank-and-file ballot attracted 18,230 votes for Albanese against 12,196 for Shorten. With each accounting for 50% of the total, the final score reads thus:
Caucus Branches Total Bill Shorten 63.95% 40.08% 52.02% Anthony Albanese 36.05% 59.92% 47.98%
One aspect of the process that I haven’t seen commented upon is that I would say that it establishes a public presumptive succession: if Shorten does fall under the bus in the near term then it has been demonstrated that Albo has a wide level of support. Obviously this is not definitive – Albo could fk up, or someone else could shine brilliantly, but ceteris paribus he is next in line. I would argue that this introduces a level of stability to the system on its wn.
[Probably for the first time in his life Abbott has displayed a bit of grace.]
What a wimp Abbott is. I would have sacked her before she offered resignation: guilt by association with the knifer Bull Shitten (absolutely last use of this terminology but at least it’s softer than the vitriol from Abbott haters). She HAS to go.
Abbott was extremely ungrateful in his release to the peasants about the GG.
What “Political Turbulence” did Quenty have to endure that was not created by Abbott?
5 homes burnt in Port Stephens
Pauline Hanson and Bruce Wilson if there’s a deity
DN
[ Because now we know for certain Caucus is out of step with the party. And we know by exactly how much.
And now caucus knows too. Previously, they either didn’t know, could deny it or claim it didn’t matter. They can’t do any of those things now.]
You could argue that it’s a good thing for that to be out in the open.
The next question is why is Caucus so out of step with the rank-and-file who preselect them.
rummell
I would have preferred Albo but them is the breaks.
Albo would have eaten Abbott
[Because now we know for certain Caucus is out of step with the party. And we know by exactly how much.]
So secrecy is better? How, why?
Hilary Clinton won a lot of states against Obama during their primary in 2008, but does that some how deligitimise Obama’s presidential wins?
[“I have thanked her for her magnanimity but declined to accept her resignation,”
What an excellent decision, high praise to Abbott.]
He is well aware that her term will expire before too long anyway. Also, there would only be a conflict of interest were Shorten Prime Minister advising the GG. The person showing grace is the GG.
DN
In Keating’s words, Labor Caucus are unrepresentative swill. 😉
Jackol
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 4:58 pm | Permalink
AA –
The longer it remains the longer he has the revenue to pay for the tax cuts that were compensation.
This is true, but it’s a fairly modest issue in the scheme of things.
———————————-
I don’t see $6.5 billion as a “fairly modest issue”.
That’s $6.5 billion of cuts to services to get rid of legislation that costs people the equivalent of a cup of coffee or middy of beer a week.
SO
I didn’t say either way was better. I merely pointed out the obvious downside of the process.
[The next question is why is Caucus so out of step with the rank-and-file who preselect them]
caucus evolve into the ruling elite once in power
SO
[Hilary Clinton won a lot of states against Obama during their primary in 2008, but does that some how deligitimise Obama’s presidential wins?]
I’m sure you are aware that sitting presidents have a very high success rate at getting a second term.
One of the reasons given is that they don’t have to go through divisive primaries.
[ I forgot the 60% rule. That makes it almost impossible for Albo to take over. ]
Nice.
Rudd’s rule will keep him out too.
Diogenes@43
We don’t know that accurately at all because a lot of members apparently chose not to vote. Why? Well, a large number would have been undecided or indifferent between the two candidates. So you could say either candidate was acceptable to them.
[SO
I didn’t say either way was better. I merely pointed out the obvious downside of the process.]
But that seems to be based on an assumption that the party membership is inherently more important than the parliamentary party, even though Labor MPs have been elected by the Australian electorate itself.
It is a good system 50 / 50. Winning just one isn’t good enough.
Dio
If there is a problem, the result does not clearly identify what it is. It could be caucus has to shift it’s direction but it could just as easily mean caucus has to work harder at incorporating members into party dialogue.
The discussion the other day about merit has us asking what constitutes merit. I don’t think there’s a clear answer.
Here’s a question, does a 100% member selected leader make sense?
Kinky
[caucus evolve into the ruling elite once in power]
So you are saying they started out as similar to the rank-and-file when they first became MPs but changed subsequent to that? I thought it might be how preselection works.
Anyone else think that Albo would make a good Whip?
[The next question is why is Caucus so out of step with the rank-and-file who preselect them.]
If you polled your colleagues and your patients would you expect them to have the same view of you?
DN
[Here’s a question, does a 100% member selected leader make sense?]
I think so. That’s basically what happens in the US.
lizzie@69
Too junior.
Leader of Opposition Business and a Senior Shadow Minister – Infrastructure?
[So you are saying they started out as similar to the rank-and-file when they first became MPs but changed subsequent to that? I thought it might be how preselection works.]
pretty much except they’ve been told they’re special or believe it.
Same as cops generally don’t start out corrupt its when they learn the culture
The 60%/75% for a spill is irrelevant.
Leaders aren’t brought down by spill petitions these days, they are brought down by bad polling.
That will still be true.
Yes, the unpopular leader will have to have the sanity to know the game is up when it’s up …
But it won’t change the dynamic to any real extent.
The 50% membership input into the leader, and having to ballot them at all, is a different matter, and I think it has already changed the ALP’s relationships with its leaders for the better.
Is Malcolm Turnbull still preferred over Tony Abbott? He was for some time after being deposed. The question is now a bit meaningless in a broader context but it may serve some as a useful comparison to the current situation in Labor ;).
I don’t think any of this matters, Albo has accepted the result and appears to be totally supportive of Shorten and the two look like they have enjoyed the campaign.
The real target should be Mr 1 vote
ru
[If you polled your colleagues and your patients would you expect them to have the same view of you?]
Most of the time they would but that is irrelevant anyway. MPs are chosen by the rank-and-file, and represent them.
My colleagues aren’t chosen by patients, and certainly don’t represent them.
dio @ 71, surely it depends on the role of the leader and the actual mechanics of their job?
[So you are saying they started out as similar to the rank-and-file when they first became MPs but changed subsequent to that? I thought it might be how preselection works.]
But a Parliamentary Labor MP isn’t JUST a labor functionary like a branch secretary.
They ALSO have the endorsement of a majority of electors in their electorate, so that’s at least 50,000 people.
lizzie:
Albo is too senior to be a Whip.
dave
I suppose he’ll stay with Infrastructure, but I don’t think he should keep NBN.
I am against the principle of political ‘certitudes’.
Just because, in the past, governments have generally been given two terms after an is no iron law of politics.
Such is the attention span of the electorate and the media kindly breaking all the hard stuff down into “White hats = good = cheer” and “Black hats = bad = boo” then Abbott will only need to keep the Black Hat on and his days are finished. So far he is wearing the Black Hat with distinction.
Let’s face it, PB can largely be of the same type of low level stuff, and for fun, many (me included) engage in it from time to time.
“You conservative = must be idiot”. Or “You leftie = stupid”.
The point being, there is not iron-clad law of politics which suggests Abbott will have any more than one term, or that he will have two or three.
The political cycle is now so short and shallow that getting one term is quite and achievement.
following 78 + 71, that would suppose that our PM is comparable to their President.
The Australian Dems had a 100% member selected leader.
It didn’t work out too well for them.
[They ALSO have the endorsement of a majority of electors in their electorate, so that’s at least 50,000 people.]
they need to be special to make a sale.
Then they think because they’re special they can deviate from the script
Jackol
It’s an irrelevant bad idea then, even worse than a simply bad idea ;).
[Most of the time they would but that is irrelevant anyway. MPs are chosen by the rank-and-file, and represent them.]
No, someone is an MP because they were elected to parliament by part of the Australian electorate, in the case of a Senator an entire state or territory.
Labor doesn’t, and shouldn’t simply base its policies on whatever the Labor party membership wants. The influence of the party membership should be just ONE factor that shapes Labor policy, it shouldn’t be the only factor considered.
special = better than the opposition
Jackol
[Yes, the unpopular leader will have to have the sanity to know the game is up when it’s up …]
History tells us some will never give up The Precious unless forced to. And force now means 60%.
lizzie
Deputy is a possibility also, Tanya is well suited to be Deputy as well.
Diog
You missed my point, different groups of people will have different opinions. So you take them and add them together.
A bit of a biography of Shorten.
[Shorten’s wider public profile began when he spent almost two weeks updating the media about the underground rescue effort at Beaconsfield. He gained respect from the miners, their families and mine management, though outside detractors sniped that he was showboating.
As a journalist who covered the Beaconsfield story from beginning to end and then wrote a book about it, this reporter believes the criticism was unfair. Shorten had flown initially from Canada when the miners were simply missing, believed dead, declaring the AWU stuck with its members when they were in trouble, and he undertook the unheralded work of keeping the missing miners’ families informed when they were getting no other information.
Shorten, in fact, has the gift of speaking the salty language of factory-floor workers and the smooth tones of captains of industry alike. He is a born networker and has a reputation for remembering names, whether they be union members from Adelaide or Ballarat or bosses from Sydney.]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/labors-shorten-experiment-the-tale-of-showbag-bill-20131013-2vfve.html#ixzz2haAjgyLd
ru
[You missed my point, different groups of people will have different opinions. So you take them and add them together.]
That’s true but I’m asking why Caucus is so different from party members.
Diogenes –
I’m not sure about not-so-recent-history, but in terms of the debacles of the last 6 years the leaders were deposed without a spill motion getting up.
Sure the very existence of the spill petition was used to apply pressure on the critical days, but the actual spills were called by the leaders under pressure.
Dio @ 93, I’m sure there is a mixture of good, bad and indifferent reasons ;).
lizzie
People who don’t know him underestimate him, he has got where he is by hard work and determination.
Notice the language at his presser today, inclusive.
Jackol
Do you think Gillard would have led Labor to the last election if they had the 75 or 60% rule back then?
[That’s true but I’m asking why Caucus is so different from party members.]
Because they are voting for a colleague to do a job, not a media presentation of who a person is.
At the very least, given the politicians are the ones in a position to network and make changes it means they need to work harder at their dialogue with the rank and file.
ruawake
I agree. I hope he does well.