SA Footy

Seen as we have a Abbott watch, lets have a opposition watch

What a laughing stock snakey is hey

He's been pretty unassuming so far. Probably just letting the PM dig his own grave.

he is a goose!

But I am sure he is safe as snakey was the instigator of the knifing under Rudd and Julia so....

Bully wrote:Seen as we have a Abbott watch, lets have a opposition watch

Mate
You are struggling but I like it.

shoe boy wrote:

Bully wrote:Seen as we have a Abbott watch, lets have a opposition watch

Mate
You are struggling but I like it.

I am ?

The goose is on Sky News at the moment talking out of his arse . Blaming the previous governments failures on the current, as usual

LOL. The goose says he believes in "people" and what they can and cant do and he stands by "people".

Opps, I stabbed both my leaders in the back which brought down the debacle of the labor party and I believe in "people" in what they can and cant do

Too much sugar or was it losing the ashes?

calling people goose and snake in the grass instead of talking about policy just makes you seem like an uninformed dickhead.

carry on then.

yeah............

no one else calls tony abbott a goose either

champ

Bully wrote:yeah............

no one else calls tony abbott a goose either

champ

Yep, because if someone says something silly that means you get to.


Ok, on topic. Personally I thought that shorten would be a good leader, but he seems to have gone back into his shell a bit - it seems like Tony Burke has been the most impressive so far.

Anthony Albanese should be their leader

Bully wrote:Anthony Albanese should be their leader

Yes, and the ALP general members wanted him.
But the faceless men still have more voting power than the members in the allegedly now more democratic ALP.

how are they faceless men. it was members of parliament and labor members that voted for him, and each of them was weighted 50%

how is that not clear?

bennymacca wrote:how are they faceless men. it was members of parliament and labor members that voted for him, and each of them was weighted 50%
how is that not clear?

The reports at the time said union delegates influencing the caucus and not just elected MPs (with public faces) supported Shorten heavily and swung the result when Albanese was previously well in front on the general membership vote. The caucus numbers make them a much smaller group than the general membership, so individual caucus votes were weighted as much more valuable and important than those of the members - no "one vote one value" there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Shorten

Shorten subsequently gained 63.9% of the party caucus vote and 40.8% of the rank-and-file members' vote, weighted equally to give Shorten a 52.02% victory over Albanese.[24][25]

History lies because people remember what makes them feel good about their loyalties.

See my comment about he distortion of history re Ned Kelly and Robin Hood here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39218

im not quite sure what your point is - the caucus IS the people of the parliament.

bennymacca wrote:im not quite sure what your point is - the caucus IS the people of the parliament.

My point is that the much smaller numbers of the Caucus had the same voting power as the much larger membership, and that the members of the Caucus are traditionally heavily influenced but their Union and factional alliances. These people influencing them (because they put them into the Parliament and can withdraw their support next time candidates are selected) are unelected but have enormous power. These are the "faceless men".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALP_Caucus

Factional allegiances in the Caucus tend to be closely related to state political loyalties, and also to trade union affiliations. Large unions such as the Australian Workers' Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, regard as "theirs" Members and Senators who formerly held office in those unions, or who have received union support in gaining their preselections, and expect them to act in the union's interests.

You know there are factions in the libs too right? Just that labor try to formalise them?

Not saying having factions is a good thing, just making the point

bennymacca wrote:You know there are factions in the libs too right? Just that labor try to formalise them?
Not saying having factions is a good thing, just making the point

True, but in the Liberal party only the membership in the seat elects the candidate for the seat.
They can be nominated by factions or pressure groups, but they still have to satisfy the local membership that they are the best candidate.

Thus, a favourite of a faction or union (or business organisation) cannot be imposed on a seat, and so cannot be told he will be replaced if he doesn't toe the faction line. That does also make it more difficult to get rid of an embarrassing candidate - because only the local members have the say and if they like him he gets to stay, even if the factional heads don't like it. The ALP's formalisation of the factions gives more real power to them and the unions and other pressure groups behind them.

However, electing the party leader is, in the Liberal Party, purely a matter for the elected members of Parliament and the general membership do not vote on this.

Personally, I think it is a better structure because no faction or pressure group can guarantee their man a seat, or threaten to pull the plug on him it he doesn't toe the line of his supporters and votes by his conscience. This makes it reasonable the elected members choose their own leader as they are under less external to Parliament pressure.