I wonder if we will look back at the last century and reflect that we seemed to spend more time wondering about leadership struggles within political parties than about policies.
One particularly annoying argument is espoused by both sides of politics when it suits them when ever a party changes its leader. And that is, "The people did not have any say in this leadership change" & "They elected John Howard/Kevin Rudd/Mike Rann/ ...or who ever, and not some faceless party hack"
Now this is just manifestly wrong!
We do not elect leaders. All the major paries have (different) ways of deciding who will lead their party. And none of them involves any member of the non-party aligned electorate casting a vote to determine who the leader will be.
It is the majority party that forms government, or the one that the Viceroy decides will best be able to cobble together a workable majority. In the case of both major parties who ever ends up leading the Parliamentary party also becomes the Prime Minister or Premier. If the internal workings change leadership then the top job switches too.
It has nothing to do with you and me.
So while it has about it a degree of fascination. Let's not get distracted from the main game.