“Labor, a party divided”?
Rudd, Gillard - 31 to 71
Turnbull, Abbott - 41 to 42
So true. Channel 9, The Opposition, etc, are all running around like “almost one third of the caucus preferred another leader!!!”…When half of the Liberal Party preferred another leader to Tony Abott.
Just going to leave this here.
shut the fuck up you retards let me tell you why you are wrong
1) December 2009 count vs February 2012. That is more than two years’ difference
2) Do you know how much the partyroom has changed since then? How many people have retired? Lost their seats? How many people have gained their seats at the 2010 election, as part of Tony Abbott’s campaign?
3) None of you are Liberals and none of you know the first thing about how the party works
4) You can’t compare your fucking numbers why are you guys so dumb I don’t understand
5) Stop being idiots
6) They were in opposition, Labor are in government, you honestly can’t tell the difference between party squabbles in government and party squabbles in opposition?
7) Really? REALLY?
I remember a time Squishie was less mean. :(
I should note however that what you’ve said is important. If the coalition held a similar vote today, Tony would probably have improved results, much the same as Julia would have had today if she had results from 2010 to compare it to.
The difference being, and perhaps the one being pointed out here - is that you can’t judge the ineffectiveness of a party based on their leadership elections. I don’t see caucus votes as being liking one candidate and hating the other, I see it as preferential, and so I see it that the Labor party would be able to easily get behind Julia in 2010, and again today, regardless of disagreements from the past few days.
The same chance existed for Tony, and we cannot criticise the Prime Minister when her caucus numbers show wide support and when he was given such a wide berth to move without a haunting by Malcolm Turnbull in the media and was allowed to do his duty.
(Source: the-flash-beagle)
