Okay, I get that Rudd challenged Gillard for party leadership, and thus, for Prime Minister. But, Rudd got crushed in his bid by a party vote of 71-31. And, that, I don’t get.
Why would he challenge if he didn’t have near the votes necessary to win?
I’m aware that the polling of the populous seems to prefer Rudd, but that’s not where it counts. The general elections in Australia are to be held next year. An interesting tidbit….
A respected opinion poll published on Monday showed most respondents thought Rudd would make a better prime minister than would opposition leader Tony Abbott. Rudd’s support stood at 53 percent, 34 percent chose Abbott and 13 percent were undecided.
Respondents were more evenly balanced on a choice between Gillard and Abbott, with Abbott leading 38 percent to 36.
The poll also found Labor trailed Abbott’s conservative coalition 47 percent to 53.
Read more: here.
Why does any of this matter? Well, typically, I wouldn’t care what they do in Australia. But, we shouldn’t be naive about both nation’s climate collaborations. Their climate offices and the U.S.’ work in tandem. As do many of the other organizations around the globe. Now, I’m not entirely sure of Abbott’s stance on carbonphobia, but I’d think they’d be less inclined to do goofy economical self-injury and regard the climate as less importance then the Labor or Green party. So, I’m supportive of any group that wishes to thwart this global totalitarian effort.