In essence, he looked electable. None of the other contenders did and to be honest, they still don’t. We’re most likely going to end up with Tony Abott, Joe Hockey, or Kevin Andrews as leader of the party and of the Opposition out of this. It’s quite hard to see any of them winning the next election.
Conservative members of the party were, to an extent, willing to support Turnbull on the grounds, they’d rather have him as Prime Minister at the end of 2010 than Labor going into a second term. The lesser of two evils. At this point, it’s become pretty clear that Turnbull can’t win. So why not give a genuine conservative a chance.
Australia has compulsory voting - everybody has to vote. So capturing the ‘centre’ is important to winning. Turnbull has become so focused on that, he’s lost the base.
What it comes down to - I’d probably vote for Rudd over Turnbull - because I’d rather have a Prime Minister who stands for something (even if I disagree with it) than one who doesn’t stand for anything except winning.
I’d vote for the Nats (agrarian socialists though they inclined to be at times) before voting for the Libs under Turnbull or Hockey.
If I was unable to go Nat or a conservative independent, which likely since I live in Canberra (for my American brethren, Canberra is like Washington DC in that they are both the purpose built national capital and that they vote heavily to the left), then I will be forced to write ‘None of the Above’ on the House of Reps ballot and drop it in the box.
“Australia has compulsory voting - everybody has to vote.”
what is the penalty?
“I’d probably vote for Rudd over Turnbull - because I’d rather have a Prime Minister who stands for something (even if I disagree with it) than one who doesn’t stand for anything except winning.”
It’s worse than I thought. I’m assuming that Turnbull couldn’t pour water out of a shoe with instructions written on the heel?