SH> i've noticed you repeating time and time again that you THINK the
SH> voters rejected fightback.

Nope, I have been saying that I KNOW the voters rejected fightback Sam.

Everyone politician wise had decided that labor was going to get the boot.
Boy did they get a hell of a surprise when they did not. The REASON was
that the voters thought that fightback stank. They didnt like the general
ideologue tone, they were largely sure they were going to get screwed,
the public always assumes that when a new tax is proposed that even if
the politicians claim it will be revenue neutral, they are quite sure it
wont be and that they will get screwed. The other problem fightback had
was that it was such a comprehensive manifesto of change to almost
everything that almost none of the voters could hope to grasp the full
sweep of what was being proposed, and as a result they just decided it
was far too complicated to understand and just werent game to take the
risk. Almost no politicians even understood it, or even the full detail
of even just the GST bit. Utterly hopeless trying to sell something as
complex as that to the voters, most of whom are sure its just going to
screw them personally.

SH> That's far too simplistic.

Nope, no other valid explanation for why they lost the unlosable
election. Particularly when you compare it with the Kennett
approach, a simple message, big sweeping changes, but not drowning
the voters in detail. The voters could grasp that, and voted for it.

In many ways fightback was just an extremely gross example of the
classic argument that has been around for a very very long time,
almost no one will read a very complex report/manifesto. And thats
true of even business leaders. So why would voters, most of whom
had left school many years earlier, be going to do it. Utterly mad,
and as Fraser pointed out, utterly politically naive.

SH> what they rejected was a boring non entity leading a party
SH> of boring non entities

Thats crap Sam. Fightback mostly scared people. It didnt bore them.
The Aust electorate tends not to go for the hardline positions, they
tend to think its too dangerous. Which is also why the communists
never stood a chance and why they were irrelevant, we just go for
that sort of radical ideologue stuff OTW.

In fact that was the biggest problem the coalition had. The right
wing of federal labor isnt that different to their own policys on
the major stuff of deregulation, privatisation, quite stringent
controls on say teenage unemployment benefits etc. So the coalition
had to be for more hardline and dry stuff again to be different,
and that isnt what the electorate wants OTW, they dont generally
vote for the extreme end of any political spectrum.

SH> who failed to realise they were required to explain simply
SH> and effectively to the lumpen prole electors what they would
SH> do and how it would benefit them.

I just dont believe thats actually possible. I dont even believe
thats actually possible on a GST alone, let alone the vast raft
of other stuff that was in fightback too. There is only ONE way
to get a GST up, bring it in, well before an election, so the
whole thing has time to settle down before they get a chance to
vote on it. By then they can generally see it working reasonably
well if you do a decent job of it and they usually wont vote it out.

THATs the way its been done in every single country thats introduced it.
NO ONE has EVER proposed a GST from opposition and got voted in to do it.

Its essentially unsellable, mainly coz most of the voters are damned
sure its just a plot to screw then and they will end up pay more tax.

SH> had there been a leader of the unparralled quality and
SH> ability of Reagan/Thatcher then they would have won.

Nope, no chance. Maggy couldnt even sell a GST from opposition.
And she came within an ace of getting the boot over her economic
policys, just had the good luck to have the Argys have a total
brain fart that it aint a terrific idea to kick even a moth eaten
old lion, it may well fang you. Lots of kids died to keep Maggy
in power, nothing to do with good salesmanship on economics.

Ronnie Raygun couldnt sell a GST from opposition either. In fact
he was a complete fraud on the economic front. Got elected on a
promise of drastically cutting the deficit, went on to blow out
the US deficit in a style that no one had ever done before. That
was just a complete fraud, not effectively selling a policy.

SH> the tax revolution behind fightback was/and still is essential

Yes, thats quite true. OTOH Hewson blew it big time. No one will be
game to do it now with the very graphic rude gesture the voters made
in the last federal election. He blew it, by being a political naif.

And then proceeded to keep flagrantly flouting what an utter political
naif he is ever since then until eventually they gave him the bums
rush right out the door. A couple of years too late too. That internal
pathetic shambles has done them untold electoral damage. The public
just wont wear that stuff, they quite right ask that if they cant even
run their party, what the hell hope have they of running a country ?

SH> the fact that the opposition lost the last election is
SH> PURELY AND SIMPLY the result of having dorks in charge

Yes, they were such political naifs that they just didnt even understand
that its totally impossible to sell a GST from opposition. And you only
make things far far worse when you have a massive manifesto of radical
change on almost every single policy issue too. Utterly hopeless, utterly
unsellable. You dont stand a chance. One of the all time classic political
footshots. Blew off the their entire lower extremitys. If they aint careful,
that little exercise could easily see them in the political wilderness
for a decade.

SH> so that by comparison PJK of all people looked attractive.

Sort of, but not the way you say it. It terrified the electorate,
they wouldnt have a bar of it. Even when the alternative was
comprehensively on the nose.

SH> FULL STOP, cut the mindless crap, the lumpen proles don't psooess
SH> the ability to analyse skwat.

Yes, which is why they just took one look at that massive collection
of policy change and decided it made their head hurt, so they werent
prepared to risk it. They made an obscene gesture in the direction
of the coalition, and they lost the unlosable election.

--- PQWK202