After the Liberal party tried a bold strategy, in 1993 with Fightback, they then changed their strategy to what Howard used to get into power. He offered very little specifics and basically made people as comfortable as possible about a change.
People do dislike change, I think this is often how dictators first get their way into absolute power. They offer stability and then screw the system until it represents absolute power in an individual.
In reality it should be the system (not the person) that offers the stability through a constitution. Instead people like a human face on the system and give leaders way too long in power. Menzies, Hawke, Howard all way longer than would be rational, about 8 years is when a government exhausts itself.
Part of the reason I like term limiting all over the place, it reaffirms the system and makes it less reliant on humans and individuals. That being said, electoral change in Australia seems to only come with \"drovers dog\" elections, where anyone running against could win.
I think that is why the Australia political system is a \"waitocracy\", hang around long enough and you will evnetually get a chance when a drovers dog election pops up. That is how Howard got in, he kept challenging and challenging as leader of the Liberal Party when he finally got his drovers dog election with Keating.
Latham did the opposite, he came out trying to show how visionary he was and what a bold leader he was.
I an attracted by political vision, but I am obviously in a minority. The Liberal Party when in power has been a \"sheeps back\" party, not doing much in the way of change. Consequently we have this history of Labor being Whitlamic? Hawkeish? Keatingesque? almost radical in part to cram in much needed and put off reform.
btw am in Germany at the moment, the German keyboard is a bit different. Lovely country, am enjoying it greatly.
cam
Comments