Ok, so my thoughts on the Voice. Agree that the Yes campaign has been terrible but I think I disagree on what they’re doing wrong and what they should be doing.
- I agree a ‘No’ is not the end of reconciliation or improving lives of First Australians. But I think it sets back the constitutional processes 20+ years. If this loses there’ll be no revisiting constitutional recognition, a constitutional voice or certainly no Treaty for a generation. The ‘No’ campaign knows this which is why they fight so hard against this largely symbolic change.
- Which leads to my next point. I don’t think the Voice is that important practically. It’s great symbolically and can make changes on the edges but it’s just a small step. I think ‘Yes’ is right to highlight that it’s a small, non-radical change that won’t impact our system of government. Any more will scare voters off too much. There are many people who support improving lives of First Australians plus symbolic changes as long as it doesn’t ‘cost’ anything - it’s these people you need in a referendum.
- so how do you win them over and what has Yes done wrong? Well, Yes has sat on their arse assuming logic would win out and let No just dominate the narrative and sway the ‘vibe’ voters who are the bulk of swing voters in any election - and once that vibe is set it’s hard to sway. A lot of preaching to the choir too. It’s important to provide information for those who care to seek it out, but that’s not most people and is not what sways most people. And, yeah, many Yes voices are condescending twats who turn swing voters off.
- what should/should’ve yes do? I actually think the Farnham ad is the right thing but should have been harder and earlier - make the Voice about a spirit rather than a practical thing, and leverage all the institutional support you get from things like AFL, corporations etc who are all 100% behind it but have done nothing to help. Have a few people demolish the No case but mostly just drown it out.
- can Yes win? I doubt it and they’ve left it way too late but they need to bloody try. And they need to recognise the people they need to convince - those who aren’t really connected to politics, who don’t think indigenous Australians should get handouts or more than ‘regular’ Aussies, but would consider themselves someone who does the ‘right thing’.
One other point, I actually think pushing for constitutional recognition was a bad move. It could have been legislated and, once shown it didn’t cause the sky to fall, could look to entrench constitutionally. But I understand that couldn’t go down that path after the Uluṟu statement.
Ok, so my thoughts on the Voice. Agree that the Yes campaign has been terrible but I think I disagree on what they’re doing wrong and what they should be doing.
- I agree a ‘No’ is not the end of reconciliation or improving lives of First Australians. But I think it sets back the constitutional processes 20+ years. If this loses there’ll be no revisiting constitutional recognition, a constitutional voice or certainly no Treaty for a generation. The ‘No’ campaign knows this which is why they fight so hard against this largely symbolic change.
- Which leads to my next point. I don’t think the Voice is that important practically. It’s great symbolically and can make changes on the edges but it’s just a small step. I think ‘Yes’ is right to highlight that it’s a small, non-radical change that won’t impact our system of government. Any more will scare voters off too much. There are many people who support improving lives of First Australians plus symbolic changes as long as it doesn’t ‘cost’ anything - it’s these people you need in a referendum.
- so how do you win them over and what has Yes done wrong? Well, Yes has sat on their arse assuming logic would win out and let No just dominate the narrative and sway the ‘vibe’ voters who are the bulk of swing voters in any election - and once that vibe is set it’s hard to sway. A lot of preaching to the choir too. It’s important to provide information for those who care to seek it out, but that’s not most people and is not what sways most people. And, yeah, many Yes voices are condescending twats who turn swing voters off.
- what should/should’ve yes do? I actually think the Farnham ad is the right thing but should have been harder and earlier - make the Voice about a spirit rather than a practical thing, and leverage all the institutional support you get from things like AFL, corporations etc who are all 100% behind it but have done nothing to help. Have a few people demolish the No case but mostly just drown it out.
- can Yes win? I doubt it and they’ve left it way too late but they need to bloody try. And they need to recognise the people they need to convince - those who aren’t really connected to politics, who don’t think indigenous Australians should get handouts or more than ‘regular’ Aussies, but would consider themselves someone who does the ‘right thing’.
One other point, I actually think pushing for constitutional recognition was a bad move. It could have been legislated and, once shown it didn’t cause the sky to fall, could look to entrench constitutionally. But I understand that couldn’t go down that path after the Uluṟu statement.