More Than One Year Since Release of “Forsyth Review” – And Nothing’s Changed!
What we say is that unless you are a friend of aviation, and prepared to work in its interests in Parliament then we are going to put campaign money into defeating you at the next election. "We don't care who wins just that it won't be you."
You seem to have done well in your working life Sunny and you state that you have all sorts of connections in high places, why don't you run? The seat of McEwen is one of the most marginal in the country and you live either in it or near it.
To put that another way, if you are that passionate about reform, invest in yourself and do something good for the country.
Lookleft, I happen to agree with the major political parties: there is nothing more useless than an independent in the House of representatives.
What is a far more successful strategy, and considerably cheaper and easier is to make it electoral suicide not to support aviation regulation reform.
Sad but true, negative campaigns work at the grass roots level.
To put that another way; pilots have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the Government to dismember CASA by a "Look how great and good aviation is for Australia!" campaign. People are naturally cynical. They don't like airports, they regard aircraft owners as rich silvertails, they hate aircraft noise and they don't want little aircraft flying overhead and crashing into their houses. Those are the negatives and you have no chance of overcoming them with the average voter.
The beauty of the negative campaign is that we do NOT have to make our case, we merely have to add some petrol to the fire someone else always starts in marginal seats.
What is a far more successful strategy, and considerably cheaper and easier is to make it electoral suicide not to support aviation regulation reform.
Sad but true, negative campaigns work at the grass roots level.
To put that another way; pilots have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the Government to dismember CASA by a "Look how great and good aviation is for Australia!" campaign. People are naturally cynical. They don't like airports, they regard aircraft owners as rich silvertails, they hate aircraft noise and they don't want little aircraft flying overhead and crashing into their houses. Those are the negatives and you have no chance of overcoming them with the average voter.
The beauty of the negative campaign is that we do NOT have to make our case, we merely have to add some petrol to the fire someone else always starts in marginal seats.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engendering fear in the average air passenger of risk assessment and lack of safety management and oversight would be easy if only the evidence was not so unbelievable.
Even if it was believable to the average law abiding citizen the message would probably run the risk breaking some security law.
In the absence of a smoking hole a negative campaign on the back of a "whistleblower" exposing the rapidly deteriorating situation and mass public waste of taxpayer money seems the only likely fighting option.
The "Neville Chamberlain option" is simply dumb and I'm sure Lookleft knows that after seeing the results 25 years of "reforms".
Even if it was believable to the average law abiding citizen the message would probably run the risk breaking some security law.
In the absence of a smoking hole a negative campaign on the back of a "whistleblower" exposing the rapidly deteriorating situation and mass public waste of taxpayer money seems the only likely fighting option.
The "Neville Chamberlain option" is simply dumb and I'm sure Lookleft knows that after seeing the results 25 years of "reforms".
