Quote:
You have to credit the tactics of the No campaign, in how swiftly they switch their main point of attack against the Treaty, from topic to topic.
If you notice it has moved from abortion, to tax, to the ag veto, to commissioners etc, and while the Yes campaign try to put out one fire, the NOs light another in a different direction. This means that the YES have to literally spend all their time on defence, putting out fires, rather than being able to take to the offence, and sell the benefits of a yes vote.
The YES rail against this, but what counter measures have they deployed? Where are televised party political broadcasts, selling (uninterrupted) the benefits?
For example, on the issue of not understanding the treaty, as has been mentioned by others, we don't insist on understanding all aspects of the working of the internal combustion engine, for us to get in our car and trust it to take us to our destination, and yet it is now said to be the biggest reason for the majority of voters to vote NO.
The NO tactics being used, were first espoused as a military tactic in "the Art of War". If you light fires all over the place or do as a Guerilla movement would do which is to strike and move, the other side cannot pin you down. The population will then think the enemy is more numerous than it is, and the fear will grow as they "see" more and more fires.
Ranged on one side you have all the major political parties, all the major employers groups, the Unions, the Unis, overseas company's with plants here, farmers, and even the Church. What one would think should ostensibly be a walkover for the YES, and yet it is not. I would suggest the reason for this is superior tactics.
