In a shocking turn of events that has surprised absolutely no one except perhaps the politicians themselves, a new official review has discovered something incredible. It turns out that Peter Dutton, the opposition leader in Australia, lost the last election because people found him 'arrogant and aggressive.' Who could have possibly guessed? It is almost as if behaving like a movie villain who wants to shut down the community center is not a winning strategy for getting people to like you.

The Labor party, who won the election in a landslide, conducted this review. You have to appreciate the irony here. They essentially spent time and resources to write a report that says, 'We won because the other guy was scary and mean.' It is a masterclass in stating the obvious. It is like paying a scientist to tell you that fire is hot or that rain is wet. But in the world of politics, nothing is real until it is written down in a boring document and handed to journalists on a Friday afternoon.

The review claims that Mr. Dutton used a 'Tony Abbott-style' playbook. for those who do not follow the thrilling saga of Australian political history, Tony Abbott was a former Prime Minister known for being a bit of a pugilist. He liked a fight. He liked saying 'no.' Apparently, Mr. Dutton looked at that history and thought, 'Yes, that is exactly what the people want right now. They want more shouting.' It is a fascinating look into the mind of a career politician. They live in a bubble so thick that they think aggression is a form of charm. They mistake loudness for leadership.

According to the findings, voters were 'alienated' by this approach. That is a polite way of saying people were tired of opening their newspapers or turning on their TVs to see a man who looked like he was about to give them a detention. The report says his policies were poorly designed and badly explained. This is the political equivalent of trying to sell a car with three wheels and screaming at the customer when they ask where the fourth one is. When you combine bad ideas with a bad attitude, you get what happened to the Coalition: a disaster.

On the other side, the review patted the winners on the back. It said Anthony Albanese won because he had a 'positive message.' Let us be cynical for a moment, shall we? In the theater of modern politics, 'positive' usually just means 'not the other guy.' When your opponent is running around acting like a bull in a china shop, all you have to do is stand still and smile. You do not need to be a genius; you just need to be the person who isn't yelling. The bar is so low in global politics right now that simply appearing calm is considered a revolutionary tactic.

The review also mentioned 'policy backflips.' This is when a politician says one thing on Monday and the complete opposite on Tuesday, pretending they never said the first thing. Voters find this confusing. Imagine that. People like to know what they are voting for. When a party changes its mind every time the wind blows, it looks desperate. It looks like they do not believe in anything other than winning. And voters, despite what politicians think, are not completely stupid. They can smell desperation. It smells like cheap cologne and panic.

What makes this whole situation so tragicomically funny is the reaction. The report was released while the opposition was already fighting amongst themselves about leadership. It is a perfect picture of a sinking ship where the crew is arguing about who gets to wear the captain's hat. They are so busy fighting each other that they forgot the ship is underwater.

So, what have we learned from this insightful review? We have learned that being arrogant is bad. We have learned that being aggressive pushes people away. We have learned that having a plan that makes sense is better than having a plan that is a mess. These are lessons most of us learn in kindergarten. We learn to share, we learn not to hit, and we learn to use our inside voices. It seems, however, that the people running our countries missed those days of school.

They need expensive reviews and crushing election defeats to understand basic human behavior. They view voters as mysterious creatures who are hard to understand, rather than normal people who just want a quiet life and a government that functions. Until politicians realize that we are not an audience to be conquered but people to be served, they will keep reading these reports, scratching their heads, and wondering why nobody likes them. But don't worry. They won't actually change. They will just hire a new consultant to tell them how to be 'authentically' aggressive next time.