I read a very bossy opinion piece the other day, telling us exactly how we should all think. It basically intimated that although Labor's environmental policies certainly aren't ideal, they're better than anything else on offer so everyone should just get on board.

I'm sure that's logical, but if the world was logical pigs (and humans) would fly because it's the faster way get around. So ignore logic.

No, the author made a category error. She assumed political parties exist to solve problems and implement policy. They don't. They exist so people can get themselves elected.

Take the UK. Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn are both self-centred, egotistical narcissists desperate for the keys to Number 10. The difference is Johnson had a sharp, simple message - "get Brexit done".

Corbyn promised another vote; better hospitals (slightly vague on the how); more jobs (details unclear); a redistribution of wealth (unspecified); and an exhaustive program for reform.

Are you really surprised which one cut through in an age of social media? Voters overwhelmingly backed a buffoon simply because they trusted him more more than a hemp-wearing ideologue.

Despite the overwhelming result there was no enthusiasm for Johnson. His vote barely increased; the real decision-makers were two and a half million former Labour voters who stayed home.

In the end an election always comes down to simple choices: what are the key issues and who do you trust?

Because of social media there's much more noise and detail, but that's why the key to political messaging is keeping it simple. The "brand" has to be pure and communication clear. Complicated messages simply confuse issues.

When voters walk into the ballot booths they don't weigh up the plethora of policy options on offer before deciding carefully which party they'll vote for. Instead they go with their gut feel. That's why packaging is so important.

Of course during this election the rumour mill hinting at a death tax was completely unfair for Labor, but that's beside the point. The idea resonated because it brought up the economy and taxes as an issue. That's why it worked.

Back in 2016 Labor's Mediscare campaign worked similarly because it made people think about health. Both picked up on deeper truths, reinforced them, and encouraged voters to listen to their concerns and fears instead of hopes and desires.

The capstone of victory is always trust.

Even if Labor had a worthwhile spending program, it wouldn't have mattered. Liberal Party advertising picked it apart with questions about where the money was coming from and going to.

Voters couldn't pick and choose, saying, "yes, we like those environmental policies but aren't too keen about dividend imputation changes", and Labor gave people reasons to walk away. Chris Bowen actually told people not to vote for the party. What was he thinking?

You can go to an election with a complicated message, but your brand must be pure and voters must trust those who will implement the policies. Voters decided they couldn't do that with Corbyn, just as they hadn't with Bill Shorten. It's as simple as that.

Labor's Treasury spokesman, Jim Chalmers, insists the UK election result demonstrates the left doesn't win by "preaching" and needs to find "practical" solutions, but that's simplistic.

Take climate change, one of those "big" issues.

In 2007 Kevin Rudd (correctly) preached that climate change was the one big, all-embracing, existential problem we had to face although he only had sketchy details about how to fix it. He was elected in a landslide.

Johnson's advocated Brexit with the same vigour and same lack of detail. He romped home. The difference is voters trusted them - well, until Rudd (and Penny Wong) failed dismally to accomplish anything.

That was the moment Labor forfeited its mandate and it's still paying the price today. Before the last election Labor adopted a two-faced position on the Adani coal mine and are still worried about the votes of coal miners. But the environment is not an issue where you can tread a middle-path. Either you understand science or you don't.

Any party that equivocates on the need to reduce emissions drastically (and not at some mythical point in the future) and is also bereft of a coherent policy on water is, essentially, telling us these are secondary issues. They're not. Voters want commitment and will cope with hard policies, as long as they're persuaded for their need.

Social media has transformed politics by intensifying messages. Cobbling together a wish-washy, centrist position is no longer plausible or effective. It becomes an admission of weakness - suggesting politicians don't really believe in their platform - rather than a strength. Once, Labor could say, "hey, our policy's better than the government's but not as wild as the Greens. Vote for us, because we're hugging the middle-of-the-road!" Today it can't.

An existential issue can't be negotiated.

That's why Labor received a smaller proportion of votes at the last election than anytime since 1932 - it tried to be everything to everyone. In the UK it was Labour's worst showing since 1935 for the same reason. It wasn't a wholesale rejection of policies so much as as the packaging they came in: the people in charge and the priorities they identified as significant.

Elections are a time for clarity, not confusion. Voters want politicians to identify problems, priorities and a program to address them. Simply telling people how to vote isn't a solution.