As an ex Democrat member, I would like to see the Band get back together, but...
They'd need a major re branding... Perhaps to the point of changing the very name and effectively being a new party.
Or, keeping the name and living up to it.
Despite being a member for more than a decade, it was a little galling to have friends ask “what's up with the Democrats?” and have no more info than they did.
There was a brief movement to have a semi-public forum, where members could have discussions on policy past and future, but the Upper Echelons shut it down. And the big names in the party -with the exception of one, President Aron Paul- weren't interested in participating.
Too Democratic?
The proud Democrat claim that:
"there should be no hierarchical structure ... by which a carefully engineered elite could make decisions for the members"
Was neither apparent or real, in my experience.
I think a large proportion of Aussies would like to see a new alternative, as evidenced by the strong dissatisfaction expressed for all politicians at the moment. But that new player would have to offer some very real and very different alternatives to the existing players.
Trying to squeeze in between the majors when they are already rubbing shoulders didn't work, and still won't.

@ Grim

That other site was not a party operated site and wasn't a healthy place - aside from the fact that it created a competing brand and was a discussion place only for a little clique and which the vast majority of members were completely unaware of - most of the people on the site weren't financial members of the party, and most of what they discussed there was party bashing, not building and certainly not policy. 90% of the content was personal attacks of people in the executive or myself.

And then, when the URL was pulled because the operators of the site - who were at the time not members of the party - wouldn't negotiate with the party who held the URL on things like moderation of the site - I got blamed for it on Crikey! I wasn't even on the National Executive call when that decision was made and had nothing to do with the technical implementation of the redirection, other than insisting on a pop-up so that when people went to newdemocrats and landed at democrats.org.au they had some explanation of what happened.

It's not about trying to squeeze in anywhere - it's about being who you are.

-KC

This article reads like one long sales pitch. (Hey, guys. Give us the funds we need to rise again and we'll get those Greens off your back!)

Look, I'm ex-Democrat as well, and I was sad to see them go. However, I had switched to the Greens long before the former's decline. The Dems had become just a warm, fuzzy mini-version of the majors, with almost nothing to distinguish them.

However, the sales pitch might work. Certainly, the increasingly out-of-control anti-Greens hysterics of the media and the majors doesn't seem to be working (as the increased Greens vote in the Melbourne by-election showed). I'm sure the born-to-rule oligarchs are getting desperate enough to consider doing a triple by-pass Lazarus on the Dems.

Any party can 'recover' if they're prepared to sacrifice their principles and leap on to an accelerating bandwagon -- like AGW, for instance. Unfortunately such 'recoveries' tend to be short-lived; either the wheels fall off the bandwagon when (like AGW) it makes contact with reality or -- worse still -- the minority party actually gets into a position of power, demonstrates how embarrassingly bad it is at actually putting its theories into practice, and gets clobbered at the subsequent polls.

The reason we have only two main parties is because people in general don't vote parties they like into power; they vote out the ones they don't like. All you need is one alternative. Others are merely a distraction.

Yes, when you offer people freedom of speech in a 'Democratic' environment, you are likely to hear things you may not like.
Go figgur.
I think the Dems faded away because they just stopped being sufficiently different.
In the public eye, they were just more bastards.
Not trying to squeeze in anywhere? Not 'small l Liberal'? Not 'centrist'?
One of the things that drew me to the Dems was that they were Neo Keynesian, rather than Neo Liberal. That's something they should get more credit for, and something they should continue to push, particularly post '08.
That and more of the 'grass roots democracy' they were so famous for -but never actually tried.

'...the minority party actually gets into a position of power, demonstrates how embarrassingly bad it is at actually putting its theories into practice'

No prize for guessing that you are referring to the Greens. But where is the actual proof of all this 'embarrassingly bad' performance, other than the empty and 'embarrassingly' hysterical anti-Greens mantra of the media and majors? The reality is that, in the short time they’ve helped the ALP to remain in government, the Greens have dragged Australia kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

They've stood firm in their resolve that Australia has to think generations ahead, instead of the horserace odds of the next election. They've been instrumental in introducing a carbon policy that, for once, allows Australia to catch up with international practice - instead of remaining 'embarrassingly' behind as usual. And they refused to be intimidated into endorsing any of the offshore refugee policies of this and the previous government, which have been soundly discredited by every international human rights agency.

It's not the Greens performance that is embarrassingly bad. It's the tired track record of the majors, whose only real strength is convincing a terminally apathetic voting public that there is no alternative.

No, no way Kathy.

The dumb school teachers have moved to the greens.

The smart school teachers have moved to the Libs.

There is no constituency left for a bunch of dills to reform the party with.

As former Democrat I too have very fond and appreciative memories of my time with the party. They were on the whole kind, gentle, committed people who thought and cared deeply about issues.

As the then head of a small local branch I recall before a leadership ballot inviting both Brian Greig and Andrew Bartlett to a small suburban house to address 25 or so members on why they should get our vote. Not only did they both turn up but were in the same car and in a respectful and measured fashion put their cases.

The shine for me came off the party when the executive decided that to match it with the big boys they had to open up their arms to corporate donations. The subsequent erosion of our 'high moral ground', often the only real currency a minor party has, was manifested in many ways but most significantly for me it was at the National Conference where I saw its real corrosive effect.

National conferences usually served to recharge members with free wheeling talks, debates, exchanges of ideas and to have some fun. The change was quite dramatic. The first morning the members were left to deal with themselves as our Senators were hosting corporate types an another room, effectively selling access for money. When they finally did emerge I spoke to one senator asking sympathetically how it went, the reply was “I need a shower”.

To add insult to injury we were asked to sit through a speech by a member of the Liquor and Gaming industry who had sponsored the Conference. There were a lot of shocked and disillusion members. I did raise it at a national executive meeting but was swiftly put in my place. My personal enthusiasm waned pretty quickly after that.

Cont...

Cont...

The site Kathy mentioned did rekindle my interest a little. I felt that while there was some party bashing going on there was also some quite good debate in meaningful areas occurring. I remember one on GM foods which could have informed party policy if processes had been put in place. I even sent a donation to the Democrats because of it.

In shutting it down and then not replacing it with anything similar just showed me the same old firewalls were in place and the party was heading nowhere.

Could I be enticed back? Possibly, but Brian would need to do a miraculous job before I would contemplate it.

I do wish him well though.

PS. My imagination does funny things sometimes. After reading Grim's post I had visions of a dark suited Brian as Joilet Jake E Blues knocking of ex-Democrat doors saying “We're getting the band back together!”. Well Brian does have the stature for it. Sorry mate.

Actually it is a serious question though, should he be concentrating on getting new members rather than trying to pull back former ones? Perhaps we are too damaged and burnt out by the demise of such a good party. That so many of us ex-Democrats haunt places like OLO indicates the thirst for engagement is still there but perhaps our baggage would be destructive to any resurgence.

Well, they can! If they become an entirely inclusive party once again, and determined to differentiate from and keep the bastards honest!
Pragmatists who listen to and serve the rank and file membership, rather than ride roughshod over them.
Given the state of the world, we as never before, need pragmatists and cooperative capitalism; and investment in our own people and their better ideas.
However, a name change is probably necessary and would probably re-badge and differentiate from the former party and its failures?
My preference would be, the Social Democrats, simply to discourage the far/hard right from seeking to infiltrate and use the party as a vehicle to advance purely personal political aspirations, killing the party in the process?
I see things like very real and long overdue tax reform and vast simplification, being policies that resonate with the small L business community, that prospered the Democrats in the past?
That and long term and visionary policies that mark the party as being focused on superior outcomes and nation building, rather than just winning govt or occupying the treasury benches.
I see a future where none of the major parties have the rusted on support they previously enjoyed, and a place in the middle, for a party willing to actually occupy that ground, rather than try to con it, simply to gain popular support during an election campaign.
A vision for the future would likely include an inland shipping canal, that opens up our arid inland to trade and commerce; industrial opportunities and vastly increased intensive agricultural production?
We simply cannot continue to rely on increasingly non existent tourism, and need to open up currently, out of bounds areas, to carefully controlled and limited, environmentally responsible exploration.
Our immediate north, may contain the vast hydrocarbon wealth, we with our tyranny of distance, must have and use.
At least as long as it takes to transition to a low carbon economy, without reducing our own economy, to one resembling the Great Depression like, rust belt of the central west of America?
Rhrosty.

I was a member of the Australian Democrats. I left the party twice and came back once. I left the party once because Howard sweet-talked Meg Lees in supporting the GSTwithout her consulting the members to see how they felt about it. I left the other time when the party preferenced the Bible-bashing Family First.

The Democrats talked about being open but were not open. When Janet Powell led the party a petition originated in Cheryl Kernot's office asking the members to state whether they were satisfied with Powell's leadership. I called Kernot's office asking what they thought Powell had done wrong and why they sent out the petition. I could not get a straight answer. If a segment of any party is dissatisfied with the leadership they should be open with any charges that they have. Kernot was not. She was a most authoritarian leader when she became leader.

I like very much Lynn Allison's commitment to the separation of religion and state. That didn't seem to be a concern of most of the Democrats. I wish the Greens were more concerned about population growth, but in general I prefer their policies to those of the major parties.

I disliked the Democrats' emphasis on balance of power. That meant to me to take a position between the Coalition and Labor, and I feel uncomfortable sitting between those two parties.

As far as the Democrats coming back I think they have had their moment. As Keating said, "The Souffle doesn't rise twice."

G'day Rhosty,
You have opened a can of worms.
Tecknic'ly, the Labor party are the social Democrats (supposedly). Their constitution binds them (in theory) to the path of Democratic Socialism. (Capitalism bad, socialism good, but we're happy to wait).
Confused yet?
Gough was accused of pursuing social Democratic policy rather than Democratic Socialist policy (he tip toed to the right).
Hawke and Keating were flat out Neo Liberals. (They took a jump to the right)
But somehow, the Labor party still claims to be socially democratic (or Democratically socialist, one or the other).
The Democrats were from the outset Social Liberals. (“there's nothing wrong with Capitalism that a little bit of social conscience won't fix”).
Personally, I'd like to work the word “Republic” into there somewhere, but sadly, Republicanism (the system we basically have now, strangely enough) is a far cry from real Democracy.
Still not confused?
One of the reasons so many people were confused about the Dems, is that theoretically they should have been to the right of the Labor Party.
In practice, Labor leap frogged them, at least on some issues...
But not on others...
Buggared if I know, Mal.

The most galling thing of the slandering and libelling of the Greens is that they believe we should uphold our own laws and the two major parties pretend they had nothing to do with the writing of those laws.

Doc Evatt helped to write the universal declaration of human rights, Bob Menzies the refugee convention but todays libaral want to throw them all in the bin and then blame the Greens for daring to believe they count.

G'day Grim. Thanks for the informative input. We here seem to be welded to American style rat eat rat capitalism or race to the bottom.
They enjoy things like the most expensive health policy in the world, which rips out 13% plus from GNP and yet leaves 40% totally reliant on goodwill or charity.
Cooperative capitalism on the other hand, is founded on Keynesian economic principles, and understands as you prosper the least amongst us, you prosper us all, but particularly 3 million small business, their operators and more intelligent employees.
[Look at Woollies and their profit/bottom line improvements, created exclusively by improved family support.]
We could add around 7% to the averaged Australian based bottom line, through simple tax reform, which would end the need for compliance and its onerous costs.
A 5% marginally variable stand alone unavoidable expenditure tax, would by itself, raise 25% more tax. And allow the govt to effectively repeal all other tax gathering methods.
The change to exclusive federal direct funding to schools and public health would not only save or redirect money to unmet need; but allow state govts to seriously downsize; and fund what they still needed to manage, with an assembly of alcohol/tobacco excise, user pays toll roads, tunnels and bridges, licence fees, unimproved land bank capital gains, [a substitute for foregone stamp duties,] and the expected returns from a really visionary, virtually self funded, rapid rail roll outs?
Which in turn, would assist long overdue decentralisation and the return of affordability and turnover, to the housing market!
I take and agree with your point about the leap to the right by Captains Keating and Hawke and Emperor Howard?
Making middle occupying Democrats, look like born again left leaning liberals.
I see no valid reason for following that particular race toward the bottom or lowest common denominator, which if properly appraised, would simply allow a rejuvenated reinvigorated democratic party, to claim the patently vacated middle ground once again?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

...What is "not" needed in Australia is another effeminate political party resembling the Greens. The Democrats were in effect just that.
What is more likely to succeed under current conditions, is a representative Nationalist party with a focus on maintaining its monarchist and social traditions, similar to the successful National Front party of Le Pen in France; a good adjunct to the LNP and capable of scooping-up disaffected and lost Labor voters.

...It could develop into a challenging match to the LNP adding diversity and strengthening democracy in Australia; something Labor is unlikely to ever achieve again in the near future.

Dear Rhrosty,

I hear you.

I joined the Dems originally for their social justice policies but also because I thought they were far friendlier in attitude toward small business people like myself. I considered myself and the party to be pretty centre of the road.

After a serious jump to the right from both of the majors we certainly felt like a bit of a shag on a rock, suddenly well out to the left without our views having changed much at all. Beasley started it by following Howard on refugees. I was at the time negotiating to move away from our usual split ticket to give a local Labour candidate a preference as he had taken a strong stance on an environmental issue that our branch thought warranted us supporting him. After Beasley's lurch I had to tell him we just couldn't do it and he said he understood completely.

Damn shame.

The worst thing the Dems could do is try to follow the others.

Dam straight Csteele, same here.
I couldn't believe it when Hawke and Keating sold off everything they could lay their hands on, including the Commonwealth Bank.
Then I couldn't believe it when Howard declared that 'small Business' was anyone earning less than 4 million and employing less than what was it, 50 people?
What about all the mum and dad shop keepers, family farmers, self employed plumbers, electricians, carpenters, brickies, mechanics, fridge mechanics etc etc etc.
Who was looking after them?
The majors were (and still are) only interested in large numbers. Look at how they treated small dairy farmers, small saw millers, small everyone.
Buggar the centre, the word no longer has any meaning. When we have 2 and a half big guys standing toe to toe on the Bulls eye, all chanting Neo Liberal Gospel, why try and get between them?
The new (or retread) party needs to stop trying to be Centrist and come up with a new thesis. Create a new dialectic.
Stop trying to squeeze onto the Bulls eye and instead go for triple 20.
It's not about moving to the left or the right; it's about being above all that.
Remember?

grim

'I couldn't believe it when Hawke and Keating sold off everything they could lay their hands on, including the Commonwealth Bank.'

Yes, and why is it that the mainstream narrative NEVER asks where all that lost annual revenue has gone? Before they were sold off, most of those public utilities, authorities and departments actually earned ongoing revenue for the nation, which has now disappeared into the coffers of the private sector - much of it offshore. Now, as was thoroughly predicted (but hardly ever reported when we imported the privatisation mania back in the 80s), the states and federal governments are having to increasingly depend on big business benevolence to stave off bankruptcy.

csteele

Ditto, your points about small business, as I'm in small business too. What I would add is that one of the little known facts about the Greens is that there are many small business people among its membership and much of its economic outlook is capitalist based. Yet the media continues to lump the party onto the extreme left of politics, probably because they don't know what else to do with it and because the right is way too overcrowded.

And one other point, your double comment of Tuesday 12.09 should be emailed to every Greens member in Australia. Although the party is all too aware of the need to avoid the fate of the Democrats, it doesn't hurt to keep being reminded.

The time we watched it take 6 men, with 3 vehicles 2 days to paint a twin public phone box, was the time I knew we had to get rid of government owned, union controlled so called businesses.

Yes it was in the days when the phones were run by the PMG, or Telecom, or what ever pretend business name they used for the holiday camp run on tax payer funds.

Even after reducing manning by 60% Telstra was still over staffed by about 100%.

Look at any government organisation, & you'll find the same overmanning, or worse. No wonder we're going broke.

Yep, I remember the PMG.
I remember they used to have a depot in just about every half decent country town.
I remember they'd get out in the middle of the night to get your phone back online.
These days it takes a week or 10 days, depending on when the next crew from Melbourne is due on their travels.
And you get to have such fascinating conversations with people who can barely speak english.

Yes grim, & it cost a days wages for a 5 minute call to Melbourne. An over seas call was a kings ransom.

On second thoughts, perhaps ruinously expensive phone costs did have one good side effect. Overseas calls were far to expensive for over seas call centers to be viable.

Funny, I don't recall anyone thinking 5c for a phone call being ruinously expensive.
I do recall when the CEO of the ANZ bank was getting over a million dollars a year, the poor old CEO of the Commonwealth was collecting a measly $300k.
There's an area I would like to see our pollies show some leadership in, rather than happily following 'the marketplace' and pegging their salaries to the private sector.

Dear Killarney,

Possibly the Greens I was mingling with a decade ago were cut from a different cloth but to call them small business friendly back then would have been a stretch. Perhaps the policies are different now. That isn't to say I didn't admire many Greens for their passion and commitment.

However we shouldn't be under any illusion that the Greens don't know how to play really nasty politics.

 I was incensed enough with their tactics after one election to have vowed I would never join the party.

During the lead up to a Federal election the Greens suddenly and viciously targeted our candidate. As campaign manager I had to deal with her in absolute tears wanting to throw it in after a particularly nasty email attack from a Green party member. A couple of other incidences of similar nature really set the tone but a further act of bastardry occurred. 

Traditionally the Greens and Dems had put each other above the majors on their respective how to vote cards. We rocked up on election day to discover our candidate had been placed near the bottom of their cards. I took it quite personally until I learned that in over a third of the seats the Greens had placed Dems below either the Libs or Labour.

I later received apologies from local Greens who were pretty ashamed of what had occurred but said the instructions had come from the top. They even conceded the reason for targeting our candidate was because she was deemed vulnerable to being upset. It still rankles deeply.

They certainly are not the angels that they would have us think and I further believe the Democrats, on the whole, remained more honorable in their own behavior.

@ Hasbeen and Grim
Fascinating conversation, but Australians are still being hideously overcharged for telephony and woefully under-serviced. Sign a waiver to be released from the Customer Service Guarantee so you can get decent services without paying hundreds of dollars in connection fees or seriously overpaying in service charges and you still have to wait forever to get connected. Overseas call centres are made possible via internet technology, not land line call costs. The old thing didn't work, the current thing doesn't work, but that's a different topic for another blog post.

@ Killarney and csteele
Have to agree that the Greens absolutely do know how to play dirty politics. Indeed I would argue that they know far more about how to play dirty politics than do substantive issue politics - and it would seem to be the focus of their staffing and organisational structure.

However, these two are very different organisations - again, the psychology of the people in these organisations is very different. I'm not so sure that the Democrats are an appropriate warning for the Greens. I think the Greens are on the slide/have peaked - but they need to know their base and their org and take care of themselves, rather than study the Democrats - just as the Democrats need to know their base and take care of themselves, rather than study the Greens.
-KC

Dear csteele,

No angels exist anywhere. I have been active in the US Democratic Party, the Australian Democrats and the Australian Greens. I have found that, in general, the more fervent one's beliefs are the more they are willing to cut corners to further their agenda.

Belief justifies atrocity in religion, war or politics.

Unfortunately those who are about such things wind up governed by those who are not above such things.

The Navaho Indians elect their chiefs. Any Navaho who shows a desire to become a chief or tries to get others to vote for him is automatically disqualified. That works in a society small enough so that everybody knows everybody else.

I don't know what can be done to eliminate political dirty tricks in our society.

G'day Kathoc,
I think it might be more appropriate to suggest the Greens are on the nose, having been associated with that dirtiest of words, “Tax”. Whether this causes them to peak or not remains to be seen.
The party on the slide is quite clearly Labor, and I suspect for much the same reason as the Democrats slid.
Since Hawke the Labor party has deliberately downplayed its commitment to any social democrat -or democratically social- principles it may have had, and concentrated on capturing the centre.
Now, it really isn't entirely clear what they stand for, apart from retaining power.
At all costs.
Earlier in this thread, Jon J. made a valid point. We don't vote parties in, so much as we vote parties out when we become dissatisfied with them.
To overcome that bias, an entry level party is going to need a very strong, one line message.
Even “Keeping the bastards Honest” won't cut it, unless the Democrats can clearly demonstrate that they aren't just more bastards.
A strong commitment to restricting parliamentary salaries would be a good start.
I note the Greens made some rather quiet noises in that regard, but don't seem too enthusiastic about making an issue of it, strangely enough.

Dear davidf,

You wrote “I have found that, in general, the more fervent one's beliefs are the more they are willing to cut corners to further their agenda”

Amen to that brother.

It was a pity Natasha's 'New Politics' came during a revolution in the party rather than an evolution. It had merit but could have done with far better articulation.

My claim to fame is singing 'The Lion Sleeps Tonight' one night with her and a few others in a Sydney Karaoki Bar in the wee hours. Ah fun times when change did seem possible.

You say “I don't know what can be done to eliminate political dirty tricks in our society.” To me the answer has always been banning party membership of any sort from those want to be elected into our upper houses since most of the 'political dirty tricks' come from party politics.

Just imagine if we took the following literally;

“The provisions governing the qualifications of candidates for election and of senators, once elected, are contained in the Constitution and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (CEA). The purpose of these provisions is to ensure that the people who stand for, and are members of, the national Parliament are beholden to no-one but the electors as a whole and may therefore perform their duties free from undue external influence, including from the executive government, foreign governments and commercial pressures.”
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/guides/briefno19

Wow!

Imagine defining 'commercial pressures' as lobbyists for big business with their party donations. Imagine defining 'executive power' as the party which holds government. Imagine defining 'undue external influence' including union heavyweights.

Just imagine 'Senate Societies' all over the country where learning and debate were nurtured and respected, where ideas flourished, where principle mattered and our thinkers honoured. Kind of revised Mechanics Institutes. Where we could listen to and support people we thought capable of rising above the baseness of party politics, those not seeking to hold the reins of power rather to curb its excesses, and those, forgive me Kathryn, who could get elected without having to use your skill set.

Dreaming?

Definitely.
But a nice dream.

G'day Grim. Mostly agree with you and where you are coming from. Telecom, with all its reported faults and so called union domination, used to earn the govt something around seven billion per, ditto CBA.
As we look around the world, we can see no evidence whatsoever, of any instance where privatisation has actually reduced costs.
Our gas, i.e, rose 400% immediately following privatisation!
And I can recall a time when your line rental alone, paid for all your local calls, which is where the bulk of small business enquiry and consumer demand is serviced or born?
I strongly disagree with the views of some patently unfriendly political activists posting here?
Who claim to see the left and right squeezing out the middle!
There patently is no longer a left or right in modern politics, just an up or down, or good policy V bad policy?
Good ideas are always worth investigating and perhaps even adopting, regardless of their source.
While it might seem like a political stunt, I think the party could win quite massive and immediate support, if every candidate was to give his or her political promises and or party preferred policy, future vision etc, wired to a polygraph.

[Privatisation could in many cases, be reversed, relying entirely on market mechanisms and better revenue streams? And you bet, that outcome would be universally popular, with the overwhelming bulk of the electorate! Particularly if the commitment to just such an outcome, was delivered wired to a polygraph!
There is, it would seem, far too much dishonesty, never ever weasel words and non core promises; in, win at all costs, modern politics?]

As far as I can recall, only one party member has ever been publicly polygraph tested, with a consequent doubling of popular support, in spite of perceived personal failures; and or, all too human shortcomings, in his past.
I believe the middle ground along with practical pragmatism still exists; albeit, vacated and a place from whence the democrats can rise like a phoenix, from their ashes; and or, Meg Lees perceived treachery!
Rhrosty.