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.