There is a lot to digest in John Cherry's article. I am encouraged by the proposal to represent a "liberal progressive" viewpoint. One serious omission, I believe, from the eight suggested principles is a commitment to promote economic growth and opportunity. The suggestion that "we should recognise the benefits of economic liberalism" does not cover it.

If it helps at all - and I'm afraid that it won't be particularly illuminating - I can give you a thumbnail sketch of a voter who changed from Democrat to Labour at the last election.

Since moving to my present electorate in the mid-eighties, I voted Democrat at every election but two. The two aberrations were to elect an honest and capable independent, but every other vote was against the Lib-Lab duopoly rather than for a particular candidate or policy. The reason I changed to Labour was quite possibly a reaction to this habit of submitting a pseudo-donkey vote, or perhaps a forlorn hope that something might actually change this time around.

I suspect - but maybe this is simply transference - that the electorate has no interest in policies per se. Quite possibly this is because politicians don't particularly care for them either, using them purely to sway the next opinion poll their way, and discarding them the minute they can get away with it.

So I deeply sympathize with Mr Cherry, and wish him well in his search for the lost policy formula. My view is that he would be better off looking for a charismatic and dynamic individual, and then mould the party and their objectives around the person, rather than first identify "winning" policies. Look at the continued success of Mr Blair, and I defy you to discern the vestige of a policy that is responsible for his success.

I don't think I've ever seen such an imaginative use of statistics. I love the way Senator Cherry argues that it is impossible to detect the diaspora of Democrat voters but goes onto use a looney formula to prove his position anyway. Very lightweight, very Democrat RIP

WHO ??????????.... dem....oh...crats... GOT IT.. again I say "who" ?

speaking purely as a political animal now.. as I used to watch them gleefully use the 'balance of power' to push /block/ steer... I must say I learnt a lot.
As for their 'position' I think its somewhere out their in cloud cucko land. Policies ? yep.. Perscope is right, democracies run on GREEEED.. its only the 'thoughtful' left and the 'rabid right' who actually think about policies much. Except for we Christian mob, we are beginning to have a thought or two. We won't have much appeal to many because we hold rather 'arrogant and extremist and intolerant' positions according to the media.
I"m watching my back for the guys dressed in white who will drag me and my kids off to the training school for the next bout with lions at the MCG and I aint talking about the footy team type.
But..as they say.. "You can't keep a good man (or woman) down" :)

Senator Bob Collins once said on talk back radio "Politics is not about being fair, its about power" so.. one has to take as well as give. Hence .. the Eastern suburbs of Melbourne had our freeway stolen by Labor (pericles.. are YOU in our area ? @@ frowny look)
Then freedom of speech by Labor (CTF case RRT 2001) I just wonder what Adoph Bracks will do next ?

The only democrat who ever had a glimmer of respect from me was Meg Lees. Stott destroyer was just a manipulative kitten with a big ego, and Bartlet..welllll need I say anything. I would give serious consideration to Aiden Ridgeway .. but only as an independant.

The problem is that you can't keep the "bastards honest"if you're too busy stabbing you're commrads in the back.All idealists have to learn that there is no ultimate truth and many humans have a habit of becoming their own worst enemies.

John Cherry is half right. The Democrats dug their own grave in the mid-1980s when they sought to position themselves to the left of the Hawke/Keating regime. That was suicide, and it has taken twenty years for the electoral consequences to flow through.

And yes, the 'centre' (between Labor and Liberal)is the only place where a third party in Australian politics can flourish. The Democrats, however, were never able to conceptualise a centre position that had coherence and appeal.

John's problem, though, is that his 8 point charter doesn't go nearly far enough in jettisoning the 'progressive left' identity that was a cul-de-sac for his party. Social progressivism is still a very narrow and unpopular political stance favoured by small groups of the 'aware' in the inner cities, but is no basis for a broad political party that aspires to winning government. It still wants big government, welfare paternalism, and passive communities - administered by the 'aware' and the 'compassionate'. Noel Pearson's critique of this 'progressive left' agenda and its disastrous consequences for indigenous communities has still not sunk in. The same critique holds true for white disadvantaged communities, the disempowerment of people with disabilities and mental illnesses, and the marginalisation (culturally and socially) of suburban families.

Economic liberalism has to be accompanied by a radical empowerment agenda, but the progressive left still baulks at empowering people (devolving power and resources away from government agencies) and still longs for a 'benevolent bureaucracy' to solve our social and economic problems.

Vern Hughes
vern@peoplepower.org.au

I'm not religious in the traditional sense,but AMEN to your post.

What none of the analysis seems to explain is the complete and utter collapse of the Democrat vote in the Adelaide suburbs, and yet a curious levelling effect. Coromandel Valley in Boothby fell from 31% to low single digits, yet no 2001 low single digits fell significantly, and some even went up. I refer to Adelaide specifically because they were universally getting double digits in almost every polling place in that city prior to 2004. But it is almost unheard of for an active long-medium-term party's vote to just utterly collapse like that at one election. What factors were involved? Were the Democrat party actively working to get votes in the first place, or did they take these electorates (Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Hindmarsh, Boothby, Sturt and the former Bonython) for granted?

My personal belief is that people do not take the Democrats seriously any more after the protracted leadership tussles which managed to seize headlines even when Labor had its own issues. They alienated the left with Lees, then the right with Stott-Despoja, but even a lot of this occurred before 2001 and they still preserved a high primary vote. I think figuring this one out is critical to understanding the way that voters think and act in Australia.

I suspect Democrats voters can be divided into two groups:

1. People who are interested in policy, and prefer that of the Dems;

2. People who don't have much knowledge of what the Dems stand for, but feel the Dems "keep the bastards honest". Personality voters are likely to be part of this group.

I think the second group has historically been much larger than the first. The plan to launch a "progressive coalition" will only succeed if first a larger number of people become interested in policy.

This is not impossible. One way to do it would be to follow Glenn Druery's lead and launch a host of new single issue microparties. l4f could handle the environment, a renamed PT First/CBC could do transport, etc. This would allow people with a single strong interest to vote for their views on that interest instead of forcing them to pick a whole package. Imagine how many votes a "Refugee Reform" party would get...

A Democrats party in the middle of this could even appeal to old Liberal voters by going all Menzian and talking about the groups of "forgotten people" that it's representing.

The secong group may be easier to reach though. It would require a popular new leader and a few whistleblowing exclusives.