Yes, Alchemist, globalisation plus economic rationalism has given us only one choice, now dropped in the lap of a PM who they say has the knack but not the historical knowledge. Yet strange to say, we are now back in the 19th century free market, with little Johnny looking in his mirror and practising that 19th century statesman-like smile. Also to please his bosom buddy Georgie Boy Bush and hoping later for a global appointment preaching the neo-but really not new flag-decked US imperialism.

All Johnny needs with Labor too gutless to raise a protest even about foot and mouth infected Brazilian carcase meat landed in the country, as well as about Costello stashing away all the government loot into his Future Fund maybe helping to make up for our overseas trading debt, now well over 500 billion dollars.

And still not a protest word from either Labor, Democrats or Greens, even the one about the Brazilian foot and mouth, one which even in America might have had a President impeached worse thn Tricky Dicky.

Yes, Alchemist, and still there's more, what tricks me, is what's happened to all our opposition?

"Once upon a time liberals stood for freedom and liberty. Now they stand for making more laws.

And there is no one who can stop them."

Yes there is! There are twenty million Australian activists, actually. Does Senator Allison really think that the only thing that matters in politics is what laws are passed by a Government?

What really matters in politics is what ordinary people will or will not put up with.

Senator Allison's language makes it clear that she thinks that the Government will trump and defeat the people. Rather pessimistic, no? Senator Allison will likely lose her seat at the next election, so I suppose its not surprising she would be pessimistic. I don't know what it is like in inner Melbourne where a good deal of Senator Allison's votes would come from, but here in Brisbane the Democrats are almost totally extinct - they can't even find "paper"* candidates for many seats, and rarely have anyone handing out how to vote cards.

If Senator Allison thinks the laws that the Government is passing are bad, what is she doing to lead Australians to take over for themselves so they get to decide what laws get passed?

David Jackmanson

Let's Take Over
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

* A "Paper" candidate is someone who agrees to be nominated for Parliament, but only so their party will have someone on the ballot paper. A "paper" candidate does not promise to do any work at all - and the Democrats cannot often cannot find even this sort of candidate in Brisbane.

I believe at the last federal election Howard and co. were elected on the basis of more of the same, if it's not broken dont fix it, stability and consistency. I do not believe the electorate were aware that the way it was, the pre-election status-quo was heavily moderated by the senate. A vote to continue the status-quo has in fact given the government the keys to radical change, which it has embarked upon. Especially with I.R. I believe the electorate is losing faith in the government's radical agenda as well as a growing dissatisfaction with our involvement in Iraq, as well as our apparent lack of military capacity with such things as returning the bodies of soldiers or evacuating civilian Australians from war zones.

However if Australia wakes up at the next election and considers the senate more seriously when they vote, I doubt if they will vote for the Democrats because they don't stand for anything and are perceived as simply accomodating the powers that be, in some cases supporting the government to override opposition.

Apart from the great internal debacles, the Democrats are most famous for their split on the GST. What was the Democrats stand on the GST? - it stood on both sides of the argument.

Andrew Bartlett and Natasha Stott Depoja have been marginalised since the GST split, for different reasons, but without these two senators who have stated clearly where they stand and how they will vote on a broad range of issues the Democrats stand for nothing in particular except claiming their traditional place in the senate, which has dissappeared.

"Keeping the bastards honest" is no longer relevent when the bastards are not honest, even the treasurer accused the PM of dishonesty, it is no secret. It also seems the electorate is willing to tolerate dishonesty.

I can see why someone might vote for Bartlett or Stot Despoja because their clearly articulated opinions represent many people. The simple comfort of knowing the Democrats are maintaining honesty in the senate wont cut it any more.

I share Lyn Allison’s concerns about the overriding of democracy. But the senate system, while being very good at keeping government reasonable in its policy-making, is itself flawed in that it allows a situation in which it can be dominated by one party.

But there are many other bigger concerns in our very crudely democratic political scene. The big one is the horrible and apparently intractable connection between the vested-interest profit motive of the business sector, and government - which basically means that government, whether it be Liberal or Labor, fails in its core duty – to find the best balance between these vested interests and the long term best interests of the community and country.

We have the two major parties right out on one end of the political spectrum… and no one on the other half, let alone anywhere near the end.

The Democrats have sold their souls and have become just a third or fourth pro-growth anti-sustainability party. This became glaringly obvious in my debates with Andrew Bartlett on this forum earlier this year. I was stunned at just what extent this had occurred, and as a former Democrat and passionate advocate of sustainability issues, I was deeply saddened.

In fact, after seven months on OLO, there have been two things that have really struck me - just how many people are gravely concerned about peak oil, environment and sustainability issues in general, which appears to be at stark odds with media presentation and even letters to the editors of newspapers, and just how unenvironmental Andrew Bartlett, and hence the Democrats, are (he wasn’t just speaking on his own behalf, but largely on behalf of the party).

continued

Why haven’t the Democrats set themselves up as a very different alternative? God knows we desperately need one – one that holds sustainability as its core value. The Greens don’t do this. Far from it. Bob Brown continues to piddle around the edges without dealing with the real issues.

When are the democrats going to denounce compulsory preferential voting? This absurd voting system means that in just about every case a vote for the Dems is also a vote for either Labor or Liberal, whichever the voter puts second last (as the vast majority of Dem voters specifically don’t want to vote for either Labor or Lib and will put them last and second last.)

Unfortunately I have to fully agree with Alchemist and others; The Democrats are toast, and deserve the very harsh criticism that respondents have levelled at them on this thread.

KingCanute,

Ithink your take on the meaning ofthe Coalition's Senate majority is slightly off-beam.

My reading is:

After theDemocrats split, the Right Democrat voters - the anti-Tory farmers and metropolitan liberals - had nowhere togo but back to the Liberals.

Many Left Democrat voters are now with theGreens, and will stay there for a while yet, especially given theGreens are so far quite good at keeping their wars mostly out of the media.

In SA, I think was the deserting Right Democrat voters who gave the centrist Nick Xenophon his amazing 20% of the Upper House vote in this year's election.

For a long time, theDemocrats were an uneasy coalition between ex-Liberal and ex-Labor voters. That is one of the reasons they are not very good at standing on individual policies and instead promote themselves as 'watchdogs', which is not very exciting to the average voter.

Stott-Despoja is certainly an effective candidate (I was at Adelaide University at the same time as her and saw her in action - and voted for her as Student President.)

But her views are so at odds with the right wing of the party, and her tenure as leader was so full of hate-fiiled battles for authority, that it's hard to imagine her being accepted by a significant minority of the Right.

As for Bartlett - well have you read his blog?
http://www.andrewbartlett.com/blog/

It's just depressing. I can't find - anywhere - a clear plan as to how he will develop the Dems into an organisation capable of getting him what he wants. It's just the usual criticism of the Government, without any sense of power or purpose at all.

Ludwig, I don't think denouncing compulsory preferential voting would create a big enough bandwagon to save the Democrats. (They should do so of course, I just don't think it will help much)

The Democrats' logical move is to appeal mainly to the moderate liberal-minded centre-right that it came from (remember, founder Don Chipp was at one stage a mildly reformist Liberal Customs (and therefore censorship) minister).

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191