I agree with Ludwig.No matter what we think of Don's ideals or politics,he was a person of integrety and sincerity.To successfully start a new political party takes sweat,will and planning that is beyond the grasp of most mortal beings.

The greatest enemy of the idealistic,altruistic polly,is the ignorance and avarice of the electorate at large;since the opposition will always resonate with the weakness of short term gratification that dwells in us all.

It is no use blaming the pollies,since they just reflect the attitudes of society at large.

Until we all start paying attention and insist on better standards,our Govts will continue to decline.

Because of Don Chipp I voted Democrat in the upper house for many years. Because of what came later (particularly Senator Stott 'Destroyer') I would never vote Democrat again. How a few selfish 'political animals' destroyed a great chance for Australian politics to raise it's head from the 'pig trough'. Democrats became Femocrats became Stupidcrats. A great chance for all Australians frittered away by untinking ideology. Those charged with 'keeping the bastards honest' became 'the bastards' themselves.

It seems that people criticising Senator Stott-Despoja may have spent too long looking at the parts their minds and wandering eyes lead them too, instead of listening to the woman and what she espoused. It's called respect! You might just be enlightened if you try it.

Seems some here were threatened by her looks rather than her policies. She was a high profile leader and worked hard for that profile, was articulate, communicated with both young and older voters and was well mannered and courteous to all. We can't have that. The fact that she was a young attractive woman has nothing to do with anything.

People are throwing rocks at her because what? - she is attractive.

The manner in which she dressed is totally up to her and people critising her should grow up and raise your eyes to see the person, to hear the person, to listen to policy and to try NOT to judge her on what you appear to be transfixed on.

You have the problem ... she gets the blame... I suspect that is called sexist. Grow UP!

Opinionated2

You will be pleased to note that the OLO moderators agree that Arjay and Trade went too far and had their offensive posts deleted.

They are just typical of adolescents who cannot look at women and see human beings - ironically on threads about women's rights they are among those who claim that feminism is unnecessary, that women already are treated as equals.

Senator Stott-Despoja is probably one of the best pollies around - very few have the integrity she has, and one of her number has just passed away.

Rest in Peace, Donald Chipp.

Funguy

As far as I can see, Andrew Bartlett’s Hansard record of contributions (http://www.iparliament.com.au/hansard.asp?member=2) shows no input on environmental matters (in the broadest interpretation of ‘environmental’), except for one tiny contribution in support of legislation dealing with ozone protection and synthetic greenhouse gases.

He clearly doesn’t hold environmental matters close to heart. And yet in his personal introduction on OLO, it is stated; “Andrew has a strong interest in housing, environmental, social justice, and animal welfare issues.”

Andrew supports high immigration with no end in sight. On OLO on 28 Jan 2006 he wrote;

“John Coulter was – and remains – a zero net migration person. I am sure the ACF Council is currently having as much fun dealing with his anti-migration views as the Democrats did 15 years ago. Fortunately the Democrats fully disassociated themselves from that stance quite some years ago.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#28928)

John Coulter was then and still is not anti-migration. He is for low immigration, in fact net zero, which really isn’t all that low – about 30 000 or more pa. But more importantly he is for sustainability, of which population stabilisation is an essential factor, and low immigration and an essential part. Of course, ACF should have accepted that stance without any problem… but alas, they have gone the way of the Democrats, and faded into insignificance, from their high-profile days of the early 90s with front man Philip Toyne.

In opposing low or net zero immigration that was premised on sustainability (net zero immigration was really a good balance between having a reasonable immigration program and dealing with sustainability issues), Andrew opposed an essential part of the solution to most of our big environmental problems.

With his high immigration stance and his clear lack of real interest in environmental matters, I have to ask; what on earth is he doing in the Democrats? It seems to me that he would fit right in with the Liberals or Labor.

I wonder what Don Chipp thought of Andrew.

Seems like a case of; 'If you can’t keep the bastards honest, just give in and join them'?!

Agreed - all the Democrats ever did was agree with anyone they thought was likely to win votes.