A more appropriate title would be: “The Democrats – a punch drunk party”.

Lyn, I wish the Democrats were a force to be reckoned with. But they haven’t been for a very long time. In fact, the Greens would never have formed in 1992 if the Dems had been a significant force in one key area – the environment. And the environmental arena has always been one of the key areas that the Dems have espoused a great deal of concern for and in which there has been a great need to ‘keep the bastards honest’. Since then, they have just got worse.

“For one thing, the reasons Don helped form the party have not gone away. Indeed the new Howard-takes-all environment is at least as dire as that in 1977…”

Absolutely. So how does this sit with your title; “The Democrats - A party with punch”?

In fact you indicate at length how bad the situation has become, against the desires of the Dems.

“It’s not a bad record for a party that’s said to be finished.”

Of course there have been some achievements, but overall, you can hardly say that the record has been good.

Lyn, I was critical of the very foundation of your last article, as expressed on that thread. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4920#56542. Unfortunately, you have not responded, not to me nor anyone, which has done your arguments and credibility no good at all.

I have also been extremely critical of Andrew Bartlett on this forum a number of times, to which he has responded numerous times. The debate has been good, but as far as I am concerned, he just dug himself deeper into a hole.

So, my initially poor opinion of the Dems has got considerably worse this year, thanks to this forum.

As a former member, devout believer in sustainability and vehement critic of our continuous growth paradigm, I find this really really unfortunate.

I think that the main the thing the Dems need to do is show themselves to be significantly different from the ‘Laborials’ by way of embracing genuine sustainability as their core objective. But Andrew for one is just on a different track completely.

THe Democrats are a poor image of the Greens. With the the Greens you either love them or hate them but at least you know where they stand. The results of the Democrats recent internet survey in relation to religion and Government was not published because the results collected from the 40000 respondents did not match their ideoligies. So much for the Democrats really believing in democracy. I for one will be pleased to see them become more and more irrelevant. They need to learn how to keep themselves honest before trying to keep the others honest.

Strike 1 - the IR "allowable matters"
Strike 2 - The GST
Strike 3 - the sale of Telstra

Sorry, but a lot of little wins won't outweigh a few big losses.

Tinkering around the edges of bad legislation doen't make it good, just a little less bad.

You're right Lyn, the Democrats have landed some telling blows over the last few years. If the Democrats hadn't pushed the issue that stray cat would have been roaming Manus Island all alone. It took a special party to reunite that tabby with its master.

God bless you Lyn and God bless the Democrats.

The Democrats - a party with punch.

That would of course be non-alcoholic punch. Don't want to choose another leader do you? (Sorry Andrew).

Unfortunately the Democrats have lost their way.

Personally I blame the likes of Kernot (ALP) and Bartlett (Greens)for this. Under the influence of these 2 people they drifted Left and became the pseudo Labor party.

In your striving to become more Left than Left, and more progressive than progressives, you drowned yourselves in political correctness and your flagging support shows this. I wouldn't be surprised to see both majors put you last at the next election and like ON it will be bye bye Dems.

Come back to the centre, drop the PC and address issues that concern mainstream Australia.

I agree with Lyn. The Democrats do a lot of work in the Senate for a party that is supposed to be what the media calls "dead".

All this with 4 senators and 2 MLCs. The media line does not makes sense.

I would also like to correct a few people.

The Democrats NEVER supported the sale of Telstra. The Democrats were one of the most stringently opposed to the sale of Telstra, and indeed Lyn Allison is the one who dealt with the bills. You can read her speech on the Sale of Telstra bills
http://www.democrats.org.au/speeches/index.htm?speech_id=37&display=1

Also, those complaining about the Democrats not releasing the results of their God and Government online survey should realise that the survey was not sampled in a scientific manner which means it is open to skewing from certain groups. Any release of a flawed survey would be akin to lying. The Democrats should have commissioned a polling company to do a properly sampled survey.

As for those complaining about the GST. The sky did not fall in when the GST became law. In many cases, taxes applied to many goods actually fell because wholesale taxes were abolished, and businesses are now able to claim back any GST on items and stock used in their business.

If the Democrats had not softened the edges of the Howard Government GST, it would have been likely that the laws would have been passed without those key changes (removing GST from food, education, sanitary essentials, water etc...) after a double dissolution election and/or joint sitting of houses to resolve the deadlock.

The Democrats decision to pass the GST has led to one of the longest sustained periods of economic growth in Australia's history. The doom and gloom professed by the ALP, the Greens, the media and the Australian public never eventuated. It was just a whole lot of hysteria.

"Why do journalists argue that the Democrats are dead?"

Little signs like:

Not a single Democrat _candidate_ in the Qld State election in 2006.

The Democrats in Qld don't even advertise times and places of local sub-branch meetings on their website.

Upper House vote in the 2006 SA election: Democrats 16 500, Greens almost 40 000, Nick Xenophon (Independent "No Pokies") 190 000. Democrats failed to elect a member to the Upper House.

2004 Federal election - not a SINGLE Democrat elected to the Senate. Democrats' Senate vote plummets to 250 000 nationwide - about 2%.

In at least one state, the Democrats' branch Returning Officer is closely related to a senior member of the Party (Mark Oss-Essemer is QLD RO. If Aussie Kanck is still RO in SA, that makes two - SA website does not list office-bearers).

I'm tired of hearing Democrats whine about how we all need to vote for them so they can look after us in the Senate. There is more to politics than Parliament.

A real political party would be whipping up support in the broader community and forcing the Government to notice important issues. (Hint - 250 000 votes out of 10 000 000 is NOT broad).

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

Couldn't we live perfectly well without money?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/docs/document.2005-01-21.2592308437

After a taste of howard's rubber stamp senate, I think we have never needed the Dems more. You don't really have to like them; hating pollies is a fundamental ozzie value.
You just have to realise Beazley's useless, and Howard's an embarassment. A dangerous, sycophantic embarassment.

The Democrats did not turn the Senate into a genuine House of Review. The DLP and the ALP did that when the DLP held the balance of power in the early 1970s and both Labor parties worked together to establish the Senate committee system.

The Democrats are finished. When the DLP closed down in 1978 in Victoria, it still polled around five per cent of the vote and had ten paid employees - and that was in the days of no public funding of political parties. The Democrats now poll around one per cent and seem to have hardly any party organization - even with public funding.

The DLP: 1955-1978; the Democrats: 1977-2007; the Greens: 1990s-2020s? Then ? [I wanted three question marks, but a bossy computer program says I cannot have them!]

Chris C,

Much as I agree with most of your post (all but the last sentance), I wish you hadn't stolen my name

Why do journalists argue that Democrats are dying? Because every time there's an election you lose votes that's why. Lose any more and you won't even be a parliamentary party anymore. The Democrats don't stand for anything. They 'hold the balance of power', they negotiate.

Whatever.

A low blow, Steve.

The greens & democrats seem the only forces in national politics without massive business and/or backing - hence without much profile. Their downward spiral is not as much of their making as from the impression generated by relentless attack from the bully pulpit of cabinet and from the MSM.

An interesting post by a previous poster points out the irony of the smallest party the greens having the most developed policy on what will become the major focus of our time, the environment

Sorry, ChrisC. I did not mean to 'steal' your name. I didn't know there was a ChrisC. I'd prefer to use my full name, but when I first registered, I was asked for a nickname, so I initialised my surname. I have been into my account to try to change it, but the same computer program that won't let me use three question marks in a row seems not to allow me to change my nickname.
Regards,
Chris Curtis

Not to worry. Nothing worse than an angry computer program. Well, maybe the death of a political party that, at least at one point, operated on the grounds that the goal was to do the best for the people of Australia.

Regards,

Chris Chapman

Seems to me from comments here that the Dems are dead as a Dodo. Funnily enough, even though I don't have much time for him and his beliefs, Andrew bartlett seems to have made a rather big impression in the negative sense on many people.

“the Greens: 1990s-2020s?” (? ? ?)

Yair well, the Greens are virtually just hangin in there as well. And when it comes to real green politics, they’re about as dodoish as the Dems.

Unfortunately I think that our political regime is just going to have to evolve the hard way…. incrementally, with slow changes from within the two big dinosaurs. To this end I think One Nation was quite successful, in putting forward policies that have been adopted, whereas the Greens and the Dems went the other way and basically adopted the policies of the those that they set to be different from! A terrible shame.

I can’t express how strongly I think that Andrew Bartlett is palpable in this way, and the other Dems by association if not just as direct irresponsibility or weakwilledness. Lyn Allison doesn’t appear to be any better. Does she really believe that the Dems are a party with punch? What did she expect would be the reaction to this article? Does she really believe that decentralisation is the answer to all sorts of things, in the absence of population stabilisation or an overall sustainability strategy? http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4920

Labor has an enormous opportunity here, to set itself up as a really different entity to the Libs, especially by way of embracing genuine sustainability as its core objective. Of course, this is exactly what the Greens should be doing. It’s too late for the Dems, but if they’d done this a few years ago, I reckon they’d be sitting pretty now.

Beazley has given some indications of movement in this direction, but nowhere near enough. And unfortunately, for all his good environmental input, Bob Brown and the Greens don’t appear to be heading in this direction with any momentum either.

"Labour has an enormous opportunity here..."
Labour has the same opportunity it has had for decades; to offer genuine alternatives.
When we have a predominance of lawyers on both sides of the house, alternatives start to take on a certain homogenaity.
Perhaps the reason the Dems lack punch, is because you don't vote for them, Ludwig.

“Labour has the same opportunity it has had for decades; to offer genuine alternatives.”

Grim, any alternative policy needs to be supported by the majority of voters, if Labor is to win power. And all sorts of alternatives, no matter how good they might have been, could well have lost them support.

But there is a paradigm shift happening throughout mainstream Australia, if the views expressed on this forum, on all sorts of threads, are anything to go by. Sustainability and environmental issues haven’t been a big enough concern until recently. But they sure as hell are now, and they are only going to become more prominent.

So the opportunity for Labor to embrace a fundamental change, and get overwhelming support for it, exists now like it never has before.

I think that the time is right for a full-on sustainability-based party to actually gain the majority support. And what better party to do it than one of the big established parties? There’s no sign of it with Howard, or Costello or Abbot or Turnbull. But there is just an inkling with Beazley.

“Perhaps the reason the Dems lack punch, is because you don't vote for them, Ludwig.”

O gee thanks. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if I, or any individual, could make such a difference, and save the Dems, and get them focussed on the right stuff!!

Surely the essence of Democracy is that individuals do make a difference, by exercising their right to vote. Certainly, the alternative argument, 'if everyone says one person can't make a difference, so there's no point in voting...' is pretty obviously irrefutable.
And as for changing a political party, wouldn't it be easier for one person to change the direction of a small party, than a large one?
Particularly as the democrats insist they are the most member driven party.
I confess, I am a member of the Democrats (reluctantly, and not always proudly) simply because I don't believe anyone has the right to criticise how someone else does a job, if they aren't prepared to do that job themselves.
As Margo Kingston says, Democracy is not a spectator sport.
After rereading this post, I feel I must say that although I have sometimes been disappointed with the Dems, I have never been disgusted by them.
The 2(or 3) major parties disgust me on a regular basis.

“Surely the essence of Democracy is that individuals do make a difference, by exercising their right to vote.”

Yes, so long as they also have the right not to vote, if they don’t think that there is anyone worth voting for.

We also need to thoroughly condemn the compulsory preferential voting system, which often means your vote ends up where you had no intention of it counting, especially with those who don’t vote for the large parties.

Grim, how can anyone be expected to vote for a party who’s policies they don’t support?

I don’t believe in voting for the least disagreeable party if you don’t agree with their political direction overall, or have serious concerns about some of their policies. Thus, I have been unable to vote for anyone for quite few elections now.

A vote for a political party is not a vote to change that party, it is a vote to maintain it in the form that it is presented at the time of the election, is it not?

“And as for changing a political party, wouldn't it be easier for one person to change the direction of a small party, than a large one?”

Not necessarily. I mean, how hungry is Labor for victory? Hungry enough to make some really big changes? Yes, I think so. But by all indications the Dems won’t be changing, for as long as Andrew Bartlett and probably also Lyn Allison, are there.

“…I don't believe anyone has the right to criticise how someone else does a job, if they aren't prepared to do that job themselves.”

I’ll have to disagree. I’m not prepared to do all sorts of jobs done by people or organisations that I am very critical of. I’ve got my career. I’ve developed my skills base. I don’t particularly want to work in any other field. Does that then mean that I should not have the right to be at all critical of anyone outside of my area of expertise? NO. That would be an awfully restrictive and totally undemocratic diminution of our basic freedoms and rights

I used to be a strong supporter of the Democrats, then when the party seemed to be self-destructing I became disillusioned with them.
This year I've found myself re-thinking my disillusionment. I was so impressed with the Democrat-led campaign to remove Tony Abbott's veto on RU486, and so totally amazed and delighted by their resounding victory, that I realised that individual Democrat politicians are still working hard on issues that affect ordinary people every day.
For that, they've won my vote back.

Allison is right. The Dems are really the only liberal democratic alternative. Unfortunately her whining about the media is a complete waste of time.

They only report what they see and hear and that is electoral loss after loss and internal division. Even Chipp's last speech was divisive. Last year it looked as though Kanck had gone mad over the Ecstasy debate.

I could see some inklings of a branding strategy with her as a 'leader' post the abortion pill debate. And she scored a few runs on mental health forcing the PM to come out. But the church and state stuff is for features only but it's still a far better show than accusing Howard of staging the Melbourne terrorist raids.

As a former Victorian country newspaper editor, her real strengths came through when McGuarin jumped ship. She was all over the country papers in Ballarat, Bendigo, Shep for a while. But that all petered out.

It's easy to blame the media. Unfortunately the democrats are punched out.