Many people who formerly voted Democrats rightly or wrongly became very disenchanted when they agreed to the GST when most of their supporters expected them to just say NO. Sure the tax base needed to be broadened but it all seemed to happen with such undue haste without all options canvassed. Somehow the Democrats placed themselves in the crazy position of being blamed for the GST... Top marks for political positioning.... not!

The questions I would like to ask are ...

When Meg Lees confirmed that the Democrats would pass the GST legislation in that famous doorstop interview - had the other Democrat Senators agreed to and signed off on it totally at that time? Did Ms. Lees announce the decision with or without the final approval of the other Senators? Had a final vote been taken amongst all Senators with the majority decision or did something else take place that we the voter have never been told? Was there serious conflict after that confirming interview or was everything business as usual? Which Senators (if any) voted against the legislation's approval?

From my recollections of the interview Ms Lees looked a little stunned and it seemed that something just wasn't quite right. I may of course be totally wrong. It's just that it has always stuck at the back of my mind.

The answer to these questions may be more important than the Democrat Senators realise. If true ... sure it would make them look a little weak in that they rubber stamped the decision post announcement maybe even against their true wishes. BUT answering these questions honestly might give them the platform to regain some of their ex-supporters back.

If incorrect it would just confirm that they all made the greatest political error of judgement in Australian history and their once strong party will disappear into the history books of political would be's if only they could be's.

I heard the agreement was in exchange for the marine parks on the great barrier reef. Any truth to this?

Pretty funny how there has been no talk by Mr Rudd to reverse the GST. It might have something to do with the States having much more money than ever before and yet still unable to do anything about waiting lists in hospitals or indigenous health.

Oh Runner I am going to agree with you.... Please don't faint!

All parties knew Australia needed to broaden the tax base. The Labor party thought that by the Liberals saying that they were changing the taxation system was a shoe in for Labor to win. Wow what a wonderfully strong strategy! Would Labor have introduced the GST post election, at some stage, if they had won?

Was it simply lazy, complacent politics with a false agenda.? Did they lost because they were slack? I doubt if Rudd will be slack on any issue!

The GST has raised so much more than was originally anticipated ... The devil was always in the detail! An example of this is that there was to be no GST on education ... Well that was an outright lie! There is no GST on school fees but all after school eduction programmes are taxed, tutoring is taxed, books, pencils, pens etc are taxed ... even school uniforms are taxed.

Howards tax cuts in no way cover families for this increased expenditure!

But again that is a diversion we are stuck with the GST!

The fact that no-one from the Democrats has replied to my original questions astounds me... I know they read these pages.

What are their options?

1. Will they deny it and prove that Howard rolled them by outsmarting them?
2. Will they deny it and admit they deserve to be where they are now because they just rolled over?
3. Will they confirm it (if correct) and clear their consciences, and maybe save the party?
4. Will they confirm it (if correct)and admit they were absolutely and totally wrong?

They may have other options but I don't believe silence is one of them...

Be Brave Dems... Afterall to keep the bastards honest don't you have to prove that you are honest first?

Is your pride greater than your obligation to rebuild the party for the benefit of the Australian people?

Don't you face obliteration as a party unless you tell us what happened?

It is not one thing but 100 the Democrats are dead, the story ends here.
This election is polarized and not one for rebirth of a party that few even know the leaders name.

This is probably not what you meant in the original question but my view is that if the idea of "Keeping the Bastards Honest" has any validity then there is little choice for the democrats other than passing legislation to support a policy by the government which was clearly put to the voters at an election.

If the Democrats make a policy position clear at the same election opposing the proposal and then hold the balance of power then there is a case for opposing the legislation but otherwise they are not keeping the government honest but rather causing them to break election committments.

R0bert