I had occasion to work around politcal groups from 1991 to 2000.
The democrats I met were mainly young but very on-ball and cool headed.

Approaching the 2001 election I talked of their prospective wipeout and suggested that they would likely head to the Greens and was quite surprised that this idea was firmly rejected. It was not so much an anti-green feeling but more that the party was not for them.

My impressions of those dems I met and from other readings is that the dems did mainly stick to Chipps ideal of being a “liberal” party, they liked their independence and status of watchdog. Unfortunately they blew this with their comprises on IR and the GST and their infighting.

As to where they went, I believe they went to Howard in one form or the other in 04 as Latham was not for them and I believe they will turn to Rudd in 07 as he is more of small “l” liberal for them. They are a sizable block of around 4-5% that could decide the election.

I don’t think they will go to the Greens, the greens should have polled higher in NSW with both labor and liberal being unpalatable. Likewise I don’t think they will go to FF due to their percieved ties to the religous right which also worked against Debnam.

In applying the labels of left-wing and right-wing to attitudes to same-sex families, I was using a more mainstream traditional continuum, rather than including libertarians, who are such a tiny percentage of the political spectrum. I’d go along with the Marxists as regarding class to be a more significant political issue, but that puts me out on a lonely limb.

Dembo,

I agree that the DLP was not a centrist party. It was a centre left party, committed to social welfare, decent working conditions, environmental awareness, democratic electoral systems and much more. Had it retained the balance of power, its senators would have voted with the other Labor senators to stop not only WorknotcalledChoicesanymore but also the first set of Liberal IR laws that the Democrats supported. That puts the DLP to the left of the Democrats on IR. On other issues, I concede the Democrats would be to the left of the DLP, but the middle in the Senate was there well before the Democrats arrived. When it held the balance of power, the DLP joined with the ALP to set up the committee system which has been such an important part of the Senate’s performing its role as a House of Review.

Both the Liberals and the Labor Party have moved to the right over the last 25 years, so the DLP of old would find itself not only in its traditional position to the left of the Liberals but on some economic issues to the left of the Labor Party as well.

You are right about the Greens: when – not if – they gain the balance of power they will be to the left of both major parties. This will be the first time that the balance has been held by a party that does not lie between the two majors but beyond both of them. Interesting times!

Bill,

My own view has been for several years that the Democrats should have amalgamated with the Greens. It was obvious to me about three years ago that their only chance of survival lay that way. There is just not enough room for two third parties. I’ll put it another way. The record third party Senate vote is Frank McManus’s 19 per cent in 1970. I bet many of those voters voted for Don Chipp in 1977, yet common opinion would regard the DLP and the Democrats as totally different parties.

until the public realised that they can’t afford their plasmas with a pay cut.

I cant afford one now! And i have no interest in having one. My luxuries are an old computer and my political library ( its amazing what bargain books you can buy from charity shops ) My wife ever the bargain hunter buys most of her clothes at charity shops and looks fantastic. Our furnishings are also from these shops. I believe the simpler you live the happier you are. But i do need to buy a new computer.

I think the Democrats will wither and die with party members joining either the Greens or FF. It would be interesting to know what type of people that did vote Dems now vote FF.

I agree with your assessment of the role of the Greens compared with the Dems. A “major-minor” party like the Greens having reasonable representation is not bad or “evil” but nor does it do much to “balance the senate”. It merely provides a clearer voice for the Left, currently muddied within the Labor party due to the party playing catch-up to the right to sway voters back from the Liberals.

In part, this has probably been necessary for Labor, since the swinging electorate (mostly) has shifted Right as the Liberal party has assumed a policy set more consistent with the late 1960’s, back from a position as Left as it ever was at about 1995. In essence, the populace had shifted with the incumbent party, just as it tended to do with the previous Labor reign.

These swinging voters do tend to do what they are told until something makes them realise the pot has “warmed up”, then they start hopping out! In 1996 it was perhaps economics and a revolt against “political correctness”, a rich vein tapped by ONP with immigration, indigenous issues and some small measure of Xenophobia (non- ONP voters tended not to need an explanation).

Now, it is becoming clear that the workplace has woken up voters. All was comparatively fine (at the suburban lot level) until the public realised that they can’t afford their plasmas with a pay cut. Beyond the poll noise, I agree with those that suggest that the underlying pattern is stablilising rather than closing. The swinging voters may well be making up their minds early.

Against this background, the Greens in the senate mostly provide a clarion call for the Left in an environment of growing conservatism, however, there is little evidence that this will “balance” the senate significantly. The senate majority “gift” will be (likely) gone this year and Fielding is some comfort to the coalition but no yes man.

What needs to be considered is this chunk of Gen-Xers that is present in Australia. Overshadowed in population by both Boomers and Generation Y, advertising and media in general focusses on these larger demographics with higher disposable incomes. Politicians would be wise to spend some time wooing the X-ers. They make up a sizeable chunk of swinging voters and are, as a group, more conservative than boomers.

Xers have young families now. This means they care intimately about Health, Education and the affordability of their mortgages. This means IR is crucial. They absolutely need their jobs. They have a pragmatic approach to the environment, interested more in sustainable building/removating/living, water tanks and PV panels than spending weekends waving placards and chained to trees. Save the climate but help me pay my mortgage too.

If this group and the blue-rinse set have already decided on their vote, it could come down largely to the young and single voter bloc and here I think Labor and the Greens stand to clean up on the undecideds.

I think there is a distinction to be made between the DLP/Greens and the Democrats and their position in the senate.

Up until the late 1970s, the senate was dominated by the two majors and any minor party was an attendant extreme party to the majors (ie Libs and Lab were “the center”).

The big success of the Democrats has been in creating a “middle” for the senate. The DLP was not a centrist party (despite some revision going on nowadays) and while I agree with many of the Greens views, I think they are once again further away from the center than Labor. In effect, a return to the old system.

Greens with the balance will be something quite different to the Democrats. The biggest shake-up in 30 years I think.

apparently only 25% believe the PM cares about the indigenous crisis.

58% believe its all an election ploy.

uh oh.