[GandalfTheGrey]

I think its far more simple than that. The democrats never stood for anything, but they were popular for a while because they represented that all important third party. This single but important role they played became obsolete when the Greens became a recognised player in the parliament. The big difference was that the Greens actually had a solid policy platform that was easily recognisable. The democrats platform was just confusing - remembering that they started off as a small l liberal splinter of the liberal party - but they were unrecognisable as representing this in the 90s. By then, they had by default become the de-facto representative of the "new left" that the Greens represent now. But it was done in a completely accidental and confusing manner, and Kernot's betrayal, and Lees compromising just reinforced what was already evident - no one knew where they actually stood on an ideological level.

Also colliric, I'd like to see some evidence that Brown was pushed into retirement.

[Swagman]

I don't think it was leader change that killed the Dems.
It was compromising on the GST. Meg Lee’s pretty much killed the party doing that. It was a slow decline from there because of the longer terms of the Senators.

Just like the Greens and the Carbon Dioxide Tax huh?

[Notorious B.i.G.]

Just like the Greens and the Carbon Dioxide Tax huh?

I don't think I said. Did I say that anywhere? Have I ever made that comparison?

[AVT]

It was already in decline when that happened.... It's like saying the apex of the decline was the start, when in fact it wasn't.

When Kernot left that's when it looked like the party "keeping the bastards honest" lost it's moral compass.

Kernot didn't need to ripp on the party verbally, her actions spoke more than words could ever say, both about her opportunist character and which party she percieved as actually being able to do something.

Labor is probably already fishing for a Greens equilivent... heck getting Garrett to join the party was them getting their hand first on a door they knew the Greens would have loved to have been knocking on had they known he was interested.

It is hard to imagine that the Greens didn't know Garrett was looking to enter politics, I think it was rather the attraction of going straight into power vs joining a powerless (at the time) party that won him over.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

It is hard to imagine that the Greens didn't know Garrett was looking to enter politics, I think it was rather the attraction of going straight into power vs joining a powerless (at the time) party that won him over.

I agree. Garrett felt like he could actually do something being in power with the ALP.
The Greens hate, absolutely hate Garrett for the betrayal.

[AVT]

I agree. Garrett felt like he could actually do something being in power with the ALP.
The Greens hate, absolutely hate Garrett for the betrayal.

I imagine they do, but for me it shows he is pragmatic and not tied up with idealogy, a shame he was thrust into the cabinet ahead of his time and botched it.

[GandalfTheGrey]

The last thing the Greens want is morally bankrupt hypocrits like Garrett. I need only remind you of the Gunns pulp mill he approved

[Notorious B.i.G.]

The last thing the Greens want is morally bankrupt hypocrits like Garrett. I need only remind you of the Gunns pulp mill he approved

The Gunns pulp mill that the ALP Caucus approved you mean

a shame he was thrust into the cabinet ahead of his time and botched it.

Was always going to happen. That 07 Rudd election was all about highlighting the rock stars of the party, like Maxine KcKew.

[AVT]

The last thing the Greens want is morally bankrupt hypocrits like Garrett. I need only remind you of the Gunns pulp mill he approved

On the contrary the Greens need people like Garrett that don't come across as loony hippies to make them more palatable if they want to increase their potential base, if they are happy sitting at 10 - 15% then thats a different matter.

[GandalfTheGrey]

The Gunns pulp mill that the ALP Caucus approved you mean

yes. If Garrett couldn't convince the caucus not to approve it, he should have resigned - if he had any sort of moral spine.

On the contrary the Greens need people like Garrett that don't come across as loony hippies to make them more palatable if they want to increase their potential base, if they are happy sitting at 10 - 15% then thats a different matter.

I think you underestimate the Australian public. What if they are thoroughly fed up with the focus-group oriented policies of the major parties, and see the Greens' prinipled-based politics as a breath of fresh air? In fact the policy platforms of the Greens is very much mainstream, if surveys can be believed, the public just needs to get used to the idea of "mainstream" not necessarily meaning only one of the two major parties. It requires a generational shift IMO.

[AVT]

I think you underestimate the Australian public. What if they are thoroughly fed up with the focus-group oriented policies of the major parties, and see the Greens' prinipled-based politics as a breath of fresh air? In fact the policy platforms of the Greens is very much mainstream, if surveys can be believed, the public just needs to get used to the idea of "mainstream" not necessarily meaning only one of the two major parties. It requires a generational shift IMO.

I guess time will tell on this one, the Australian electorate is really centrist in nature with people skewing left or right on certain issues, idealogy lost its hold with the death of communism and now voters swing on even the most obscure issues. It is plausible that in the future an event may indeed give the Greens a greater slice, but in terms of a hard-core base of supporters they have have gone as far as they can go without becoming more 'mainstream' or moving to the centre.

[GandalfTheGrey]

the Australian electorate is really centrist in nature with people skewing left or right on certain issues

actually I would argue that only about 10-20% of the electorate are centrist skewers to the left or right on certain issues. The point though is that this 10-20% is the most important section of the electorate as far as the major parties are concerned. The remaining 80-90% are die-hard voters of one side or the other, and are taken for granted. This is largely a generational thing - and is most apparent in conservative areas. Just look at the few remaining national-party electorates in NSW and Victoria - most of which held with ridiculously big majorities, and represent some of the safest seats in the country. But in the coming years the core of this majority will die out and we'll have a new generation who don't irrationally vote national for no other reason than they always have. When this happens, I would like to see the Greens take away large proportions of the "taken-for-granted" voters. The potential prize for the greens is a hell of a lot more than the 10-20% the major parties bicker over.

[AVT]

actually I would argue that only about 10-20% of the electorate are centrist skewers to the left or right on certain issues. The point though is that this 10-20% is the most important section of the electorate as far as the major parties are concerned. The remaining 80-90% are die-hard voters of one side or the other, and are taken for granted. This is largely a generational thing - and is most apparent in conservative areas. Just look at the few remaining national-party electorates in NSW and Victoria - most of which held with ridiculously big majorities, and represent some of the safest seats in the country. But in the coming years the core of this majority will die out and we'll have a new generation who don't irrationally vote national for no other reason than they always have. When this happens, I would like to see the Greens take away large proportions of the "taken-for-granted" voters. The potential prize for the greens is a hell of a lot more than the 10-20% the major parties bicker over.

That is a big assumption, why do you think younger voters will not settle under one of the two main parties as they have done in the past? I am relatively young (26) and I am a solid Liberal voter, in my social group those that tend to work in trades are Labor supporters and those that work in small business or are professionals vote Liberal, only the ones that did arts based degrees tend to vote Greens. My point is the reason people become die-hard voters is because those parties best represent their outlook, the Greens with their current platform have a limited appeal, I don't see why that will change in the future.

[Diogenes]

Natasha should have stayed leader, removing her was another electoral mistake and only made the "stall" worse(She was popular... not in the party room, but popular to the public). Frankly I considered voting Democrat when she lead the party.

Man, Spotdestroyer was cool. Same as Kristina Kerscher Keneally. Now there is someone who really seemed to know what she wasw talking about.

I agree. Garrett felt like he could actually do something being in power with the ALP.
The Greens hate, absolutely hate Garrett for the betrayal.

That just brings me back to the cool vote. Personality cult anyone?

The thing I like about Garret is there is no transdictatory, double talk bullshit. He is straight to the point, clear and consise. Every other politician is hard to follow cause they're constantly diving in and out of every conversation device ever made, trying to escape popularity barrier mazes and, well, I can't understand them. Peter Garret I can.

That is a big assumption, why do you think younger voters will not settle under one of the two main parties as they have done in the past? I am relatively young (26) and I am a solid Liberal voter, in my social group those that tend to work in trades are Labor supporters and those that work in small business or are professionals vote Liberal, only the ones that did arts based degrees tend to vote Greens. My point is the reason people become die-hard voters is because those parties best represent their outlook, the Greens with their current platform have a limited appeal, I don't see why that will change in the future.

You know, AVT, you are probably right, but you are taking for granted that people know what the government is saying about issues. I know a lot more than most people our age about politics but I still vote for the person and not the party, there just isn't enough difference between the two parties. I believe in a six year flux system, just to keep the economy in balence. But, if like you all say, the greens are getting more serious about their government forming policies, then maybe Labor will continue their money grabs like with the CTS and try to stay in government with the greens replacing their vote on sensible matters like the underclass. in that case I'd probably vote for Labor, even though Liberals are inherantly more cheesier.

[colliric]

yes. If Garrett couldn't convince the caucus not to approve it, he should have resigned - if he had any sort of moral spine.

Oh well, I guess he could have followed Bob Brown's lead if he wanted to(http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the ... bob-brown/).... But thankfully he proved above that sort of "No-one else agrees with me, fine, I'll take my ball and go home" childish crap.

And besides, if he was ever going to resign over anything, it would have been Pink Batts.... If he didn't resign over that, a little internal tiff with caucus collegues was never going to be a cause for worry.

[GandalfTheGrey]

a little internal tiff with caucus collegues was never going to be a cause for worry.

for an ambitious and unscrupulous politician - of course not. But Garrett made a career of making us all believe he was a genuine environmental crusader. No one who is the least bit passionate about the environment would ever agree to approve the Gunns abomination. It was so bad that even their major sponsors couldn't bear being associated with it.

[Swagman]

Just like the Greens and the Carbon Dioxide Tax huh?

I don't think I said. Did I say that anywhere? Have I ever made that comparison?

Didn't say you did. I was asking the question.....as you seem to think that the GST was the downfall of the Democrats do you also think that the Greens are now in the same boat for imposing an unmandated carbon tax upon the electorate? At least the GST had a mandate, the Coalition took it to an election, as policy and won the election.

For the record I don't believe the GST killed off the Democrats. IMO the Demorats became politically irrelevant because they got off the fence on the left side of politics post GST instead of staying Centrist.

Just look at the Democrats last 3 leaders (2001 to 2008). They were Natasha Stott Despodja, Andrew Bartlett & Lyn Allison, all arguably very left of centre and they tried to take the party that way. They alienated the supporters that were slightly right of centre who likely are now moderate Liberals and the lefties well they have just drifted to the Greens or labor.

Lees did the country a big favour anyway. Without the GST we be stuffed. Testimony to this is that our Labor, Green, Govt and lefty controlled Senate have not made any attempt to get rid of the GST despite carrying on like massive pork chops when it was introduced.

[AVT]

Lees did the country a big favour anyway. Without the GST we be stuffed. Testimony to this is that our Labor, Green, Govt and lefty controlled Senate have not made any attempt to get rid of the GST despite carrying on like massive pork chops when it was introduced.

The GST is firmly entrenched now due to a long period of Liberal government, the only time it was at risk of being repealed would have been at the election after it was introduced, I think Labor are hoping for the same thing with the Carbon tax, and if they do win the next election they are probably right, even if they lose it will be hard to get rid of it with a hostile senate.

Also a point on the GST, most states are reliant on it now and so it will never be scrapped (well my state WA might be different), in fact it is more likely to be increased.

[Swagman]

Lees did the country a big favour anyway. Without the GST we be stuffed. Testimony to this is that our Labor, Green, Govt and lefty controlled Senate have not made any attempt to get rid of the GST despite carrying on like massive pork chops when it was introduced.

The GST is firmly entrenched now due to a long period of Liberal government, the only time it was at risk of being repealed would have been at the election after it was introduced, I think Labor are hoping for the same thing with the Carbon tax, and if they do win the next election they are probably right, even if they lose it will be hard to get rid of it with a hostile senate.

Also a point on the GST, most states are reliant on it now and so it will never be scrapped (well my state WA might be different), in fact it is more likely to be increased.

I to believe the GST should be increased. Increased to fund health & education. Put it up to 15% and spend the extra 5% directly on health and education just as DR Hewson wanted. Also remove the exemptions. It should be levied on everything.

The issue that the gST is entrenched shouldn't matter. The Left were absolutely against it (like IR reform) so they should be rolling it back. Of course they should take it to an election as policy.

[colliric]

Great Article for those interested in the Melbourne By Election

This is a new beginning of the end for the Greens, and arguebally in this state in particular, the continuation of the rot in the Greens that has set in since the one time "safe" Labor heartland of the eastern suburbs of Melbourne delivered Ballieu government(I commented at the time that it almost seemed like an outer suburbs "Revolt against left-wing inner city Melbourne, after Bandt fluked victory with a 'Judas-style' Liberal party prefrence deal"). They've made alot of enemies in the Labor camp this time around.

That whole, "These pricks dealed with the Liberals to get Tanner's seat" sentiment is actually growing amoungst rusted on Labor supporters in this state.

Quotes for the Unsubscribed:

Labor may lose votes, but not to the Greens now. Labor's true enemy is - as always - the Liberals who compete for the many voters in the middle, not the few on the fringes. Many Labor strategists will - with luck - draw the right lessons from a disaster that was saved from becoming a debacle. Yes, Labor got too close to the Greens, especially under Gillard, and lost its soul. Lost respect for its can-do pragmatism. Yes, Gillard is killing the brand.

But the solution seems clearer. Attacking the Greens is better than surrendering to them. Moving back to the centre, not the Left, is where recovery lies. The Greens should feel a sudden chill. This defeat will be about as good as it gets.

Earlier:

Even with Labor's brand trashed, and no Liberal standing, the Greens' primary vote barely shifted

As it did in the 2010 state election..

To me it was big play for the Libs not to contest, but I think they've decided to help Labor win by allowing the minor conservative parties(and the sex party) direct their prefrences to Labor. I think the Libs might have thought they'd actually draw the support of some still disgruntled normal Labor voters and the best thing to do was to not split the primary vote of either party and just let the minor parties get Labor in on preferences(because they all seem to hate the Greens.... even the Sex Party seems to hate their fellow extreme left-wingers, so the Libs probably considered that Labor would survive on that alone).