The man once touted as a future Prime Minister, the rebel ex-Liberal Party former Fraser Government Minister and founder of the Australian Democrats Party, died this morning from complications of Parkinson’s Disease, aged 81.
From the obituary at SBS:
He famously coined the expression, âTo Keep the Bastards Honestâ? when explaining why the new party was necessary.
It was one of the most well known political slogans of the past 40 years but later Mr Chipp had come to believe that heâd failed to deliver on the promise, saying he hadnât even defined who the bastards are.
Soon after quitting politics he did define the âreal bastards, saying they were the millions who reacted to a problem with another beer and a hateful “She’ll be right, mate”; the shareholders who supported uranium mining because of the profits; the bankers who welcomed foreign takeovers because they were good for profits; the unions who encouraged forest destruction because it pleased their members; lawyers who opposed simplifying workers’ compensation because that would threaten their holiday homes.
“These are the real bastards, and they are represented in Canberra with sickening fidelity by members of the Liberal, National and Labor parties,” he wrote soon after quitting politics.
While the Democrats’ influence is not what it was under Chipp’s leadership, they can’t be ignored. I’m still a big fan of centrists, independents and a healthy sprinkling of radicals holding enough seats in parliament to hold the balance of power over legislation. A mandate to form a government is not a mandate for a Prime Minister and Cabinet to pass any law they like. Don Chipp made that healthy parliamentary balance a fact of life for the first time in Australia with the formation of the Democrats, and for that above all I salute his memory.
“Keeping the Bastards Honest” is one hell of a fine epitaph.
Update [by Mark]: Bartlett on Chipp. Jason Soon segues from Chipp to a discussion of left and right in Australia.
Further Update [by tigtog]: Andrew Bartlett has an account of Don Chipp’s State Funeral
“While the Democrats’ influence is not what it was under Chipp’s leadership, they can’t be ignored. I’m still a big fan of centrists”
Two points:
1. They will be reduced to nil (that’s NIL, nix zero, none, not any, geddit???) senators at the next federal election.
2. They haven’t even attempted to be a centrist party for many many years. When Meg Lees attempted to restore some “centrism” about the GST she was hounded out of the party. They are unapologetically hard left.
people voted for the Democrats because they did keep the bastards honest.
Mad Meg ensured they lost that image. you cannot promise to reject a GST and then vote for one.
That was the end of the Democrats then despite it being the best policy decision they made. Ironic
whyisitso: on your first point, if the current Democrats Senators lose their seats it will probably be to Greens, who arguably couldn’t have carved out the place they now hold without Chipp’s Democrats paving the way, and who will still act as a balance of power grouping.
On your second point, that would be why there’s a full stop in that section you quoted (not to mention the subsequent phrases you snipped about independents and radicals). The Greens have taken a lot of hard left support way from the Democrats precisely because they still attempt to tread a more moderate path, so I reject your characterisation of Democrats as hard left, although they are certainly more leftist than they were.
I deleted the paragraph I’d written about the party’s shift leftward from the centre as Labor shifted rightward to and past it. I figured it was unnecessary. I may have been wrong.
I think Don Chipp intended for the Democrats to be a small ‘l’ liberal party with economically centrist tendencies. But it got hijacked by the loony left long ago. It has since regained some sanity under recent leaders but I basically agree with whyisitso’s assessment. It’s basically still to the left of even the ALP.
Agree, Jason and whyisitso.
Don Chipp was one of a kind. I remember him (yes I do) even before the Whitlam years. Lauded in parliament one day by Whitlam for his liberal stance on censorship — he was Minister for Customs or similar under the Liberals — he responded, ‘Oh death, where is thy kiss?’. Priceless.
But that kind of spirit ran out of the Democrats ages ago.
Chipp rejected the liberals primarily because of the personality of Malcolm Fraser, whose career since he cried when he was emphatically rejected by the Drover’s Dog has totally vindicated Don Chipp.
I was never a Chipp fan, but he conducted himself with more dignity and wisdom since he left parliament than any retired PM and Opposition Leader since (with the honourable exception of Bill Hayden).
I posted something here a minute ago and it’s gorn.
My comments keep disappearing into the ether. O well.
Interesting comment from Jason. When I saw that he’d commented and before I read it I fully expected him to have dismissed my comment as just another RWDB jibe. Actually, reading some of his latest blog posts and comments I’ve discerned a bit of a shift rightwards. Hmmm. Must be Andrew Norton’s influence.
Jason, I think it’s more correct to say that the Democrats were an economically centrist party by the standards of the 1970s and early 1980s, but that they did not partake in the embrace of neoliberal economic policies by both Labor and the Coalition from about 1984 onward, and therefore found themselves to the left of where the centre has since shifted.
I think there is a void waiting to be filled in Australian politics by a party combining non-dogmatic economic liberalism, socially liberal positions on issues of gender, family and sexuality, and strong but not “deep green” environmental policies. If the Democrat brand name had not been so badly tarnished by events a couple of years either side of the turn of the millennium, this would be ground they would be well placed to fill.
Agree with whyisitso about both Chipp and Hayden, despite my own differences with each on different issues.
Chipp’s greatest and most enduring legacy was his performance as Minister for Customs.
Until Chipp’s time the Minister for Customs could ban unilaterally materials entering Australia for whatever reasons he saw fit.
Australia was in the thrawl of moralising control freaks.
Chipp ended that Ice Age. Australia joined the conversation with the world.
This was a moment of maturation for Australia.
We have Don Chipp to thank for it.
Vale Don.
“I think there is a void waiting to be filled in Australian politics by a party combining non-dogmatic economic liberalism”
While I’m a Liberal supporter, I reckon there’s a void in Australia on the dry side (John Hyde style) of politics. Such a party would never get into power (like the Greens in the opposite corner) because Australians generally have a wettish culture, and I don’t blame John Howard who’d be a lot dryer if it were politically possible. Nevertheless even semi-dry policies have served this country extremely well in the last 23 years.
Unfortunately both major parties have in the own coalitions groups that are non-liberal (in the true meaning of the word) – the Nationals on the one hand and the unions on the other. Both are holding us back enormously but we have to live with them in order to have stable government.
Never a better time to drag up memories of the “Australia Party” the precursor to the Democrats.
Paul Norton is closest to mark about the nature of these small l parties of the 1960′s and 1970′s.
The Australian Democrats were born in 1977. Yet in many ways this was a delayed birth – the Democrats in spirit were a party of the 1960’s and early 1970’s (Warhurst 1997: 23)
This spirit was in several different parties. The first of these parties was the Liberal Reform Group which changed its name to the Liberal Reform Movement which in turn became the Australian Reform Movement.
None of these parties were particularly successful, but each did bring forward the cause. Eventually these parties formed the Australia Party in 1969……
……However, the true test was to be the 1972 National election. For the Australia Party this was huge success, winning 2.4% of the House of Representatives vote. This proved to be the peak of the Australia Party’s success.
Their vote diminished at the 1974 election…….
…..The Australia Party’s time in the sun had ended and needed a new angle to remain a political force. A merger with the New Liberal Movement (an offshoot of the Liberal Party that was further to the left), was being seriously considered.
However most felt to be taken seriously the Australia Party needed a leader who was already in Parliament. This person would need to be discontent with their party; Don Chipp fitted the bill perfectly…..
……….The Australia Party acted quickly calling a joint meeting with the New Liberal Movement and Mr Chipp.
They worked to form a new party, which under Chipp’s leadership thrived.
After just over one year since Chipp resigned his office he had helped the yet unnamed party a membership of 5 000 (Warhurst 1997:56). A ballot was quickly organised to select a name.
With 90% of the votes, the name that was selected was the Australian Democrats.
forgot to mention my post was lifted from:
http://www.kaleenhs.act.edu.au/sose/student-work/donchipp.htm
hard left?
crazy . . . dems are classic small ‘l’ liberals
if anything, don chips setting up of the democrats bled the small ‘l’ liberal vote away from the Liberals and assisted john howard in his campaign to turn the Liberals into the hard right police-state democratic fascists they are today
The void to be filled in politics is that for so-called South Park conservatives who are really libertarians.
The youth of today don’t give a damned about the old politics of envy of the Old Left. They like the idea of value for money applied to government as well as private services. They are used to the idea of greater choice and flexible labour markets. They don’t give a damned about antiquated notions like ‘weekends’ and ‘normal working hours’ when they can telecommute, start their own businesses and are used to ’24 hour societies’ and flexible trading. They have gays and ‘ethnics’ as friends and they may work for and buy from multinationals too. There is no role for economic or social xenophobia.
The time is rife for a libertarian coalition and the Democrats could have been the vehicle for that if they weren’t hijacked by the economic nationalists and paleo-socialists.
Jason, I think Don Chipp intended for the Democrats to be a small ‘l’ liberal party
The Australian Democrats essentially amalgamated the regional parties of the New Liberals, Centre-line Party and Australian Party IIRC. They were all centre, centre-right by that style of axis.
Right, Jason!
What about the political needs of highly-qualified, highly-employable, consumers? Who’s looking after those people who can probably perfectly well look after themselves? Who’ll speak out for the very very articulate? Won’t somebody think of the
childrenbourgeoisie?What basis do you have, Jason, given that a number of bloggers (including Andrew Leigh) have demonstrated the survey evidence on which the “South Park Conservatives” claim rests is rubbish, for the assertions you make about the “youth of today”?
Sorry to hear about Don’s passing. He’ll be missed. I also agree with whyisitso that he made a useful contribution in retirement and conducted himself with honour and dignity.
Bartlett on Chipp:
http://www.andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=333
Jason, have you considered that you and your buddies may form a slightly unrepresentative sample of young people?
To be fair, there is a streak of libertarianism that is presently mostly unvoiced in Australian (and for that matter American) politics, and our body politic would be that much the stronger if they stopped gritting their teeth and supporting the Tories.
By the way, I know it’s only a peripheral point in your argument, but you can speak for yourself about weekends. For mine, while I would not support a return to draconian Sunday trading laws, I think a time when all the members of a family can spend time together is a thoroughly worthy tradition and one that is worth fighting to preseve. It’s easy to work odd hours when you’re a single person. It’s not so great when there’s more than one of you to think about.
Paul, while that niche might exist in the blogosphere (heck, probably a fair part of this blog’s readership, and pretty close to my own political position) would it appeal to more than, say, 3-5% of the general population? And, for that matter, is there any way that Jason Soon’s libertarians could pull more than about the same amount?
Jason Soon segues from Chipp to a discussion of left and right in Australia. Wherein he makes the strange claim that the Deakinite settlement was a form of “proto-fascism”.
So, everyone’s got there own ‘void.’ Is it possible Jason, Paul and Whysitso could all be correct in their identifications?
Australians are pragmatic. John Howard’s politics are, when it comes down to it, pragmatic and populist. Perhaps we actually are Don Chipps ‘real bastards’:
Especially us younger ones. Is it any wonder that a bunch of different people hope to succeed where Chipp failed; to ‘wake the people from their slumber’ (my memory of a quote heard on the radio this morning.)
And me too.
“It’s easy to work odd hours when you’re a single person. It’s not so great when there’s more than one of you to think about.”
Amen to that. I sometimes wonder how I’d cope with the demands of marking 200 assignments in a quick turnaround time if I also had a partner and kids needing my attention.
Jason,
So, the overwhelmingly vast majority of people (including the retired and children) have to give up their entire working/family/social structures to fit in with a very small group of 20 somethuns (rapidly turning 30 or 40 somethums) who like playing retro computer games on their titanium ipods during “normal” working hours……and who think the world exists solely to provide 24/7 servicing of their needs alone – and based on what – that they can type?
Anyhoos, the whole thing will falls apart when they have kids:
âHey, man, why canât they play sports at 2am on Thursday morning? Like, whatâs wrong that…?â?
Children are economically irrational
He vowed to keep the bastards honest then did SFA, his resignation from the libs was on personal grounds against Fraser. I still dont know what the Democrats stand for or have achieved apart from playing the factional game. I think Chipp created the democrats as a vehicle for his own ego.
“who think the world exists solely to provide 24/7 servicing of their needs alone”
That remark is just hysteria Jo. If some people would like their needs catered for 24/7 and there are enough of them, someone else will want to earn a living by providing just that. It’s your lot that wants to compel the latter NOT to provide these services. On the other hand the former aren’t looking to COMPEL the provision of these services. They’re happy enough to pay the going rate. What’s wrong with that?
“…if the current Democrats Senators lose their seats it will probably be to Greens, who arguably couldn’t have carved out the place they now hold without Chipp’s Democrats paving the way, and who will still act as a balance of power grouping….”
Err, what’s the basis for that assertion? The Howard Government has got control of the Senate through the collapse of the Dems’ vote….it’s obbiously not gone hard left enough to give the Greens’ much hope.
“The Howard Government has got control of the Senate through the collapse of the Dems’ vote”
Nonsense, Luke. The Greens picked up the Dems votes in 2004. There are only so many lefty voters in the electorate. The Coalition parties have a (very slim) majority in the senate because they won the votes (after preferences) of enough of the electorate to counteract their relatively poorer showing of 2001. Half the present senate were elected back then. Had there been a double dissolution the Coalition may well have ended up with a comfortable majority in the present senate.
Actually the Greens’ dominance was greater than just the left, as they picked up a lot of naive conservationist voters who weren’t aware that they (the Greens) were a left-wing party first and an environmentalist party incidentally (and only when it suited them).
Luke claims that “the Howard Government has got control of the Senate”. That’s simply not true, Luke. There’s a paper majority of members belonging to the Liberal anf National parties, but it can never be said that the Howard government controls the senate.
Never it let it be said that it can never be said.
“The Howard government controls the Senate” There, I said it.
and what do you know, it’s even true as well. Anyone who wants to kid themselves otherwise is welcome to their dreams, but I feel obliged to stick with the real world, even if it’s not as pleasant.
“So, the overwhelmingly vast majority of people (including the retired and children) have to give up their entire working/family/social structures to fit in with a very small group of 20 somethuns (rapidly turning 30 or 40 somethums) who like playing retro computer games on their titanium ipods during ânormalâ? working hoursâ¦â¦and who think the world exists solely to provide 24/7 servicing of their needs alone”
Mind you, jo, it would make a pleasant change to hear politicians banging on endlessly about the perceived needs and desires of Australian singles and people in non-traditional relationship arrangements rather than the endless and tedious eulogising of “the Australian family.” Anyone would think that our entire taxation/welfare/social/economic structure was geared pretty much exclusively to perceptions of their needs…..oh, wait…
and never forget who gave Howard control – Jacinta Collins ex ALP Victorian Senator and her dance with Family First who nows wants a second go at Parliament – mien gawd
I agree with Barry. The Howard government is not the same as the sum of the Coalition parties. If the Howard Government controlled the senate Howard wouldn’t have been forced to drop the recent asylum seeker off-shore processing bill.
You have to recognise the real difference between the executive arm of government and the legislature. It may not be as explicit as in the USA, but it’s real in Australia nevertheless. Howard (and the cabinet) have been forced into a number of compromises in order to get stuff throgh this Senate. They have influence, sure, but it’s a long way from control.
In fact they have quite a bit less control than a Labor government with the numbers in the senate would have. The ALP expels floor-crossers, which gives them a lot more leverage over recalcitrants in the ranks.
“The youth of today” blah, blah , blah..
Anybody who begins a sentence with The youth of today… is not to be taken seriously.
Don Chipp was a man of great integrity, an obvious rarity in politics these days, and for that reason alone his life is worth celebrating.
whyisitso
My problem with Jason’s position and yours apparently – that award waged workers providing 24/7 services shouldn’t be paid any penalty rates or loading for working outside normal working hours.
In Jason’s World, workers are lucky to have the gig in the first place, and if they complain, they are out the door on their arses.
Hysterical is what industry groups do, when a new award comes down.
That’s quite contradictory, whyisitso, if you stop to think. Because the sanction for floor crossing is so high in the ALP, correspondingly dissident ALP senators could exercise a fair amount of leverage in order to keep them in the tent. I’m sure the ALP has no desire to see more Senators like Colston and that guy from Tassie split off and become independents.
What’s normal hours for you may not be normal hours for me nor for a great many people, jo.
If some people are willing to pay for some particular services or goods, and some other people are prepared to provide these for the going rate at the time required, what’s your problem with that? No award worker is compelled to work in these enterprises. All the compulsion is on your side it seems to me.
Nonsense, whyisitso, that assumes first that people in service industries who are low skilled have an effective choice between a job and another job instead of a job or the dole. And that people can easily refuse shifts that they don’t want, without fear of losing their job or having their hours cut.
Anyway, to back up Robert Merkel’s point. There is no doubt that there are some people who think and behave the way Jason suggests. But they’re not representative, and not even of educated middle class young people. Articled clerks or early career solicitors have little choice other than to work 60 hours a week for instance at times not of their own choosing.
As to all the entrepreneurial 24/7 kids – age brings changes. Having kids or just the lower energy levels that you get as you grow older shifts choices and work and consumption patterns.
“Because the sanction for floor crossing is so high in the ALP, correspondingly dissident ALP senators could exercise a fair amount of leverage in order to keep them in the tent.”
Seems to me they’d be playing with a pair of twos, Mark. The leverage is all with the party leadership.
Honestly, all this “hard left” “centre-right”, “Paleo socialists”, “economic nationalists” “non-dogmatic economic liberalism” is really stretching things. I know we have to use some sort of labelling, but this insistence on forcing people into some left-right box, and THEN using that to judge how good or bad they are is such a crock.
FWIW, I think Paul Norton’s comment (at 10.45am) is about the closest description of the Democrats’ positioning. (along with the first part of BBEP’s first comment too of course)
The shifts in the whole content and nature of political debate and policy have been so huge in the last 30 years that to use “left” as though it means the same thing in 2006 as it did in 1977 is absurd.
Even assesing anti and pro GST as a left-right thing is pretty tenuous – it is only seen as so in Australia because it was Labor vs Howard, which supposedly made it left vs right. There are plenty of ‘left’ reasons to support a GST and plenty of ‘right’ reasons to oppose it (I can’t be bothered giving them here, but I will if people don’t believe me)
Take a look at the Chipp quote highlighted in the original post:
That sounds like a pretty good example of a ‘hard left’ view in today’s parlance and something that could have come straight out of Bob Brown’s mouth. It’s certainly more hard line than what I would normally think or say (unless I was in a very bad mood, which I suppose Chipp may have been when he wrote it).
Maybe Don just kept moving left because he couldn’t stand the thought of being in the same place as Malcom Fraser
I know politics is perception, but that doesn’t mean perceptions have to be formed in a vacuum from people’s actual statements and actions.
whyisitso, the whole diurnal thing isn’t something the labor party made up to suit white ozzie workers in the 19th century…actually i really don’t want to argue I.R. 101 with you…thanks all the same, I’d rather concentrate on the thread, cheers.
“the unions who encouraged forest destruction because it pleased their members”
This is not a statement which Bob Brown would make. For that matter it is not one which Don Chipp would have made had he thought carefully about the issues. The union leaderships which promote such views are not acting in the long-run interests of their members which are best served by restructuring forestry on a sustainable basis rather than defending “business as usual” even when this is leading to long-term job-shedding in the forest industries.
I hope doesn’t mind that a tribute to him has turned into a bit of a stoush..
Aside from that, I would like to pay tribute to Don Chipp and the party he founded. Above all else, by using the Senate to scrutinize government he made Australian federal politics better than it otherwise would have been.
Agreed Robert – And seven female party leaders since Chipp stepped down is a pretty astonishing number, whatever the circumstances.
or six female leaders… way more than none.
“seven female party leaders” who proceeded to run the party into the ground!!
“whole diurnal thing isn’t something the labor party made up to suit white ozzie workers in the 19th century”
What the hell does this mean?
Whatever it means, I think Jo is right that an IR stoush is out of place on this thread. I acknowledge that it occurred in the first place because of reaction to Jason’s characterisation of the “youth of today” but it’s really pretty tangential to the topic.
What exactly is the “Don Chipp Legacy?” (25 words or less pls)
Chipp was the first Federal Minister to introduce genuine cultural liberal practices in Australia. Since then, Anti-Labor forces in Australia have repudiated his exmple.
(25 words)
Elevation of the Senate from House of Review to one of Senate activism where an unrepresentative group wielded power in excess of their support.
Yes, those nasty checks and balances get in the way of untrammelled majorities, don’t they, rog? So you agree with Paul Keating then? “Unrepresentative swill” and all that…
And what Katz said – Chipp’s social liberalism should earn him an honoured place in Australian political and literary history almost regardless of his subsequent career.
Whats a “genuine cultural liberal practice?”
More sentimental indulgence.
Mark, despite his shenanigans Chipp died unfulfilled, he just played dog in the manger because Fraser kicked him off the front bench.
Elevation of the Senate to a House of Review from a House where an unrepresentative group wielded power in excess of their support. (23 words)
(and Rog, I can pretty much guarantee you that he died way more filfilled than he would have if he’d stuck around in the Libs, whatever he may have subsequently achieved)
Paul, I don’t want to sidetrack this into a non-dispute about Greens/Brown, but regardless of the real long-term interests of forestry workers, when those workers protested about the perceived risk to their jobs prior to the last federal election, Bob Brown dubbed their trucks the “axles of evil”. I think Chipp’s quote is mild by comparison.
Despite that, in saying Chipp’s quote was something that could have come out of Bob Brown’s mouth, I wasn’t intending to be critical, but rather indicating that Chipp’s comments were quite extreme in comparison to the accepted wisdom (repeated in many comments on this thread) is that the Democrats careered off to the left after Chipp retired.
So another poly bites the dust hooray,hang out the fucking flags.The way people rave on about these wasted spaces makes me ill.What are we talking here Mother Teresa/Albert Einstien ? None of them could work in a barrel of yeast, an iron lung no less. Jesus wept there are hundreds of the bastards they spring up like triffids,like a garden weed you can’t get rid of.
Yea I know they work(hang around) long hours,well for the money they get why not?work now there’s a word,that needs a bit of re-interpretation.I suppose digesting a cray fish and a bottle of vintage plonk after a long session of pissing in each others pockets, and groping each other after a long lunch could be construed as work.I bet some earth shattering legislation has been dreamed up whilst they are rooting each other in some sleazey motel,or being sang to by some swarthy looking bastard in a gondola in Venice.
Work?Yea right.
Now now Phill, politicians are only as good as the electorate.
Hey Rog me old china,you believe that and you,ll (believe anything) be just what most of them are looking for.But I appreciate the humour,well I think it’s funny.
FWIW, I agree with (Paul’s?) assessment which was that the Democrats essentially stayed where they were as small-l liberals while the perceived “centre” veered to the right. I probably could have phrased myself better above.
Phill, you’re weird, dude.
Fraser was a dill when PM, and hasn’t improved since. I don’t blame Chipp for breaking away, and for whatever my opinion is worth, I think that since Holt, the Libs have moved left to occupy the centre, while Labor has moved right to the same place.
This leaves no room for a third party to keep either honest, and explains: the rise of the Greens through disaffected Labor voters and the drift left of the Democrats seeking a constituency.
At the same time, I admit that I struggle to understand the absence of an organised hard right party in this country.
and didn’t Meg Lees get a mandate from her party before supporting the GST?
“he just played dog in the manger because Fraser kicked him off the front bench.”
Absolutely right. Chipp was in Fraser’s ministry from Nov 11 1975 to the election of December 13 1975. Fraser dropped him from the ministry after the election and Chipp spat the dummy. It had nothing to do with small l liberalism and everything to do with Chipp’s assessment that his career prospects were better outside the Liberal Party. If Fraser had kept him in the ministry, the Democrats would never have happened.
But to give him his due, Chipp created a party out of nothing and that held on to an important political niche for over 20 years. Contrary to popular belief, the rot set in for the Democrats well before the GST deal. It began when Janine Hanes, an excellent Democrat leader, got ideas above her and party’s station and committed political suicide by giving up her senate seat and standing for the House of Reps at the 1990 election against Labor’s Gordon Bilney in the seat of Kingston. She lost badly, and the unbelievable John Coulter became leader. That was the end of the Democrats as a serious force, with only a brief and false renaissance under Cheryl Kernot to follow. When she defected to Labor – another brain dead idea – the Democrats began their terminal decline. It’s a pity. The Democrats at their best were a serious grown up political party, unlike the Greems, who are just a projction of Bob Brown’s ego, and who will die when he leaves politics.
Peter TB – in regard to your question about whether Meg Lees got a mandate from the party in regards to the GST, the short answer is “no”. The full length answer is “the opportunity to obtain a mandate was deliberately eschewed more than once”.
Spiros – in respect of your comments about Janine Haines, Don Chipp always argued (except perhaps in the very early days) against focussing on breaking into the House of Reps because of the way it could distort the party’s focus. I think he was right (although only in hindsight), even though accepting such a role as your station in political life can feel somewhat limiting – as Cheryl Kernot’s unfortunate decision showed.
Despite that, Janine did not “lose badly”, she polled very well, and it is pretty clear that if she had run in the adjoining seat of Mayo instead of Kingston she could well have won (because there was a bigger gap between the primary votes of Labor and Liberal, as well as the likelihood of a higher Democrat vote). John Schuman nearly won Mayo as a Democrat candidate in 1998 on little more than a combination of his fame as a minor SA musical celebrity and a curious and unexplained last minute decision of One Nation to change their how to vote cards to put Schuman higher than that well known lefty Alexander Downer (well, it was never publicly explained anyway – don’t ask me, I was only 19).
Mind you, even if she had won, it isn’t necessarily a given that it would have been onwards and upwards from then on, as was shown when the Greens won a House of Reps seat in a by-election, only to lose it again.
You also left out Janet Powell’s leadership between Haines and Coulter, and all of the internal upheaval involved along the way.
Personally, I think you’re probably wrong about the Greens dying after Brown retires too – apart from anything else, the party name is now too good a brand for support to just disappear, regardless of what else happens (in the absence of a completely credibility destroying decision like supporting nuclear weapons or some such).
It looks like in Phill we have found the left wing version of Panelbeater Bird.
Carry on …
At least bird has a point to make sometimes. Phill just loves the sound of his own voice.
That puts Phill
sub 15 years old
Andrew, when Haines died a couple of years ago, Chipp said she was the best leader the Democrats had ever had. Chipp may have been unduy modest, but she had a quality that has not been shown by any Democrat leader since, some of whom have been OK, and some of whom have been shockers.
We’ll see about the Greens. Brown has cred from the Franklin dam days that he’s been dining out on very successfully for nearly a quarter of a century. He Somehow, I just don’t see Kerry Nettle as capable of winning 8% of the national vote for her party.
the best leaders the ADs had realised the only reason for the party’s existence was to keep the Bastards honest.
When Leaders went beyond that they lost votes. Mad Mel took that to the extreme and decimated the party. Natasha somewhat put the party back onto an even keel by repudiating the GST agreement but when the party got rid of her they were dead men walking.
Ask any small business man how much they like the GST!
At least bird has a point to make sometimes. Phill just loves the sound of his own voice.
Umm very strange comment, what are we making here electronic recordings,shit I may try singing.And of course Yobbo the raconteur of blog land, what is your point?Probably the usual right wing twaddle you spread around blogs to inform people on how intelligent you think you are.
Jason,now let me see,of course it was you who told me Hitler was a socialist.Apart from comparing me to PanelbeaterBird what other little pearls of wisdom do you have for me?
Rog,well Rog your just Rog, what can I say.
A couple of points.
Spiros, the significant news in the development of the Greens is the consolidation of their organisation, electoral support and legislative presence in Victoria and NSW, to a considerable extent on the basis of issues and coming from constituencies in addition to those which Bob Brown naturally appeals to. This is not to deny that Bob Brown is an asset, but referring to his cred from the Franklin Dam days fails to explain why Greens support is highest in the age cohort (18-25) which stares back at me blankly when I ask them to tell me what the Franklin Dam dispute was all about.
Also, I would argue (and Andrew Bartlett would agree) that rumours of Natasha Stott-Despoja’s has-been status are greatly exaggerated. She is, after all, about eight years younger than Julia Gillard and only a couple of months older than Tanya Plibersek, is now free of the baggage of spokesperson and symbol for youth, and has provided some impressive policy leadership and initiative on some important issues where a progressive lead has been lacking until recently. I would not be the least surprised to see her become more prominent in Australian politics rather than less in coming decades.
Does the slide in Democrat voting preferences from big majority Liberal to big majority Labor over 29 years and particularly post Howard Govt in 96,98,01, reveal a sizeable amount of Democrat voters actually changing their second preferences from Liberal to Labor…… or did more Liberal preferencing Democrats go actually ‘home’ to the Liberals particularly post Howard, with the Democrats picking up more even more disaffected ALP voters, who then jumped ship for Greener pastures, with all the other 80’s Labor-preferencing Democrat voters in 2004?
One would assume that Liberal preferencing Democrats would tend to repudiate Howard’s policies, than embrace them. But it seems a stretch to see them going from Liberal preferencing Democrats in the 1998 Tampa election to primary Green voters in 2004?
Just interested.
Jo – I’ve only got time for a quick answer – those are very good questions. They should be able to be answered from AES data. But one thing I do know is that there’s an awful lot of churn in the Democrats vote from election to election – ie people voting Democrats in 1998 who go elsewhere in 2001 and people coming from elsewhere in 2001. The Democrats had/have very few “rusted on” voters – which is one reason that explains the rapid decline in their vote.
Paul,
to what do you refer when you write of the Green’s legislative presence in Victoria? They have no representation in the Victorian pariament, and may or may not end up with some in the legislative council after the election this year.
As for Natasha, I agree she’s young enough to be around for a while yet, but she’s not going to be in the Federal Parliament after the next election; certainly not as a Democrat. I can’t see her joining the Greens. I can see her joining the Liberal Party, after Howard has retired, if that event triggers a revival (or should that be resurrection?) of the small-l liberal wing of the party (to which Chipp once belonged). Because, basically, she is a small l Liberal, by background, by temperament, and by policy inclination. And at the risk of gettimg shouted down, her husband was a Liberal staffer and is still well connected in the Liberal Party.
Mark, your analysis is consistent with a story I once read about how it was that the Democrats managed to keep getting Senators elected from Queensland, even when that state was much, much more conservative than the national average. (It still is, but not to the same extent.) It seems the Democrats got a lot of votes from very conservative types who paid no attention to the party’s policies but were attracted by the slogan, “Keep the Bastards Honest”.
Andrew Bartlett, can you confirm or deny?
thanks mark, just had a quick look but would really need to wade through to find out these differences…
everyone needs their own little Antony Green locked in a cupboard, that you can bring out as required.
The remarkable thing about Chipp is that he created (with a lot of help) a party with very few parallels around the world.
The Liberal Democrats in the UK are now similar to the Democrats (and far more successful), but at that time were rather different. The D66 in the Netherlands are fairly similar, and I believe there is also a party along the same lines in Denmark, but that is about it.
That is not to say that there are not people looking for a party with similar policies, clearly there are, but even with proportional representation it has generally not proved possible to get one going which attracts more than 2 percent for an election or two and then dies.
Bob Brown has clearly played a huge role in getting the Greens to the stage they are at, but since there are Green parties of similar or larger size in about twenty countries around the world (and smaller ones in many more) the existence of a viable Green party clearly does not depend on a charasmatic figure like Brown.
That the Democrats have survived for so long after Chipp retired demonstrates that it was far from all his doing, but it does not seem likely that they would have come about in a meaningful sense without him.
Although Chipp could be amazingly pig-headed at times, overall his contributions where overwhelmingly positive. Which does make one wonder just how far up the beach the tide of know-nothing right-wing prejudice would have run if he had never got into parliament. It’s a scary thought.
To me, Stott-Despoja always sounds like 3rd speaker for the affirmative, wrapping up a Adelaide Girls Grammar debate. Even when eulogising Chipp.
But that’s just me. Personally, Im more interested in what’s next for Bartlett.
Part of the answer to Jo’s question is that until the late 1990s the Democrats were the party of choice for environmentally concerned voters. In the period from the early 1980s to the early 1990s environmental issues were a significant factor in Federal elections, with Labor successfully positioning itself as the more environmentally concerned of the two major parties and overtly campaigning for the preferences of Democrat and proto-Greens voters. The peak conservation groups also waged electoral interventions which typically urged a primary vote for the Democrats or proto-Greens and preferences to Labor.
Spiros, I had in mind the Greens’ strong presence in Victorian local government and the high probability that they will gain seats in the Victorian Upper House in this year’s election. Also they did not fall far short of winning a couple of Lower House seats in the inner city in 2002, and did win a number of booths in those electorates.
Re Natasha, I grew up with a rusted-on Liberal mother and a rusted-on Labor father who would have stand-up shouting matches in the local polling booth on election day, so I tend to be wary about deducing a person’s political leanings from that of their spouse.
Paul,
Natasha just has the look and feel of a Liberal about her. Come to think of it, so do most Democrats. Andrew Murray screams Liberal, Andrew Bartlett less so, but then again no one in the Labor Party (especially in Queensland) ever “represented Queensland at U16 level at rugby union”.
That’s not surprising, because genetically Democrats are decended from the Liberal Party, or rather the ‘nice people’ wing of the Liberal Party (an endangered species, to be sure).
Look what happened when Cheryl Kernot went to the Labor Party. The culture clash was palpable.
If Natasha has a political future, it’s with the Liberal Party. I can see her seamlessly easing into middle age and swapping the Doc Martins for a twin pearl set, as a leading light of Doctor’s wives Liberal Part faction. The great thing is, she won’t have to change her beliefs in anything.
Spiros
I realise (or presume) you’re talking partly in jest, but your examples just show how shallow the whole notion is of trying to squeeze people into left-right (or Liberal-Labor) categories.
There are almost no liberals left in the Liberal Party. If at some stage that Party shifts away from being a hardline neoconservative extremist anti-democratic organisation to something different, then who knows, but at present it would be totally incompatable with Andrew Murray or Natasha Stott Despoja. This should be readily apparent to anyone who looks beyond their speaking style or dress sense to what they have actually said and done.
Whilst it’s very unlikely that the Democrats would have galvanised as a viable political party in the way they did without Chipp’s pivotal role, the one down side is that ever since people who wish to discredit the Democrats have just described the whole party as some sort of Liberal party offshoot or breakaway, which was barely true in 1977 and ceased having any truth at all to it within a few years after that.
Lazy, shallow thinking saves having to make any effort I guess (as we see every day in the mainstream media), but it still doesn’t make it correct.
Everyone has their own individual views why they are involved in one party rather than another, but I think for most active Democrats, a key issue is – as the name suggests – support for democratic practices. The problem with both major parties (and some of the minor ones) is that they are fundamentally and determinedly anti-democratic, which makes them fairly unsuitable.
As Stephen L’s contribution noted, the Australian Democrats are fairly rare in what they have attempted to do as a political party (which there may be good reasons for). The left-right thing is dodgy enough as it is, but the Democrats probably operated outside of that even more than most, which may explain so many commentators have never bothered trying and just resort to sloppy assertions about the party moving left or being basically right wing just because its founder was once in the (then very very different) Liberal Party.
Andrew, I realise that there are practically no liberals left in the Liberal Party, which is why I said in one post that that liberal wing might require resurrection, and in another post that it was an endangered species.
So let me clarify. Stott-Despoja and Murray are examples of the kinds of people who used to prominent in the Liberal Party, like, well, Don Chipp, but also Peter Baume, Fred Chaney, Ian Macphee, Alan Missen and so on. Today, that tendency hangs by a gossamer thread with Petro Georgiou and a couple of others.
The chances of a revival of this wing of the Liberal Party under John Howard are nil. In the future, as you say, who knows? But in the meantime, no one is going to get elected, or re-elected, to any parliament as a Democrat. Any Democrat politician who wants to continue in politics will have to try their luck with another party.
Andrew, have you ever had an old lefty turn up to a meeting and attempt to impute personal guilt to you for the views Don Chipp held 40 years ago on the Vietnam War?
Now is not the place for an extended disquisition on the sociological debate between generative and dimensional theories of social class, but I will simply make the point that a person’s political position and values are not simply mechanically determined by her class origin and upbringing, nor are they simply deducible from whatever upper-middle class cultural baggage may be present in her appearance and manners.
Sorry, should have said 2001 Tampa election in my post â getting my elections mixed up!
I suppose what I was asking, was about the fate of the Liberal preferencing Democrats, who once made up the majority and for many years 50/50 â but I suspect in 2004, did finally go âhomeâ. Mark is probably right, the churn might be v. significant, cause itâs easier to follow the logic of a Democrat voter who preferenced Lib in 98, then preferenced ALP in 01, but went primary Liberal in 04, than to primary Green in 2004. (The Dem vote in 98 and 01 was roughly 5 per cent, but the swing from Lib to Lab preference was about 10%)
Andrew Murray maintains it was party in-fighting not the GST, that lost them so many votesâ¦.which seems to hold up. But possibly, he is referring to mostly lost Liberal preferencing Democrats, and not ALP preferencing Democrat voters, picked up during the 80 & 90âs, as per Paul Nortonâs post.
While âkeeping the bastards honestâ? â was a huge part of Chippâs appeal, so was the promise, ânot to block supplyâ?. I personally think this policy alone, propelled the Democrats into double-digit polling in the first place. Many small l liberals desperately wanted a third force in the senate, after the major upheavals of the Dismissal.
It is also useful to remember that the Democrats were not the natural home of disaffected ALP voters originally, (although the Democrats always attracted people with broad liberal democratic positions and other progressives) however in relation to traditional ALP voters, the Democratâs Industrial Relations policies were significantly closer to Liberal than Labor policy until the late 80âs, and they mostly voted with the coalition on IR during Hawkeâs first terms.
The Democrats as they promised, were a very useful bulwark against the excesses of Hawke-Keating Govt, attracting both the middle class left, and also some working class Labor voters, while retaining their small L liberal constituency.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the election of a conservative Govt, really exposed major internal differences amongst its supporters, its representatives and party members on big-ticket election winning issues like IR and taxation, which given their short history is not surprising.
Morgan Polls has since 1999 provided data on the second preference intentions of minor party voters. To the extent that a trend can be discerned, the split of Democrat preferences was about 60/40 towards Labor in the late 1990s when the Democrat vote was still relatively high, but is now tending to be more strongly pro-Labor from a much smaller Democrat vote(although small sample sizes make it more difficult to detect trends with confidence).
In the 2004 election the Green vote did not increase by as much as the Democrat vote fell, so part of the Democrat vote must have gone somewhere else. Further, the increase of the Coalition vote in metropolitan areas is most plainly explained by a portion of the Democrat vote going to the Coalition. (In rural and regional areas the picture is complicated by the fall in the One Nation vote.)
Re the Democrats’ stance on IR during the 1980s, there was a view in some circles at the time that it was convenient for the Hawke Government to talk up the Democrats’ unwillingness to support pro-union IR legislative changes in order to provide an excuse for Hawke not to proceed with some changes which the ACTU was calling for and which the ACTU-ALP Accord provided for.
Ah, Paul – so many times. It makes me feel nostalgic just thinking about it.
The Socialist Alliance/Democratic Socialist/SWP used Chipp’s Liberal origins regularly to infer ongoing philosophical linkages with modern-day Liberals. Even in 2001, despite campaigning heavily on the government anti-refugee racism and straight after Labor’s Tampa surrender on refugee laws, they still preferenced Labor ahead of the Democrats because Labor was the repesentatives of the working class (there are separate ironies of how the working class were more likely than anyone else to support the attacks on refugees, but that’s another matter.
Indeed, touching on one of your earlier posts, the Democrats’ ‘Liberal origins’ was often used by people in giving a reason why there was a need to set up a Green party, rather than just join the Democrats, who as you acknowledge were (rightly) the party for environmentally concerned voters.
Jo
In the early days, the preferences of Democrat voters on polling day tended to split fairly even towards Labor and Liberal. Over time this moved more towards 60% Labor – 40% Liberal, although it varied a bit depending on the region. It got up around 66%-33% in some seats as the Libs moved more and more to the hard right, but Dems voters on average have been moderately labor leaning since the 1980s
This is a generalisation, and specific circumstances in some seats did cause variation – not least when preference recommendations on how to vote cards favoured one of the major parties (which only happened on a minority of occasions, although more frequently than seems to be commonly realised). Also, it should be noted that the electoral statistics regarding preference flows is a lot better now than it was in the 1980s, although it is still not always totally precise.
In any case, while over time Democrat voters tended to prefernce more towards Labor, there always remained a significant minority who preferenced to Liberal – certainly to a greater extent that with Green voters.
Whilst there is always a fair bit of guess work in assessing where a party’s votes go to and come from, I think it fair to say that much of this significant minority of Lib leaning Democrat voters just voted Liberal last time, which is why the seats the Democrats lost didn’t just go straight to the Greens (most notably in Queensland, which of course is the one that gave them control of the Senate), and why the Libs Senate vote was so high (which put them easily over the 3 quota mark in every state, including those such as Vic and Tas where it was reasonable to hope that they might not).
Obviously it is hard for me to be totally objective about this, but I do try. I mention some of this stuff because one of the important issues for people who are hoping for the Libs to lose control of the Senate at the next election is what option might tempt Lib voters to shift their vote. Some may go to the Greens, and they are clearly trying to make themselves look less threatening, but I am not convinced enough will feel comfortable doing that.
Paul,
Found this – according to Antony Green – more Labor preferences in late 90′s than I had thought…. but less than your morgan polls….
Distribution of Australian Democrat Preferences
% vote Labor Coalition
1996 (138) n.a. 54.02 45.98
1998 (144) 5.0 56.72 43.28
2001 (145) 5.5 64.13 35.87
Also… Just dug up this http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/nicholls/nichvo10/vol1031w.htm – Rod Kemp’s ‘version’ of the Dems IR policies for the HR Nicholls society!! it has some interesting tid bits.
Scooting around various blogs these last few days, it strikes me that the Dems seem to have a lot of half-hearted support, but not a lot concrete.
I don’t know that the Dems should be losing their seats at the next election – I think they should throw all they have at hiring some decent promo people, get some sharp ads out there about needing a proper house of review, not a house of rubber stamping, and you might just get back the ‘wet’ liberal voters, as well as the centrists. And people like me, who are not at all keen on the current govt, but very dubious about the opposition, and not on board with the Greens either.
Thanks for that link Jo – in a sad indictment on my existence, I found it truly fascinating to read.
If there is any prism through which to try to meaningfully assess genuine ideological shifts of the Democrats, Industrial Relations is probably as good as it gets. IR (or WR these days I suppose) is the one real area left where there is consistent and mostly genuine divergence between Labor & Liberal, so the Democrats have almost always been in the balance of power role (although the exceptions are interesting too, especially when Labor changed position and allowed age-discriminatory/youth wages to continue when they were about to be abolished by virtue of a legislated sunset clause kicking in).
Apart from the usual ideological blather, Kemp’s paper shows how both sides beat up on the Dems for either being too left wing or in Labor’s/the left’s case, too right wing – as Paul’s last comment indicated, Labor used to use this supposed ‘right wing’ approach as an excuse to not introduce changes many unions wanted, even though in many cases they could have got them through (as they would have with a Bill of Rights, national Land Rights laws, and a bunch of other things, but that’s a separate matter)
It would be worth doing a full analysis of the IR stuff sometime, but from my knowledge while there were a few shifts in emphasis in the Dems’ IR approach over time, some of it was in reponse to the political currents, rather internally driven from within the party. I don’t think there were huge shifts in the core policy in many areas. Most of the stuff Kemp whinged about was just shifts in emphasis or straight out selective misrepresentation. Still, there are always quotes one can grab to support an argument, which is why looking at was agreed to and rejected in the Senate is the best guide.
I know I’ve read some Chipp coments from the 80s which were quite anti-union, although most of the policy stuff was done by John Siddons, who despite being an industrialist of sorts was very big on industrial democracy (not that that always suits the unions, depending on what it involves). however, some of the stuff I saw Chipp say in later, post-retirement years was as full-blown ‘workers united will never be defeated’ style rhetoric (which might reinforce my theory about Chipp continually shifting further left in retirement cos he was worried he’d wake up one day and find Fraser further left then him)
It was a bit before my time, but there were different views about whether to support Labor’s moves towards major amalgamations into super-unions. I’m not convinced it was the right thing to support that, and from memory Brian Harradine didn’t – who was usually a reasonable sounding board on trade union matters.
The one big area of contention was the secondary boycott provisions – 45D & E of the Trade Practices Act, which was iconic/symbolic for many in the union movement. The position did shift on that over the years – one way and then the other if I remember rightly.
Further to the discussion on preference flows, the Parl Library has just released a research note analysing preference flows in the 2004 election.
I haven’t had time to read it well enough to assess whether I agree with their methodology (although I have no reason to doubt it), but it is worth a read.
It has Democrat preferences going 59% ALP and 41% Coalition. By contrast, Family First preferences went 67% Coalition and 33% ALP.
The Greens went 81% ALP and 19% Coalition, which is close to the preference flows from the Liberals to the Nationals in the one seat where this occured (82% to Nats, 18% to ALP)
Just to show how easly notions of left, right and centre can be warped, One Nation proved more ‘centrist’ than the Democrats (56% Coalition, 44% ALP) and the CEC most ‘centrist’ of all, with its 41 750 votes splitting almost evenly.
and to return to the original Don Chipp theme, an account of his State Funeral is on my blog for anyone who’s interested.
Thanks for the funeral account link, Senator. I’ll update the post accordingly.