From today’s Crikey email:
One aspect of the Victorian result that hasn’t attracted any comment is the implications for the Democrats federally. Except in the blogosphere. Graham Young at Ambit Gambit believes that the Greens failed to capture the protest vote to the greatest extent possible, and that their static vote might presage better things for the Democrats in the federal poll next year than pundits are crediting.
Analysis of the minor parties vote in the Victorian election has been muddied by spin. Family First and the Greens are both keen to claim that the results prove they’ve either consolidated their position or arrived on the scene as a force to be reckoned with.
While the Democrats ran candidates, unlike in the Queensland election, they effectively ran dead. They’re harnessing their remaining enthusiasm and resources for the fight to re-elect their Senators next year.
Long term governments, such as Bracks’s in Victoria and Beattie’s in Queensland, inevitably disappoint some of their own supporters. In the context of a lacklustre opposition, not only disillusioned Labor voters but also swinging voters who have no time for the alternative government look for a vehicle for protest.
Analysis of the Queensland election result done by Graham Young and me for The National Forum demonstrated that in state seats where both the Greens and Family First were running, the Greens vote was significantly lower than in seats where they had the protest vote to themselves. Both parties have strong ideological images – environmentalist and Christian conservative respectively – which make them less attractive to swinging voters basically looking to give both the government and the opposition a kick in the pants. In Victoria, the People Power candidates probably picked up a lot of the residue of protest voters who didn’t want to associate themselves with either Green or socially conservative politics respectively.
With the Stott-Despoja era history, the Democrats have the advantage federally of being able to present an image which is short on ideology but big on “none of the above” sentiment. While Democrats Senators seeking re-election – such as Lyn Allison and Andrew Bartlett – might not excite the press gallery, they’re also unencumbered with ideological negatives. The recent Newspoll figure of 5% for the Democrats might be a harbinger of something of a return to form – remembering that voters’ memories are short, and the Democrats have done little to sully their image over this electoral cycle.
Howard will be seeking a fifth term next year. If the Labor Party is smart, they’ll unite behind Beazley, and the “new, untried, possibly mad” factor that worked against Latham won’t be a card to play. Any fifth term government has made enemies aside from the tiredness factor, and Howard has had a term that’s scrappy, to say the least.
If they can sew up some smart preference deals for the upper house, the Democrats might be much better placed to capitalise on this than the Greens, whose negatives will have been reinforced by the negative campaigning directed against them in several campaigns now.
Elsewhere: Andrew Bartlett on the Democrats and the Victorian election.
Two main problems for the Democrats are:
1) Their shattered party structure.
2) Many of the “left-Democrats” – say, the people who were really angry about the GST – have left forever, and are now stuck on the Greens.
The only way I can see the Dems having a chance is if they can convince enough moderate Liberal voters that the Government can’t be trusted with a Senate majority.
The Democrats’ traditional “we are the sensible watchdog” attitude is nowhere near as exciting to a young activist as the Greens’ moral certainty and fervour. Yet when the Democrats tried moral fervour, a-la Stott-Despoja’s leadership, it split the party.
Democrat Senator Bartlett’s blog is very interesting and informative, but the ‘vibe’ of the site strikes me as being ‘look at what the mean ole government is doing’, which is unlikely to create the bandwagon they need.
If I may ask, Mark, is writing for Crikey a strictly voluntary activity?
On the subject of the post, a poll of 5% for the Democrats is much greater than their recent polling results (1-2%) since the resignation of Natasha from the leadership – I remember that when they regularly elected senators in half-senate elections, they’d poll maybe 7-8% in opinion polls.
If the Democrats win 5% in elections, and gain prefs from other parties instead of the greens, they’d have a real chance of winning senate seats esp. in Qld and SA and possibly WA, where the primary vote for the ALP is comparatively lower than in Vic, NSW and Tas.
Well, they just got 0.77% in the VIC upper house – admittedly, it was never their strongest state, but lets keep it real!
They ran dead, Lefty E, as Graham says.
Not sure what you mean, Sacha.
“If I may ask, Mark, is writing for Crikey a strictly voluntary activity?
Not sure what you mean, Sacha. ”
Do you get paid to write for Crikey ? I apologise if you have disclosed this before elsewhere.
Do you have a deadline to meet for a certain amount of material on specific topics?
Is Mr Beecher looking at taking LP into a new private ownership?
I wasn’t sure whether Sacha meant do I have contractual obligations, or whether I got paid. The answer would be no and yes. I’m not on a retainer or a contract and can submit articles at will, and they decide whether or not to publish them. I get paid a fee for each article published.
I’m unaware of any privatisation plans for LP
The biggest challenge facing the Democrats seems to me to be one of ideological space. Is there enough ideological room for the Democrats to articulate a message that will persuade one in five voters to vote for them in the Senate?
Voters who are looking for a progressive Left alternative to the Howard government that does not compromise or negotiate on issues will vote for the Greens.
Voters who want a conservative moral voice in the senate will vote Family First.
In effect, the Democrats are triangulated by Family First on one side who campaign on what they see as Christian principles such as honesty, morality and the “family”. On the other side, they have the Greens who claim to represent a Left alternative to the mainstream political parties. Socially conservative voters who want to cast a protest vote against dishonest politicians will vote Family First. Left protest voters will vote Green.
Without the presence of a strong telegenic leader or the solid personal vote of their candidates I cannot see where the votes for the Democrats will come from. The voting bloc who are motivated by their old mantra (“Keep the bastards honest”) now vote either FF or Green.
Btw, is it any surprise that the state the started the Family First crusade (and Nick Xenophon) was the same state that gave birth to the Democrats – South Australia (the national home of the protest vote!)?
Thanks for the reply Mark and I’m glad the emoticon wasn’t winking!
I’ve been thinking that the Dems should run a strong campaign next federal election of “Keep The Senate Honest” – I don’t think many people have been too impressed with the double-majority of Howard, and are probably looking for a bit of balance and moderation, boring though those concepts can be…
Laurie,
I think you will find Family First running on the “honesty” and “decency” theme in the next election. Voters offended by FF’s Christian background but looking to restore balance to the senate will surely vote Green.
How many voters are there out there who:
1) Don’t want to vote for either of the major parties in the senate,
2) Don’t want to veer too far Left (ie. vote Green)
3) Don’t want to veer too far Right (ie. vote FF)?
I just don’t see 1 in 20 voters (note my error above) who fit this criteria.
Also add into the mix a somewhat resurgent National Party preselecting independent thinking Barnabys for the senate in Qld, NSW & Vic.
Antonio,
The reason I’m only 95% prepared to write off the Democrats is the Xenophon factor in SA. I strongly suspect that he picked up a lot of the centre-right ex-Democrat support that the Dems will need.
I think Xenophon is picking up moral moderates – people who are uneasy about what they see as the permissiveness of modern life, but who don’t see themselves as conservative as FF. That attitude fits in well with the Dems’ ‘careful watchdog’ image.
If the Dems can win those sort of people back, and pick up 3.5-5% of the vote, they might be in with a chance, depending on preference deals.
Re SA, Clyde Cameron used to claim that unlike the Victorian or NSW branches, the SA branch of the ALP used to represent all groups within the party on the State Executive. SA has a long tradition of mistrusting ‘winner take all’ politics, which helps to explain Xenophon and the Dems.
I’d guess that Family First is more a product of the success of megachurches like the Paradise Assembly of God (which incidentally is the spiritual home of Australian Idol winner Guy Sebastian)
Thanks Mark – I meant “do you get paid for your articles”.
David,
I largely agree with you about South Australia.
The advantage FF have is a highly organised group of activists. Whilst more shambolic, the Greens also have highly motivated activists. The crucial question is though, why get passionate about the Democrats?
Here is my early prediction for the 2007 Fed Election. Look for the social moderates and doctor’s wives to come back to the Liberal party. This has been the first term for a long time that social liberals in the party like Moylan, Baird, Georgiou and even Turnbull have been able to effectively make their voice heard. I strongly believe that this is a deliberate strategy on the part of Howard to maximise the Liberal party’s potential for first preference votes by promoting the “party of the Broad Church”. Additionally, many social liberals will be attracted to the almost certain prospect of Howard stepping down next term.
At this stage, I don’t see social liberals moving to a minor party in the next election. This term, the larger Greens caucus have really done NOTHING in the senate to demonstrate that they can make any meaningful contribution to the legislative agenda beyond pure Left-oppositionism.
Here is my early prediction for the 2007 Fed Election. Look for the social moderates and doctor’s wives to come back to the Liberal party. This has been the first term for a long time that social liberals in the party like Moylan, Baird, Georgiou and even Turnbull have been able to effectively make their voice heard.
Yes, I think this will be the crucial battleground for the Dems. If your prediction is correct, then the Dems do have little chance.
“the people who were really angry about the GST – have left forever, and are now stuck on the Greens.”
Can I ask a question of contributors: what sort of person would remain “really angry about the GST” this far down the track? And why?
Gareth,
I can’t give you specific examples unfortunately because I didn’t keep records, but very recently I have seen internet comments, presumably from very politically committed people, that still bitterly blame the Democrats’ GST decision for all the trouble that has followed since.
I think ordinary voters got over the GST long long ago, but it is the sort of controversy that warms the hearts of activists. So it is harder for the Dems to recruit left-leaning activists to do the boring behind-the-scenes work that builds election victories.
Maybe they are on this trail, but it may take them through some tougher times yet.
The Democrats never had the Bible-basher vote. Chipp was a renowned pants man, Janet Powell had an affair with one of her colleagues, and enough said about Kernot. In an earlier thread Mark almost convinced me that Bartlett has a chance in Queensland but Allison is surely preference fodder. In the NSW Parliament Chesterfield Sofa is providing a platform for others, railing against the dying of the light notwithstanding.
The only hope for the Democrats to gain the moderate liberal vote is if they desert the party en masse, and swamp what remains of the Democrats such that ex-Liberals basically remake that party in their own image. This won’t happen in Victoria, which has now taken over from SA as the country’s most factionally balanced Liberal division. NSW is the least balanced, and the maddies are going to make things worse for the moderates before they get better.
In Tasmania, where the ground between far-left and far-right is occupied by an increasingly stale ALP, the Dems had some hope until you realise that their idea of political talent is Greg Barns. The Liberals for Forests in WA have a chance of slapping the WA Dems into fighting shape unless they have melted into the waterless sands.
The next you’ll hear from the Dems is when it’s time to change government – people who are sick of the Libs but don’t trust Labor. We’re not there yet. The road the Democrats are on has desolate views at the moment, but whether it leads to the sunlit uplands is anyone’s guess. One sure sign will be that Aaron Hewett gets on board.
If you’re tempted to join the Democrats in future, spare a thought for those who carry the flame through these lean times.
I can’t really be objective about this topic (well, I probably can but no one would believe I was), but I’ll make a couple of comments anyway:
- the key question is probably the one Antonio posed. How many votes are there for a centrist minor party in the current environment? The Greens present a solid option on the left and Family First a slightly less proven option on the right. I think Howard’s mode of operating has consciously acted to destroy the middle ground, which suits those who’s natural tendency is to gravitate to the polar opposite (and doesn’t bother Howard as he’s ensured the hard right option has more numerous support and the absence of middle ground for them to move towards means it is easier to keep them on the partisan right) The Qld election did not present a moderate minor party option to the voters. They will have this option at next year’s federal election, but the question remains whether the votes which deserted the Democrats in 2004 (including some that went to the Coalition) may come back, particularly given the key issue of whether people want to keep a Coalition controlled Senate – something which wasn’t an issue at the last election, (much as some of us may have tried to make it one).
- I think a lot will depend on the quality of the individual candidates the Democrats put forward for the Senate, as they will need to rely on this much more to convince voters to support them, rather than the party brand, which has obviously been badly damaged. This will be absolutely critical in South Australia. There is a chance of holding the SA Senate seat, but only with a candidate who is credible to the media and the public.
- I don’t think there is much doubt that the Democrats used to pick up votes from across a wider section of the spectrum than the Greens now do. The Greens are polling well, but it is much more confined to the left – mainly taking votes off the Labor left. When the Democrats used to poll well, it had a greater proportion of middle ground voters. Thus when the Democrat vote collapsed under the brilliant leadership in place at the 2004 election, some seats went to the Coalition (e.g. NSW and Qld), as well as Labor/Green.
- As the NSW and Qld experience at the last federal election showed (and the recent Victorian state election to some extent too), the Greens no longer get a preference flow from as wide a range of the other minor parties as they used to. This is not just because the other minors have started to preference away from them as they have become more of a ‘major minor’. It is also because the perception of them over time has crystalised to being well to the left. Many smaller parties are now starting to preference them after both the major parties, which makes it harder for them, as it means you don’t get the leftovers when it comes down to the last two candidates – which can be the critical phase of course. People may have noticed a change in some of the rhetoric of the Greens about the Democrats, which has shifted from ‘the Democrats are dead’ to the ‘Democrats are still in with a chance.’ This is because the Greens need the Democrats to get a few per cent to give them an extra boost over the line, in the same way as the Democrats used to rely on that 2 or 3 per cent Green vote. This preference flow gives each party access to votes from people who would never vote for them directly. This is a key reason why the Greens fell just short in both Qld and NSW at the last Senate election – although if the Dems had polled even 0.5 per cent higher in Qld, they would have won instead, so there’s always a range of factors.
- As much as Family First will try to paint themselves as being moderate, centrist and reasonable, the fact is they aren’t. I gave them the benefit of the doubt – rather foolishly – partly because I dislike people being bagged just because they are religious, and the people I know from the Assembly of God are quite reasonable and moderate. However, whilst I’m sure they have plenty of reasonable moderate people in their membership (the same as every Greens member is not a closet Trot), their electoral support base and the factor that provides their core motivation has been shown to be very much a fundamentalist one. They will poll OK in the right circumstances, but I doubt they will ever be able to break out of the Christian fundamentalist mould, the same as Fred Nile’s mob never did.
- I’m not sure there’s a lot more growth in the Green’s primary vote – at least at the moment – which is not a criticism as they’re polling quite well for a minor party. However, while their vote has been strong in Victoria for some time, it does seem to have plateaud. They were much more cashed up this election than last and clearly had a much greater chance of winning seats due to the change in the electoral system, yet their vote went down marginally, which I was surprised about – particularly with the drop in their Upper House vote. This doesn’t necessarily help the Democrats any though. For the Democrats to have much of a chance in the Senate, they will need to have the Green’s primary vote a bit lower – more like 6 per cent than 10 per cent. Taking some votes off the Greens is obviously one way of making that happen, although I’m not suggesting there’s huge chunks that can be carved off. Presenting an option that’s really worth voting for is the main task, rather than worrying too much about other parties. I think this can be done in Queensland – I’ll leave it to thers to suggest what other states this might be doable in.
- and Gareth, I can assure you there are still people angry at the Democrats’ role in the GST. I don’t think it’s because they’ve retained a burning hatred of the GST itself itself. It is more the perception of a breach of faith or a betrayal that still rankles with some. As to whether it’s still a burning issue with the ‘average voter’, as opposed to the politically active, I don’t think it is, although many people still remember it (not all of them negatively)
(sorry, that turned into more than a couple of comments)
‘what sort of person would remain “really angry about the GSTâ€?’
I remain angry about the GST because of the growth in the ‘black economy’. Whenever I employ a tradesman there are always two prices; with or without the GST?
If I pay cash, whether it be to get the house painted, service the car, rewire the house, replace the guttering, recarpet the rooms etc there is no GST paid if I pay cash. More importantly, there is no ‘paper trail’ to demonstrate the tradesman’s real income for income tax purposes. Also the cost of materials bought to do the ‘cash’ tasks can be easily be transferred to other jobs which again has tax benefits for the tradesman(men) in question. Tradies love the GST.
Tax income is being lost when it is needed for vital services.
It is in my interests, narrowly defined’ to pay cash; broadly defined, it is in my interest and the interest of the wider society to develop a paper trail.
Perhaps the worst decision made in recent times is the decision to remove the tax on superannuation pensions. While I will enjoy considerable personal benefit, I believe it is just bad public policy. We have underfunded health systems, education systems etc and yet we are narrowing the tax base. Stupid!
Re the Superannuation stupidity, I could go on and demonstrate how there will be an enormous growth in Trusts, but I will leave that for another time.
Back to the original point of the post, I cant see any space for the Dems Im afriad. Social liberalism – the only real force they can claim to represent, has been swallowed by the ALP (and maybe will go back to a kinder gentler (not!) Libs), and as others have pointed out, protest vote elements are not really playing in their favour either.
I wouldnt be entirely surprised if Bartlett survived on profile, good luck, and prefs, but I would rate anyone else chances.
Mind you, in these days of randomly generated upper house MPs, who can say for sure.
Andrew E,
Totally agree with you about the NSW Liberal division.That said, preselecting Marise Payne to the number 3 spot would go a long way towards locking up the small “l” Liberal vote in NSW.
Andrew B,
The number 3 senator of the Liberal ticket in South Australia will be one to watch. I suspect it will go to the moderates which would make life interesting for the Dems there. By contrast, the “talent” of the number 3 on the Liberal ticket in Queensland leaves the Dems in with a chance in Queensland. If Juanita Wheeler is preselected as the Greens candidate then Senator Bartlett’s chances improve markedly.
wpd: Surely that “black economy” problem you mention existed before the GST, and would continue if the GST were abolished? Given the nature of tradesmen’s work, it’s probably impossible to find a reliable way to consistently levy tax on them.
As to the future of the Democrats, I can only see them surviving with a populist Nick Xenophon style candidate at the helm.
I don’t agree that “Social liberalism – the only real force they can claim to represent, has been swallowed by the ALP.” The extent to which State ALP campaigns rely on their bikini-clad pin-up girl, Miss Laura Norder, would suggest otherwise.
The #1 problem with the Dems is that no one, apart from political junkies, knows what they stand for anymore. Nick X grabbed one and then two upper house seats in SA on the basis of being Mr Anti-Pokies; the Dems need some issue of similar visibility which they can call their own.
Contra Andrew B,
“As much as Family First will try to paint themselves as being moderate, centrist and reasonable, the fact is they aren’t. I gave them the benefit of the doubt – rather foolishly – partly because I dislike people being bagged just because they are religious, and the people I know from the Assembly of God are quite reasonable and moderate. However, whilst I’m sure they have plenty of reasonable moderate people in their membership (the same as every Greens member is not a closet Trot), their electoral support base and the factor that provides their core motivation has been shown to be very much a fundamentalist one. They will poll OK in the right circumstances, but I doubt they will ever be able to break out of the Christian fundamentalist mould, the same as Fred Nile’s mob never did.”
I don’t believe Family First are moderate. My point is that they will run on dog-whistled Christian principles like honesty etc. This “cleanskin” approach will rob the Dems somewhat of the “honesty-in-politics” protest vote.
I think that it may be a mistake to merely dismiss FF as a Christian fundamentalist party. Unlike the Fred Nile group, FF have consciously branded themselves in quite secular terms – thus showing a pragmatic streak. “We are a party for anyone who believes in the importance of families and family-friendly policy in politics etc etc”. How much ol’ time religion have we heard from Senator Fielding? All FF need is some strong, telegenic candidates and they would be in real contention of stealing significant numbers of social conservative votes from all the major parties.
wpd The Tradies/cash situation is a little more complicated than you describe.Mostly the offer to pay cash comes from the customer. If there is a 50/50 split between labour and materials, then GST is paid but not collected from the customer if he pays in cash. And what can you DO with the cash? You can’t eat it. When it eventually gets spent it incurs GST.
wpd And you could temper your anger about the “black economy” by paying by cheque! The non-rubber ones are perfectly acceptable!
” Social liberalism – the only real force they can claim to represent, has been swallowed by the ALP”
Yep, I can see the social liberals lining up to vote for the ALP because of their strong stance on refugees, reproductive rights, queer rights, drug law reform, civil liberties etc.
The only “state” ALP leader that I can think of who has credibility as a social liberal is John Stanhope in the ACT. Iemma is to the Right of almost everyone except Debnam and the Taliban-Liberal faction. Bracks is timid at best. Mike Rann is a bit better but is moving very slowly on implementing a progressive social platform (in fact, a queer law reform bill is actually being tabled in the SA upper house by a Liberal). Paul Lennon is hardly a social moderate. Alan Carpenter is still too new to judge. Finally, Peter Beattie is more conservative than Mike Ahern.
By contrast, in this term we have seen Liberal backbenchers revolt on RU486, stem cells, refugees and queer law reform. Interestingly, I can’t remember seeing that kind of progressive revolt from the backbenches in the Hawke/Keating years.
For my 2c, I will miss Natasha…I won’t miss the rest of them. But there is something they have and the Greens need and thats democratic policy formation. At the moment Saint Bob can take it on himself and himself alone to consult with far right sources outside the party in order to formulate and insane reactionary net censorship policy. The rank and file are expected to swallow this ‘ Brown’ sandwich without protest.
This Brownshirt Bob Brown has already voted once to censor the internet – he has promised to again. This is just nuts – the Democrats look perfect compared to this rubbish.
Maybe more people are waking up to what happened in Germany with CASTOR and the dangers of having all yr eggheads in one basket case here. I sure hope so. Bring on the democracy!
Actually, that’s to their advantage if they’re looking for the protest vote. One of Natasha’s problems (and it wasn’t a problem for me – I cast a lower house vote for the Dems in 01) was that she was identified with an ideological position.
We’re using the term “social liberalism” in quite different senses Antonio. Im referring to a body of thought, somwhere between social democracy and classical liberalism, which sees the state as a facilitator of positive liberty, by facilitating opportunity for citizens to maximise their own capacities through eg education – without seeking to overly direct, or own/socialise key industries. Its a line of reformist liberal thought from TH Green and Hobhouse, sometimes known as “new” liberalism.
Very influential, once, in the Liberal Party – later known as “wets” and well dead there. I see the ADs as inheritors of that tradition.
AS for whether the ALP represents progressive liberal values, Im happy enough wiht your summary, and largely agree with it. But to the extent that the ideology of social liberalism still exists, I think it largely rsides with the ALP – leaving little room for the Dems.
The Deakinite tradition, in other words, Lefty E.
The sort of liberalism that people like Ian McPhee, Peter Baume and Fred Chaney used to represent before Howard and Costello purged them.
Lefty E,
I accept your definition of social liberal. I guess I was more think of a social liberal as one who was liberal (ie. non-interventionist) in matters of society and who supports the establishment of laws to protect social freedoms. Your definition of “social liberal” would seem to encompass this and more.
That said, I am unsure that social liberalism (by your definition) resides with the ALP. In which state or federal election in the last 10 years has the ALP promoted social-liberal values? I think a more accurate statement is that social liberalism resides in both parties to varying degrees at varying times. Recently, in the federal arena, I would argue that social liberalism has been more visible in the Liberal party due to the less stringent rules regarding caucus solidarity. The main difference is that social liberals in the Liberal party also tend to be economic liberals whilst social progressives in the ALP tend to be more statist in their view of the economy and industry. Keating was of course a notable exception here.
McFee, Baume and Chaney were socially liberal but generally they also were market-skeptics. If anything, I think the “purge” of individuals like these represents the ideological victory of the economic liberals against the market skeptics. The success of the Howard government in actually implementing economic liberalism in Australia is up for debate. I don’t see many proponents of economic liberalism left in the ALP. Perhaps this is the great unwritten story of the ALP over the last 10 years – the “purge” of the market liberals in the tradition of Keating.
Interesting comments, but they just about all depend on the assumption that voting decisions are rational, rather than emotional. The Dems are in with a chance because the Greens are incompetent campaigners when it comes to elections rather than stands of pristine forest.
Have a look at the literature they put out to counter Labor in Northcote and see what I mean. It’s up at http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/001758.html. They have no idea why many people vote for them. It’s a “none of the above”, or “keep the bastards honest” exercise, rather than a desire to give a tree a hug.
The point of my argument was that the Democrats have an opportunity, but only as long as they understand why people vote for them. The Greens are still fashionable, but their vote in this election suggests in a few years they could fade and be as fashionable as bell bottoms.
Precisely, Mr Bahnisch.
Agree about the purges, Antonio. In many ways, Australia is (or at least was) a social liberal polity, with the ALP and Libs arguing around the edges of the same ideas. The exceptions, as you note, are Keating and Howard. One a social progressive, on a social reactionary.
Some of those ideas are so well embedded in our institutions, that social liberalism still hangs around depsite both of those characters, and their reforms. But its a dying art!
In terms of that sort of approach being explicit rhetoric, Im thinking, say, Crean (in argument with Keating) and as leader, and yes, McPhee being the last of the Libs, after Chipp took the rest out.
As a current member of the Democrats, I have to declare an interest. However, I’m interested in the debate, and I’ll add my shilling’s worth.
The Democrats tended to attract a broad base of vote, but generally the strongest years were when votes were flowing away from the Liberals to the Democrats. With Liberals united behind John Howard, it is difficult for the Democrats to do well.
Apart from left leaning (mainly young) voters, most moderate and Conservative voters, disaffected with both political parties, will not vote Green. They are just too radical. My mother preferenced Green last on her Vic Upper House ballot paper, after the Citizens Electoral Council. The Greens polarize people, you are either on board or you hate them. They have some fairly clearly articulated policies and some pretty good rhetoric.
One Nation’s replacement, Family First, represent an enormous problem for the Democrats, because with 4 percent, they are picking up a lot more votes and One Nation did back in 1998. Their populism begins with the name, and their lack of clearly articulated policy. They are high on rhetoric, and low on specifics, which is great for soccer mums and others who are not likely to take an active interest in what parties actually stand for. “Family First, yeah sure I like families… who doesn’t… Even Gays have families…”
As an aside, I considered joining the party earlier this year and trying to push liberal and socially progressive policies, but from the questionnaire to join, the Conservative moral ethic is stamped. Do you categorically oppose abortion? Do you dislike gay people? (not the actual words). As a Christian I really dislike these Fred Nile types. They have monstered the Christian moral ethic and misrepresent Jesus Christ. They are apostate. But enough of my vitriol…
Unless the Democrats can convince the media to give them a run, and can obtain a high profile and interesting candidates in SA, as well as the other states, then I’m afraid of what will happen. Family First holding the balance would be worse than the Libs or Brian Harradine. At least with John Howard, the pork barrelling is limited to regional and swinging seats, and the moral agenda of some of the more fervent members are regulated to some extent by the ‘broad church’ mentality. Note Abbott’s losses on RU486 and cloning.
I absolutely believe there is a place for the social liberalism of the Democrats. I just think a bit of marketing realism is needed to articulate some catchy slogans and creative spin to the soccer mums. Otherwise, grab the chastity belt and vote for family first…
Graham, you are spot on there. The Greens are a rudimentary organisation at this stage in Victoria. They simply do not have the resources nor the expertise to run a good campaign. I disagree that they are a fad, but.
The ALP thought they’d lost Melbourne a coupla weeks before the vote.
But they turned it round by flying in the heavyweights and using the advertising techniques you illustrate so well at your blog. But that’s politics. All good learning curve stuff for the Greens.
Money is the Greens achilles heel. As they are barred from accepting corporate bucks – they rely on absolute grassroots style campaigning. Very hard in the age of electronic media. But they have a lot of scope of improvement in that area. I mean they don’t even have a decent internet presence for F’sake. There is no Green party worth talking about, for obvious reasons, in the US or the UK so they have to do a lot of this inventing the wheel stuff. It’ll take time – but it’ll happen. Technology, funnily enuff is on their side.
Your take down of the Greens laughable advertising skills says it all. New talent will soon enough replace the worthy but pedestrian incumbents.
Au contraire, Nahum Ayliffe. Hang around, please. I could stand hearing a bit more of that sort of good stuff.
Democrats in SA had only one nomination for Senate preselection, Ruth Russell, who was apparently a human shield in Iraq.
The ABC says
My first question is, where is the Right of the party? Have they all left? Not even a contest?
The Democrats need to
1) get at least some of the anti-war vote back from the Greens.
2) at the same time, appeal to the moderate centre who like the idea of a watchdog.
I know nothing about Reynolds, but I imagine she would have to prove that she could appeal to the centrists.
Only possibly mad?
David, the ABC got it horribly wrong. There are 5 nominations for preselection in the Democrats in South Australia.
As a member of the Democrats I am disappointed that Kate Reynolds didn’t nominate, but that’s life.
I know Ruth Russell personally. She went to Iraq as a human shield, she is National President of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and has represented Australia at quite a few international peace conferences. Ruth is a passionate person who truly cares about human rights and social justice.
I know that she will make a wonderful candidate for the Democrats. She may not have a high profile at this stage, but she is known to people in media circles and particularly amongst Non Government Organisations and Community Groups.
Ruth has stood for Parliament twice in South Australia for the seat of Newland and she is a former City of Tea Tree Gully Councillor. Ruth was also a Senate candidate at the last Federal election and she was in the number two position on the ticket behind John McLaren.
Ruth is an experienced campaigner so I wouldn’t write the Democrats off in South Australia. I would think the best chance the Democrats have is in SA and QLD.
5? That is appalingly ill-informed by the ABC then…did they jump the gun without making sure other people had not nominated?
Do you have names and factions/alliances/support bases they might come from?
And do you think Ms Reynolds would appeal to moderate and conservative Democrats who may, for instance, be uneasy about Ms Kanck’s style?
I assume that with a history of being a human shield she would have little trouble motivating the Left of the party.