One of the less profound books on Australian politics to be published over the last few years (and there’ve been a few) is Alison Rogers’ The Natasha Factor. Nevertheless, Rogers was Stott-Despoja’s press secretary and many of her insights are of interest. One that I remembered from my reading of the book last year was that Matt Price was one of the few journos Natasha felt gave her a good run. Price is now a columnist at The Australian, and because he has the “political humour” spot that George Megalogenis used to have, can get away with saying something interesting, unlike most of the highly predictable inhouse and op/ed Murdoch flagship columnists.
Interestingly, in light of recent prognostications at Troppo about the strange death of the Australian Democrats, Matt Price’s weekend column for The Oz might almost read as if it’s the first shot in Natasha’s campaign to take the leadership back:
Common sense tells you what should happen with the Democrats. Whatever her flaws, Stott Despoja is patently the best leadership option of the four surviving Mouseketeers. When irrelevance strikes on July 1, the depleted Democrats’ alleged legislative skills become essentially redundant. Any slim chance of survival depends on selling themselves in a cutthroat, competitive political marketplace.
Bob Brown provides the template for minor party success; the Greens have benefited enormously from the Tasmanian senator’s thick-skinned opportunism, relentless idealism and shameless media savvy. Allison may be a dedicated, hardworking parliamentarian, but her chances of rekindling the Democrats’ flame from the ashes of near extinction are remote.
My guess is that from July 1 the Mickey Mouseketeers will act as four independents. The Government fancies Murray as a kindred spirit and will court him for tight votes. Bartlett will champion refugees rights and environmental issues. Allison will try to cobble together some kind of united front.
Leaving Stott Despoja to tend to neo-Conrad-ical, indulge in her own political interests and ponder the senselessness of her demise … while trying hard not to laugh at her husband’s jokes.
Price’s references to the nicknames Stott-Despoja and her husband have given their young son, and his general “Natasha’s over the bitterness of her loss of the leadership but would accept a call to return” jive suggest, when read together with the statements about the close relationship between the journo and the pollie that Rogers makes, that Price’s column is based on conversations with either Stott-Despoja or a source close to her.
Andrew Bartlett did a good job restoring some unity to the fractured Demos, and maintained a reasonable public profile in his time as leader. But Lyn Allison is a zero as a leader in an age where the Democrats need to market their message through a crowded media.
Natasha Stott-Despoja is both a principled politician and an excellent communicator, and is tragically wasted languishing in effect on the backbenches of the Senate.
In the spirit of my previous campaign at Troppo for Gilly to lead the ALP, I’m going to take up the gauntlet Matt Price throws down, and launch the LP campaign to bring back Nat! The Democrats occupy a necessary political space in Australian politics, but as well as refining their message and philosophy, need a big L Leader to get it across to have any chance of surviving. Much as it goes against the grain of their participative, member-centred ethos, their only hope is to return to Natasha.
I’m on record urging her to organise a deal with a major party, as the Captain of the Titanic still gets wet. If there’s room in Labor for Eddie McGuire, surely Natasha can find a home.
There’s the Cheryl factor to deal with, but as we later learned, there were a couple of complicating factors in Cheryl’s demise…
I’m on record urging her to organise a deal with a major party, as the Captain of the Titanic still gets wet. If there’s room in Labor for Eddie McGuire, surely Natasha can find a home.
There’s the Cheryl factor to deal with, but as we later learned, there were a couple of complicating factors in Cheryl’s demise…
And I think Natasha’s a bit more level headed and (perhaps to some people’s surprise given some of the flak she’s got) less of a show pony than Cheryl. She’d be a great asset to the Labor Party.
And I think Natasha’s a bit more level headed and (perhaps to some people’s surprise given some of the flak she’s got) less of a show pony than Cheryl. She’d be a great asset to the Labor Party.
I think the third force in Oz politics is now the Greens. The sooner the remaining Democrats sort out their exit option, the better for them – as a party I suspect they’re finished. Stott the Destroya probably would do better at the ALP.
I think the third force in Oz politics is now the Greens. The sooner the remaining Democrats sort out their exit option, the better for them – as a party I suspect they’re finished. Stott the Destroya probably would do better at the ALP.
I think you’re right about this, Mark. The language seems calculated to cut off the line of criticism that was run against Gillard. And hey, I ended up using the same nautical analogy as Rowen to suggest that she’s better off elsewhere!
I think you’re right about this, Mark. The language seems calculated to cut off the line of criticism that was run against Gillard. And hey, I ended up using the same nautical analogy as Rowen to suggest that she’s better off elsewhere!
I’d like to see her back as leader of the Dems. If she joined the ALP like Cheryl, she would be seen as another turncoat. She had presence and style and a great public profile (whatever she might be like inside – but we’re all old enough to have stopped expecting politicians to be genuinely nice.)
There’s plenty of currently uncontested socio-political-economic ground (uncontested by the major parties at least) that a centre-left party could cut out for itself with some mearued policies that would resonate with middle Australia – alternative approaches to welfare and tax, a way forward for Indigenous Australians that was neither too paternalistic nor too idealistic, the anomie of modern life, Iraq, the ugliness of consumer culture, youth disaffection, aimlessness and alienation – if it were sufficiently clever, without rushing into the arms of the Greens.
I suppose the lingering question is whether Natasha actually has the kind of political skill it would take to do it. I’d like to think so.
I’d like to see her back as leader of the Dems. If she joined the ALP like Cheryl, she would be seen as another turncoat. She had presence and style and a great public profile (whatever she might be like inside – but we’re all old enough to have stopped expecting politicians to be genuinely nice.)
There’s plenty of currently uncontested socio-political-economic ground (uncontested by the major parties at least) that a centre-left party could cut out for itself with some mearued policies that would resonate with middle Australia – alternative approaches to welfare and tax, a way forward for Indigenous Australians that was neither too paternalistic nor too idealistic, the anomie of modern life, Iraq, the ugliness of consumer culture, youth disaffection, aimlessness and alienation – if it were sufficiently clever, without rushing into the arms of the Greens.
I suppose the lingering question is whether Natasha actually has the kind of political skill it would take to do it. I’d like to think so.
I think I remember reading somewhere that Nat was wooed by the ALP when she was in student politics. I think her politics would sit well with the Labor Party. You’d have to think the odds are that after the next election, she’ll be the only Democrat senator left. I agree with Rob there’s a need for a party like the Democrats (and the Greens sure ain’t it) but maybe she should go where the future is if she wants a long term political career and genuinely wants to contribute (as I’m sure she does) to politics & public policy.
I think I remember reading somewhere that Nat was wooed by the ALP when she was in student politics. I think her politics would sit well with the Labor Party. You’d have to think the odds are that after the next election, she’ll be the only Democrat senator left. I agree with Rob there’s a need for a party like the Democrats (and the Greens sure ain’t it) but maybe she should go where the future is if she wants a long term political career and genuinely wants to contribute (as I’m sure she does) to politics & public policy.
I still can’t get my head around her Liberal husband.
Can you imagine a barbecue with all their friends?
Where will the children be baptised?
I still can’t get my head around her Liberal husband.
Can you imagine a barbecue with all their friends?
Where will the children be baptised?
I’m on record, after one experience, as stating that you should never have a partner with politics widely variant from your own!
I’m on record, after one experience, as stating that you should never have a partner with politics widely variant from your own!
What happened? Did Tony join the priesthood?
I’m really, really sorry. That was too good to pass up.
[genuflects effusively backing out of the church]
What happened? Did Tony join the priesthood?
I’m really, really sorry. That was too good to pass up.
[genuflects effusively backing out of the church]
As to the supposed leftiness of Stott-Despoja, she was President of the National Union of Students in the early 1980s and used to be known as ‘Natasha Trot Destroyer’ for her strained relationship with the non-Labor left.
…
I don’t agree with the idea that the Greens or the Democrats are ‘third force’ parties. The original ‘third force’ party in Australia was the Country Party, established to mediate between the city conservatives and Labor. It still has the largest paper membership of any political party in Australia. The Nationals of today succeed only really well when they continue that ‘third force’ function—and get beaten by independents when they’re too subservient in the Coalition.
Compared to the Country Party both the Democrats and Greens are relatively minor players, historically.
As to the supposed leftiness of Stott-Despoja, she was President of the National Union of Students in the early 1980s and used to be known as ‘Natasha Trot Destroyer’ for her strained relationship with the non-Labor left.
…
I don’t agree with the idea that the Greens or the Democrats are ‘third force’ parties. The original ‘third force’ party in Australia was the Country Party, established to mediate between the city conservatives and Labor. It still has the largest paper membership of any political party in Australia. The Nationals of today succeed only really well when they continue that ‘third force’ function—and get beaten by independents when they’re too subservient in the Coalition.
Compared to the Country Party both the Democrats and Greens are relatively minor players, historically.
Particularly when – as in Victoria up til the 50s, the Country Party sometimes supported Labor governments.
I think Nat was in NUS in the early 90s, Liam – NUS was founded in 87 and she’s too young to have been around in the AUS days. Most of my NOLS colleagues back in the late 80s and early 90s had a very tense and adversarial relationship with organised Trots – particularly the DSP/Resistance people – though some co-operation with non-aligned Left folks. And we were of course all ALP members. So I don’t think that says anything in particular about N S-D.
Particularly when – as in Victoria up til the 50s, the Country Party sometimes supported Labor governments.
I think Nat was in NUS in the early 90s, Liam – NUS was founded in 87 and she’s too young to have been around in the AUS days. Most of my NOLS colleagues back in the late 80s and early 90s had a very tense and adversarial relationship with organised Trots – particularly the DSP/Resistance people – though some co-operation with non-aligned Left folks. And we were of course all ALP members. So I don’t think that says anything in particular about N S-D.
Yes, I think you’re right about the timeline but I think you’re wrong if you’re saying Natasha was a card-carrier. I have a feeling she was only ever a fellow-traveller.
Yes, I think you’re right about the timeline but I think you’re wrong if you’re saying Natasha was a card-carrier. I have a feeling she was only ever a fellow-traveller.
That’s right, Liam – I was just saying she didn’t act too differently from NOLS peeps.
That’s right, Liam – I was just saying she didn’t act too differently from NOLS peeps.