As many people predicted, this election has marked the end of the Democrats as a serious force in Australian politics. They scored 1.27% of the Senate vote and 0.69% in the HoR and did not win any seats. Andrew Bartlett continues to provide his analysis of the election results
The Democrats still have one parliamentarian in South Australia. This puts them in the same league as the Christian Democrats (2 in NSW), Shooters Party (2 in NSW), One Nation (1 in Qld) and Democratic Labor (1 in Vic). If they continue to exist, they can expect to do roughly as well as these parties in the future.
There has been lots of discussion about why the Democrats have faded. Cheryl Kernot. The GST. Natasha Stott-Despoja. I think it’s because they became too similar to the Greens which made them pointless. If people like Greens policies, they would vote Green. If they don’t like Green policies, then they won’t vote for the Greens-lite (ie Democrats).
The demise of the Democrats does give an opportunity to the LDP. Some of the Democrat voters will switch to the Greens… but those looking for an economically and socially liberal alternative could be sympathetic to our message. If we can pitch ourselves as a more “liberal” version of the Democrats then there is about 1% of the vote waiting for us.
November 28, 2007 at 11:05 pm |
Maybe the reason they have faded is that they used to somewhat successfully ‘keep the bastards honest’ and they simply just stopped doing that?
November 28, 2007 at 11:17 pm |
I think it’s clear the rot set in when they OK’d the GST.
It’s also clear this is a spruik for the LDP to change to Liberal Democrats. And I’m fine with that.
November 29, 2007 at 1:02 am |
I don’t think any Democrat voters would approve LDP’s gun policy.
November 29, 2007 at 8:20 am |
All 5 of them seem to be solidly anti-Gun.
November 29, 2007 at 9:32 am |
Sandra Kanck in SA is a typical democrat socialist type with mainly stupid ideas. But I do admire her for her attempt at igniting a debate about voluntary euthanasia.
She read about methods to kill oneself using parliamentary privelage a year or two ago and for the first time in parliamentary history, her comments were (I believe illegally) censored. At the time I sent her an email of support and she said she had received many others like this and was courteous enough to kindly reply to my email.
However, unfortunately there was no public outcry at her censorship and the media commentators were generally disgusted by her actions and dismissed her as a loon. Personally, I hope this injustice will not be forgotten.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1731274.htm
November 29, 2007 at 10:48 am |
Yesterday I was thinking to myself when in a moment of startling clarity, it dawned on me.
I figured out exactly what name the LDP should adopt to gain the most votes and popularity.
The Liberal Green Party !
I think the LDP need to stop being such honest ideologues, and its time they started doing what the Greens do:
i.e Lie, backflip, become total hypocrites, and market yourself as the party with feel-good policies. If so many idiots can vote for the Greens without really thinking about their policies, whether they make sense and whether they would be responsible, then its time to tap into idiot vote.
November 29, 2007 at 10:53 am |
Jono,
Yes — liberals for forests was surprisingly successful.
November 29, 2007 at 12:04 pm |
Nelson beats Turnbull.
Liberals RIP
November 29, 2007 at 12:41 pm |
I’m glad.. Nelson can lead the Libs for 3-6 years, weather Rudd’s honeymoon period, lose an election or two, then hand over to Turnbull for NEW LEADERSHIP ™.
November 29, 2007 at 12:48 pm |
LOL… a former ALP member and former president of the AMA. Hehe – the Liberal party is run by union bosses!
What a bunch of dweebs.
November 29, 2007 at 12:52 pm |
Yeah… might be a good thing to use him for the transition – let’s not tarnish Turnbull too early.
November 29, 2007 at 9:15 pm |
The Democrats were started by Don Chipp as an offshoot of the Liberal Party, based on broad support for market economics (for the time) plus liberal social policies.
After a while they were hi-jacked by people who were economically illiterate and only selectively liberal on social policies.
It’s probably the biggest hazard faced by the LDP – infiltration by people who support it on certain social issues but want to change it to conform to their moral views in other areas.
As a party of principle the only moral views we support are the ones that individuals freely make for themselves, without coercing others. Democrats looking for a new home are welcome so long as they get that.
November 29, 2007 at 10:02 pm |
That was something I was thinking of whilst deciding whether to become a financial member of the party. If anyone who pays up gets a voice within the party, doesn’t that put the party fundamentals at risk from an infiltration of fools who don’t really get it?
November 29, 2007 at 10:04 pm |
(Maybe I’m a fool who doesn’t really get it when it comes to the membership issue I brought up though)
November 29, 2007 at 10:21 pm |
The Democrats failed because they became exactly like your party. Addicted to crazy hypothetical ideas. Dr Chesterfield Evans liked the idea of abolishing state governments. But his tenure in his seat got abolished and the state government continues.
Likewise, your economic theories would result in regular boom and bust, just like 1929.
November 29, 2007 at 10:45 pm |
Libertarian economic theories are more likely to result in bust and then boom. But a libertarian doesn’t care what is best for his ‘brothers’ and ’sisters’ and the ‘crazy hypothetical ideas’ are not designed for the greater benefit of all.
They are designed to give man the freedom to live by his own judgment, for better or for worse. The party won’t fail because of crazy ideas, if the party fails it is because most people are afraid of this kind of freedom and the personal responsibility that goes along with it.
And of course, to compromise on the fundamentals of these values which you call crazy hypothetical ideas would make the existence of the LDP pointless.
November 29, 2007 at 11:36 pm |
TopGun, I don’t see anything in the policy pages that contains a contraction in the money supply of over 1/3. If you could point it out, that would be great.
November 30, 2007 at 1:02 am |
“It’s probably the biggest hazard faced by the LDP – infiltration by people who support it on certain social issues but want to change it to conform to their moral views in other areas.”
The LDP is a libertarian party and libertarianism is very clear and cut about issues. We are liberals for everything. We are the true Liberals.
Anyway, I think the LDP should undergo a name change. When people see Liberty and Democracy Party they will have no idea what the party is all about. With the Greens, it’s obvious.
I think the LDP should change its name into The Australian Capitalist Party. With a clear name like that, business owners, CEOs, etc would swarm to us and desert the Liberal party.
November 30, 2007 at 2:13 pm |
I totally agree with David L for what it’s worth.
November 30, 2007 at 6:30 pm |
“I think the LDP should change its name into The Australian Capitalist Party”With a clear name like that business owners, CEOs, etc would swarm to us and desert the Liberal party.
The Australian Libertarian Party would be a good choice as it is even clearer. The name Capitalist party might put off working people who don’t own their business or CEOs (ie. the vast majority of people). But that name would be a problem when it comes to the acronym. So the Libertarian Party of Australia (LPA) would be good.
November 30, 2007 at 8:21 pm |
I quite like Australian Capitalist Party as a name. It’s like being a single issue party – the name says what you are.
We are not really into losing the LDP abbreviation though. In fact, we probably won’t change the name at all. We simply have to get people to understand what it means.
It’s a bit like the Liberal Party. Everyone now knows it means high taxes, corporate welfare, social engineering and social conservatism. If we could get such clarity to attach to the LDP (civil rights and free enterprise being the key elements), it would be supremely effective.
November 30, 2007 at 11:15 pm |
I like these party names:
> Liberty Party of Australia (LPA)
> The Australian Freedom Party (AFP)
I think the names Liberty Party & Freedom Party are short, sweet and to the point. They represent the core principle of the party and perhaps most importantly they don’t take 5 minutes to say it
. I don’t at all like the name the Australian Libertarian Party only because the libertarian philosophy is often mistakenly or deliberately misconstrued as a cult or fringe ideology. The Australian Capitalist party is OK but it will probably scare off a lot of everyday Australians especially people who class themselves as leftwing.
November 30, 2007 at 11:43 pm |
Australian Capitalist Party doesn’t really reflect the parties strong stance on social freedoms. The economic viewpoint of the party is a strong and very important part of a whole. Saying that, what’s in a name? All that is important is to get the party know, and especially to get what it stands for known (in terms of policy and values, not in acronyms)
December 1, 2007 at 2:25 pm |
I agree, Brodie. Liberty Party and Freedom Party would be good options if the party were to change names.
December 2, 2007 at 1:41 pm |
TopGun, I think you need to freshen up on your economic history. It was the introduction of a fiat money system and the Federal Reserve in 1913 and their ability to manipulate the money supply, rather than being left to market forces, that ultimately lead to the Great Depression. In 1932, there were signs that the market was beginning to recover from the Crash of 1929 but it was Roosevelt’s big spending New Deal that made the depression “great” and prevented any chance of recovery until after World War 2.
In the United States, we are again seeing the consequences of the Federal Reserve with the subprime mortgage crisis. The crisis occured because of Greenspan cutting interest rates dramatically and now Bernake wants to solve it cutting rates again. Sooner or later he has to accept the occurance of a recession or face high rates of inflation.
December 2, 2007 at 3:15 pm |
—————————-
Name Game
—————————-
The party name should pass the “Vote X” test:
“Vote Green”, “Vote Labor”, “Vote Democrat”, “Vote Liberty and Democracy”, “Vote Capitalist”, “Vote Liberty”, “Vote Libertarian”, “Vote Liberal Democratic”
It might be the “and” (Sounds like I am promoting 2 parties). It might be the 3 words (Sounding like a description, rather than a name). It might be the 8 syllables. Whatever it is, I think most people see it doesn’t roll off the tongue well.
—————————-
Party Infiltration
—————————-
Stopping infiltration and becoming the next Democrats, just requires a clear constitution, which restricts how far our policies can stray from whatever ideology (e.g. Liberalism/Libertarianism), which will then require a large majority (e.g. Two Thirds) to amend the constitution to allow certain exceptions (e.g. Carbon Tax Compromise). There are probably other ways too like a waiting period and showing up to local meetings for new members before being able to vote on constitutional amendments.
These are probably the same actions the big parties might use to stop Branch-Stackers.
December 2, 2007 at 6:50 pm |
And to continue the name game, I don’t see what the issue would be as far as the ALP acronym is concerned. Why does it have to be the Australian Libertarian Party when it could be Libertarian Party of Australia, ie LPA? And everyone would just know it as the Libertarian Party anyway.
I think it’s telling of the Democrats standing that a topic about them has turned into a discussion of something as mundane as what would be an aesthetically appealing name for a party.
December 2, 2007 at 7:21 pm |
Plus, Liberal Party of Australia is LPA, but you don’t hear that acronym used, like you do with the ALP.
December 3, 2007 at 3:27 pm |
Micheal – “the party name should pass the ‘vote X’ test:”
The Liberty Party and Freedom Party “vote X” test is “Vote Liberty” and “Vote Freedom”. I think they both sound great.
December 3, 2007 at 11:52 pm |
You need to be really careful about adopting tacky party names. Anything with “Freedom” in it might sound great to you, but I guarantee if I read that name somewhere, my immediate assumption would be that it was a white supremacist party. “Liberal Democratic Party” was perfect, just a shame it got shot down by those wacky laws.
January 2, 2008 at 9:24 am |
Policy for any party (perhaps particularly one wanting to be libertarian) needs address only be the two core issues:
(1) what processes need be followed to decide what is to be current “issue response”;
(2) what process need be followed now to change the current “issue response”;
Everything else is a debatable “issue response”.
“Issue responses” always change, become outdated, no longer relevant.
“Issue responses” either change, adapt to changing environment, or those campaigning under the umbrella of the “issue responses” lose.
Is lost control of day to day administration by government really a problem ?
To lose control of determining which “issue response” is selected is a greater problem.
Arguments presented to change each “issue response” will change as days go by.
The only constant is how “issue response” is determined or changed.
The role for libertarians, is ensure wider population is able to be involved in process for changing of their representatives, of their governments, and changing “issue responses” so the “issue responses” each are in line with their decisions.
Able to be involved, not required to be involved.
Demise of the Australian Democrats flowed from forgetting their role was to “keep the bastards honest”.
Democrats forgetting their strength was championing involvement of Australian people, as happened when they started concentrating on “the policy” not “the process” for determining “issue responses”.
p