Bye bye Brendan. Oh, and farewell to the Democrats too.
|
So today is Brendan Nelson’s last Question Time as Leader. Parliament doesn’t sit for two months after this week, and it’s hard to see that he’ll take the Leader of the Opposition’s seat when we return on 26 August. Only a miraculous outcome in Gippsland (which, of course, cannot be mentioned without demanding the retention of the icon that is the Traralgon Post Office) and a sustained turnaround in the polls will keep him there. Liberals have been saying that, both for reasons of giving Nelson a fair crack, and because no one else wants to put their hand up currently, he’ll hang on until next year. But the most likely story over the long winter recess, with no Parliament to even up the sides, and the coming emphasis on climate change, is a steady drip of poor polling. Tis a pity, for any number of reasons. Nelson is decent, intelligent and genuinely wants to make a difference to Australia, but like Kim Beazley he lacks the ego and laser-like focus of genuine Prime Ministerial contenders. But that’s politics, like it or not. And the Emo Man routine isn’t confected. I’ve concluded Nelson is genuine when he starts ranting, bobbing and weaving about Taragos with twelve kids and Davros in the back, and that makes it even more entertaining. His replacement, Malcolm Turnbull, is said to want Alexander Downer as his Treasurer (Turnbull has been planning his frontbench since he lost the leadership contest in November), but Downer will presumably let him down and use the winter recess to resign and join Ian Smith and Nick Bolkus’s Bespoke Approach Consulting, which officially starts next week. There’s also the Cyprus gig for Lord Downer, but that’s still wending its way through the tortuous bureaucracy of the UN. Sadly, we can’t farewell Downer today, because he’s off with Costello, Vaile, Andrew Robb, Julia Gillard and others at the Australia-US Leadership Dialogue. We did however farewell the Democrats yesterday, with valedictories by Natasha Stott Despoja, Lyn Allison and Andrew Bartlett. For once the Senate Press Gallery was filled; even Wayne Swan came over to watch Stott Despoja, an old friend, take her leave, along with Kate Ellis and WA newcomer Melissa Parke, who is a fan of Stott-Despoja. The death of the Democrats — and that is what it is — is testimony to just how important getting the right leader can be. There are number of factors behind the Democrats’ demise — Cheryl Kernot’s defection way back when; their idiotic failure to get behind the leadership of Stott Despoja, who was their only chance to avoid electoral oblivion; the irrelevance inflicted by Liberal control of the Senate for the last three years. But the one person, more than anyone else, who killed the Democrats was Meg Lees. Australia’s Schoolmarm, with her determination to both pass the GST and yet make it more inefficient, removed what for many voters was the point of the Democrats, to strike a balance between the major parties. That footage of Lees appearing to join Howard and Costello in celebrating the striking of a deal to pass the GST was deadly, and generated genuine anger toward a party that most Australians — even if they didn’t vote for them — regarded with some fondness. That Lees later ran off and failed miserably to start her own party revealed just how badly out of touch she was. Yesterday Stott Despoja was predicting that the new Senate will be very unstable. I suspect she’s right. How many issues will the Greens, Steve Fielding and Nick Xenophon agree on? And how will the Greens adapt to party status? It’ll be a very different political world when we reassemble in late August. |
|
|
|
15 Comments
The Democrats represented ( with the exception, perhaps, of Andrew Murray ), the Loopy Left. As the Left inevitably do, they imploded, replaced by the Greens pushing their junk-science, junk-economics and junk- religion, supported by ‘Eco-Mormons’ worshipping Mother Earth like Elder Keane and other ‘Warmists” who tell us that the earth will be ” cooked” if we dont return to the living standards of the late 19th century.
Bernard Keane’s version of the Democrats’ history demonstrates that revisionism by the victors is common, but often leads to a flawed account.
Here’s the policy that was balloted and supported by party members in 1998 after a year of internal consultation: “The indirect tax system shall be restructured to allow for tax to be levied on the provision of services as well as on the production of goods and be set at several different rates”. It can’t be spelt out much clearer than that.
The 1998 election was one fought openly on tax – indeed it was the central issue of the campaign. Although there is a belief that the Democrats said they would oppose the GST, during that election Meg Lees appeared at the National Press Club and advised that the Democrats would work post-election to improve the taxation plan of whichever party won government. Meg Lees upheld the party policy and kept the promise made. She acted honourably.
Sure, the party ought to have done a better job in explaining the decision. But the truth is far more complex than Crikey has presented it.
Speaking as an ex-Democrat who left after they passed the Workplace Relations bill, but however, followed their fortunes with some interest. Those defenders of Meg Lees show a marked ignorance of the internal party procedures that caused the rift over the GST. Meg conducted the negotiations in secret in direct contravention of the right of the party to vote on policy matters, ie. Their central point of differentiation from all other parties. So her bitterness and constant destabilisation of Natasha’s leadership was inexcusable, she never forgave the party for its difference of opinion regarding her significance in the greater scheme of things. As for the direction of the party that Natasha took it in, given the gutless and craven behaviour of Labor (children overboard anyone?) in their time of opposition, it was in my OSOH the right one. She was their best shot but sadly it wasn’t to be due to the smallness of others. A real shame.
Stott-Despoja was a showpony, with no leadership skills, no depth and no wisdom nor intelligence (both is good, but one or the other will do). Lees rolled over adn gave teh Liberals exactly what they wanted. The people who worked with Natasha (her party Senators) couldn’t stand her. Parties can survive the loss of a leader - look at Labor with Billy Hughes adn Joe Lyons. And Chifley, for that matter. Paul’s comment is correct as well.
Vale Dems - you could have been so much more.
I think the article in today’s Australian by Louise Ahern is probably the best call yet as to why the Democrats no longer have Federal Parliamentary representation. Bang on the money in my view. I was an advisor to six Democrat MLC’s and Senators (finishing with Meg Lees) and also a NSW Campaign Manager on a couple of occaisons and Deputy Registered Officer in NSW. Difficult preference negotiations certainly played a part in one campaign, but there were other factors. Leadership instability certainly played a part too and finding people with the right motives, experience and personal circumstances to enter Parliament, let alone step up to the plate as Leader was also a factor.
I’ll never forget the note sent to the Crows Nest office on the back of a ‘begging letter’ in handwriting that was clearly that of an older supporter who had become disillusioned with us as a Party.
It said simply: “So long as you appeal to the minority voter, expect to receive a minority vote”.
That was about a decade ago, and profound in its warning.
Yes Meg Lees did not handle the GST as well as she might have but NSD as the light on the hill at the time for the Democrats … that’s another story. It was she who single handedly with her bungling leadersip style and poor relationahip skills and her capacity to undermine colleagues with her door-stop policy making that did the Democrats down. See also her undermining of Vicki Bourne (at the last but one election) possibly the best “legislator” alongside Andrew Murray the Dems had, by starving the NSW campaign of funds in favour of SA. Give me a break!
Paul, you’re spot on but I’d add another demographic you’ve missed. In the late 90’s (but prior to the GST deal), I worked in a suburban Adelaide electorate office in an electorate with more than its share of older blue-collar workers and retirees. Many considered themselves politically centrist, and a surprising number were happy to announce themselves as Democrat voters, although clearly none of them were actual party members. Simply, they didn’t trust either of the major parties, and had some faith in the Dems to, as the old slogan stated, keep the bastards honest. They weren’t socially conscious educated professionals, they just gave the Dems their vote on the basis that they were the best of a bad bunch. Once the Dems forgot their support base and started developing policies based on what their party members wanted, they were stuffed. Socially conscious educated professionals went to the Greens, while the old blokes went to One Nation or returned to the major parties.
The Coalition promised a GST on everything. The ALP said no GST. The democrats (okay, Meg Lees) negotiated a GST that excluded the basic foods and made it a somewhat progressive tax. Meg may have done a bad sales job but the outcome did “strike a balance between the major parties”.
Why the malice towards Brendan? Surely there are other stories to be reported on rather than a weekly shot at Brendan. How about the farcical fiddles by Labor over the greatest moral, social and economic issue of our time - global warming - and their cowardice to do what they planned to - push up petrol taxes? Where is the coverage about the mediocre Labor cabinet with barely half a dozen visible? Where ar ethe rest?
Dear Crikey,
Can your loyal staff give us a complete list of those on either side who take part in the the US-Australia dialogue?
Best regards,
Evan Whitton
what happened to my comment?
great story..very sad for the democrats..great admiration stot destoja. but now we might get some independence in our government..when you have a two party system pleasing the same DOLLAR how can you a honest system that .represents the majority..i am told democracy is based on FREE SPEECH. so good times ahead..now we might keep theese bastards honest..
Workchoices started the rot, middleclass confusion lubricated the slipery slope Meg gave it a good push and Despoja’s snobbishness and personality cultness gave it all gravity and the rest was inevitable. RIP
Interesting comment from Simon Disney. I guess the lesson, and it’s probably truer for minor parties than major parties who everyone know are ‘bastards’ anyway, is that political parties can’t be all things to all people, or even most things to most people. In the case of the Dems, there are a range of opinions on this page about what they should have been, but perhaps the more interesting point is what this should mean for the Greens and to a lesser extent Family First. In the case of the Greens, who are trying to build their appeal by watering down their ‘loonier’ policies despite the concerns of some members, I believe it is only a matter of time before similar leadership issues challenge them as did the Democrats. In the case of Family First, who are also toning down their religious aspects and working on being seen as the voice of conservative reason, I wonder in fact if they’d be electorally better off by doing a Fred Nile and getting more religious (and I say this just as a political observer, I’m an atheist who’d never consider voting FF anyway).
hmmmm. Perhaps I hit cancel rather than submit, but i don’t think so - what i did say a few hours ago was that I couldn’t disagree with Bernard more. It was Cheryl Kernot resigning and making the Dems look irrelevant, followed by Stott Despoja moving the party to the left of Labor just when small l liberals were starting to scream out for an alternative to John Howard (or at least a Senate check on him).
As others have mentioned Meg Lees did exactly the right thing by improving a piece of legislation that no-one would dream of getting rid of now and with which the Government had just won an election, while getting a heap of money for the environment. The membership and Stott Despoja were crazy to try and move left because the Greens were always going to have a stronger and more loyal following amongst those people, as has been thoroughly proven. (and most of them are probably Greens members now)
If the moderates had been allowed to use the Howard years to develop the party into a Liberal Democrat party strong on civil liberties and economically responsible they would still be there today.