The Democrats?

[AsianWithAFro]

Why did they die out as a party and will they ever be back as the force they once was?

One theory that I have read on why they diminshed as a party is because they did not have a stable target group.

 

[jo172]

Alot of people will point to the 1998 election where the Democrats promised to vote against a GST and then backflipped.

I think alot of it had to do with the Democrats promoting themselves as a Centerist alternative party to the two main ones.

As the two major parties converged in the centre the Democrats lost all their breathing room, made a run to the left and found that the Greens were already there.

They're well and truly dead.

 

[Moo]

In the West I sat in on some of the early Greens-Dem merger talks.

As dysfunctional as the Greens were, the Democrats arrogance and over estimation of where they were was unbelievable. You can say a lot about the Greens but they know where they are as a party.

The GST backflip and Kernot shagging Boutrous Boutrous Gareth and then going over to the dark side was the death knell.

The Greens are always going to have a core, as do the ALP and Libs - the Dems never enjoyed this and I agree with the move to centre comment above.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

These parties tend to die out when their true leader leaves. One Nation, Democrats and soon to be the Greens when Brown carks it.

 

[The Exorcist]

In the West I sat in on some of the early Greens-Dem merger talks.

As dysfunctional as the Greens were, the Democrats arrogance and over estimation of where they were was unbelievable. You can say a lot about the Greens but they know where they are as a party.

The GST backflip and Kernot shagging Boutrous Boutrous Gareth and then going over to the dark side was the death knell.

The Greens are always going to have a core, as do the ALP and Libs - the Dems never enjoyed this and I agree with the move to centre comment above.

Meg Lees was probably the most arrogant politician ever

 

[jo172]

These parties tend to die out when their true leader leaves. One Nation, Democrats and soon to be the Greens when Brown carks it.

I follow your One Nation logic.

But who do you classify as the Democrats "true leader" here. Kernot?

Party had a few breaths left in it after Kernot. Also, Donny Chipp would most likely take offence at "true leader".

The Democrats at the end had the same problem as the modern ALP do, they stand for nothing.

Their "keep the bastards honest" mantra could not be taken seriously after the GST backflip. After that they had no real ideology.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Good point jo172, but I think the Democrats were at their strongest under Chipp.

They had a few spikes in popularity since the 80's but, pretty they're much dead.

 

[DeanoT]

Dems were well led under Don Chipp, Janine Haines and then Kernot, until her quest for power got the better of her.

The problem for the Dems was they started out as a protest vote. The "keep the bastards honest" line.

After a while, you have to demonstrate to people what you stand for, and have some kind of cornerstone policy to fall back on. They didn't have one, the Greens do, and that is why they will always be around, unless they get too cosy with the ALP.

 

[Belnakor]

the problem with the democrats was as soon as they started wielding a bit of power they attracted the same parasites the major parties attract. People who join to advance themselves, join the dominant faction and try to climb up the ladder to a cushy job.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

These parties tend to die out when their true leader leaves. One Nation, Democrats and soon to be the Greens...

Wishful thinking I see there.

After Brown, Nick McKim looks the most likely successor, and with McKim as leader, I'm confident the Green vote would only be boosted further.

Moreover, aside from the solidity we have, as a result of the consistent philosophical perspective and policy platform we represent, we're the fastest-growing political party in Australia right now, not only in terms of our vote, but in terms of our membership. Thus our reserve of talent, and future leadership, is increasing as time goes on.

 

[Moo]

Wishful thinking I see there.

After Brown, Nick McKim looks the most likely successor, and with McKim as leader, I'm confident the Green vote would only be boosted further.

Moreover, aside from the solidity we have, as a result of the consistent philosophical perspective and policy platform we represent, we're the fastest-growing political party in Australia right now, not only in terms of our vote, but in terms of our membership. Thus our reserve of talent, and future leadership, is increasing as time goes on.

Agree - though the challenge will then be to integrate and evolve with the growth in members.

I am hoping to get something organised that may assist with this in the future on this board.

 

[Rob]

Minor parties can lose a lot of voters when put into positions of power - people realise what their true policies are and vote accordingly. Up until then they were unashamedly a protest vote party.

The Greens may find themselves in a similar position now that they actually have to make decisions on legislation that will affect people. It's a tightrope.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

This is where the LDP needs to try and promote itself. As a centrist option.

Given they preference the major parties all way down the pecking order (generally) they could use this as a selling point.

They should try and get Turnball to lead them

 

[MightyFighting]

This is where the LDP needs to try and promote itself. As a centrist option.

Um... yeah.

A party that wants to disband Medicare would have difficulty marketing itself as centrist.