Talk:Australian Democrats
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Australian Democrats is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] earlier comments
Excised the following paragraph because it is hopelessly misleading:
- The Australian Democrats are also the party that is most interested in allowing Australians human rights protections similar to those guaranteed in the USA constitution and also given by various means in most western European countries. The major political parties in Australia have for the most part actively opposed this, though the Australian Labor Party has occasionally swung the other way to some extent.
While it is true that the Democrats have more consistently supported treaties and Bill of Rights legislation, it's not true that other parties oppose human rights protections. Some in both major parties don't like particular human rights (for instance, some in the Liberal party aren't real keen on the rights of homosexuals, while some in the Labor side of politics don't mind squashing free speech if it expresses racist or sexist views), but, on the whole, Australia has signed most of the human rights treaties out there under one or other major party. As far as Bills of Rights, that got knocked down in a referendum the last time Labor tried it IIRC, and they're not keen to repeat the experience, and many in their party and most of the Liberal Party take the view that human rights are better protected by a democratically-elected parliament and an independent judiciary than constitutional amendments that may have ramifications far beyond what the framers or voters intended when they were imposed and may turn out to be counterproductive to more contemporary interpretations of human rights (for instance, consider the US first amendment, which many view as the right to have a murder rate many times higher than any other western society). I'm not necessarily agreeing with this viewpoint, but claiming that the major parties are anti-human rights is bollocks (though their recent efforts with regards to asylum-seekers might themselves deserve a bollocking IMHO) -- Robert Merkel
"consider the US first amendment, which many view as the right to have a murder rate many times higher" United_States_Constitution/Amendment_One I can't see how this could have much effect either way on the murder rate. Perhaps you mean the US second amendment? United_States_Constitution/Amendment_Two (Yes, that's still debateable, but it is popular outside the USA and to some extent inside it, to say that is part of the reason for the high murder rate.)
The last attempt at an Australian Bill of Rights was not knocked over by the people as you suggest, it was knocked over by the Liberal party, who first insisted on taking all the good bits out of it before the referendum was held, and then campaigned against it very strongly.
The most serious human rights problems in Australia are indefinite detention without trial, seizure of property without a warrant and with no possibility of judicial review, and the lack of any mechanism to investigate or punish police and other government officials when they murder law abiding citizens. Some sort of freedom of speech would also be nice. Both Labor and Liberal have systematically opposed any attempt to do something about this at both state and federal levels for the last ten years, and less systematically before that.
- Look, we could debate Australia's human rights record and practice all day (I disagree strongly with some of your points) but the purpose of this talk page is to discuss how we can improve the article on the Democrats. Let's stick to that. --Robert Merkel
What political "persuasion" best covers the Democrats these days? Opinions apart from my own would be nice. I think that social democratic certainly covered it under Stott-Despoja, but what about under Bartlett, IMHO they seem to be tending back to the right. I'm just thinking aloud :-). Again, thoughts would be welcome - Aaron Hill 14:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Centrist would be what I'd call it. Ambivalenthysteria 04:09, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The Democrats are now, as they were set up to be originally, a "small-l" liberal party - ie. fiscally, they're fairly non-interventionist, and socially they're progressive.
- I don't think this justifies calling them "social democratic", although, truth be told, the aims and methods of social democracy (as opposed to democratic socialism, ie. reformism) are well-nigh identical to liberalism.
- The period of dominance by figures such as Stott-Despoja and Kernot wasn't really in tune with the Democrat's core philosophy, as demonstrated by the rather large gulf that apparently exists between the younger membership of the party and its older membership.
- What I think is the main distinguishing ground is the attitude towards trade unions (liberals gravitate more towards small buisiness than unions, and I think this is borne out by the Dems, who are suspicious of union influence). There's a subtle distinction in focus, as liberals tend to be openly individualistic, and social democratic rhetoric focuses more on "communitarianism". Again, I think this individual focus accurately reflects the Democrats.
- And also to a large extent, affiliations these days are a matter of what you call yourself. I'm yet to find any Democrat anywhere actually categorising themselves as a "social democrat". - Lacrimosus 12:37, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"At the moment it looks unlikely that any of their Senators up for re-election this year will survive the vote."
Really? Is that based on a poll or is it just someones opinion? Borofkin 00:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- That's very much what the polls are looking like, Borofkin. The Democrats will be losing all Senate seats to either 1) extra Labor candidates or 2) Greens candidates. [1]
-
- Ever since they sold out (thats how people view it) on the GST(Australia)in 1999 they just arnt the same, Meg Lees headed it, and yes they are going down hill Enlil Ninlil 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Borofkin, if you can find anyone outside of the Democrats themselves who seriously thinks they have any chance of retaining of their Senate seats, post evidence here. I've not seen a single commentator suggest that - indeed, the only reason they're giving Kate Reynolds in the SA Legislative Council any chance at all of holding her seat is because she could be considered distant from the party's federal troubles. Ambi 05:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think that if they lose Reynolds on Saturday (Gilfillan would have been a bearable loss (had he stood)), even after they've rebranded themselves as the South Australian Democrats, then there's no hope for the party anywhere in Austalia (although Stott Despoja might be interesting if she stands (and a little birdy tells me she mightn't)). It's a shame really.--cj | talk 04:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
If there was ever a term that meant the opposite of a 'weasel word', it would be needed to describe what is used in this sentence:
"The left of the party was horrified by John Howard's policies, and wanted to undermine and block them whenever possible"
- This statement isn't NPOV, though it's certainly not referenced - and should be. Finding a reference with substance would probably be impossible. But the statement could still be true. matturn 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pre 1990 history
What happened in the party before 1990? Also, the beginning of the history is written as if the party has been dissolved. matturn
- The whole history section is crud - it completely ignores the founding of the party, their early success with the growth of green issues in the 1980s, their successes under Haines, the Haines/Vigor split in 1988, and the turmoil of the early 1990s. Things like the deregistering of the Tasmanian division are really a footnote in comparison to those events. Rebecca 06:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm just taking a quick look through the National Library's search results, and I've had some results. "Keeping the bastards honest : the Australian Democrats’ first twenty years" by John Warhurst (1997) is one; " Let’s have a party! : an account of Australian Democrats in Queensland from 1977-1981" (1981) by a B. Floyd is another. I'm sure I've seen a couple of others in the ANU library, too - I'd check, but I'm back in Victoria at the moment. Many of the key figures have their own biographies, which should be useful: not only the party leaders, but other folk like John Siddons. The National Library also has bucketloads of party newsletters, periodicals, policy statements, speech transcripts, and interviews with many key people, some of which are open access. Rebecca 07:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- It'd be nice to do a bit of a group project cleaning this article up in general, and combining our respective resources. I couldn't do much until I get back to Canberra in early Feb, but I'd be happy to help after that time. Rebecca 07:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Likewise. I know of a few good sources, but I won't have access to them until I get back to Adelaide (whenever that may be).--cj | talk 12:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I have been working on this very issue but christmas and what not intervened and I return to find the Democrat's history widely discussed. Hopefully I will have something done soon but obviously people are welcome to add what would no doubt be something far superior to what I would come up with. --Roisterer 09:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Most successful elections
A recent edit says their most successful election was 1977? By what measure? According to this page http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/how/newsfiles/077/news77.htm they only won 2 seats in 1977, but they won 5 in 1984,[2] 1990,[3] and 1996 [4]. Rocksong 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I can't see what measure s/he is using either. The Democrats' highest membership levels were during this period but that's not relevant to the point at hand. --Roisterer 09:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Is it neccesary to include Every elected representative?
Surely we don't need to include everyone elected as a Democrat ever? Surely that is what for. If anyone has any other ideas or oobbjections, I will remove the list. --Roisterer 04:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- 10 of these people still don't have articles, and thus their names would be lost if the list were deleted. Until they get articles, I'd like to see the list stay. Rebecca 04:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Agreed, keep until they all have articles, however brief. Besides, it's not that many people, so it doesn't exceessively clutter the page. Rocksong 09:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I think the list should stay. It's not as if many more names will be added to the list ;-) Timeshift 09:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-
