oops - it pays to read further! One is pre-empted.
msolga wrote:Wilso wrote:The Democrats were formed by Don Chipp, who actually started out in the Liberal party!
Yep, he & the Democrats were going to "keep the bastards honest". Too bad about Meg Lees & the GST, hey? Kind of ruined the image.
Actually, they grew from Steele Hall's Liberal Movement. The "real" Libs never forgave him for, when he was Premier, having some real ethics and integrity - which led to an electoral loss for them.
They were briefly reabsorbed, as I recall - but Chipp led another breakaway - and the beast was born.
Not that I am ungrateful all the time for them holding balance of power - but - as is predictable for such a party, they fold when they have real power, and must turn their nice rhetoric into actions with consequences.
Real politics is tough.
fortune wrote:You're quite right Msolga. I must blush, I was confusing the names of the parties. (I'm such a scatter brain sometimes). I think the one I was actually looking for was the DLP- Democratic Labor Party of Australia, but then I could be mixing that one up again. (Urgh, have you seen the AEC website? There's about a zillion names and they all sound the same)
Lord have mercy - you are confusing things most certainly!!!!
The DLP resulted from a split in Labor - which cost it decades of opposition - thety were the Catholic far right - strongly influenced by Bishop Santamaria. A scary bunch indeed - now, thank the goddess, defunct.
Santamaria and the split:
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/santamaria.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/13/1055220761444.html
Not sure what perspective those pieces come from!!!!!
You can see what mine is....if you look very carefully....
Aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
THE SPLIT!
What devastation that caused! AND years of the bloody DLP & Santamaria!
Very, very, sad, the whole business!
Most of the important stuff happened before I was born or old enough to care. I'm still catching up! Take it easy on me, dlowan!
Oh, I don't mean to be uneasy on you.
Crikey on the "Not Happy, John" campaign:
Christian Kerr on the Bennelong revolution
Christian Kerr
Political Editor
If we can't get a new PM, we can at least rediscover our values.
24 August 2004
Above the stage, there it was. The 1950s colour portrait of our gracious sovreign lady the Queen, the crossed Union Jack and Australian flag. Yup. You could tell we were in the middle of John Howard territory ? but he was the only candidate for Bennelong who didn?t make it to the Not Happy John Campaign launch at the Eastwood Masonic Hall.
?Let?s have fun?, the indefatigable Margo Kingston yelled (more on her later).
Fun it was. The hall was overflowing, and the crowd ? the decidedly mainstream crowd, please note (only a handful sported dreadlocks) ? fired up. Then again, who?d ever thought they?d go to a political event where Richard Neville was introducing John Valder?
The Oz veteran MCed ? and his message was simple. ?We have a shared purpose ? to restore something shamelessly squandred ? decency, honesty, generosity and our great good name?. And then he introduced ?one of the few people in the hall older than me? ? former Liberal Party president John Valder.
The Not Happy John campaign is his brainchild. Valder admits he is planning to vote for Bronwyn Bishop in Mackellar. He wants to see a Liberal Government, not a Howard one.
The Prime Minister?s lies, Valder says, have ?precariously placed [him] to being a liability to his own party?.
Valder?s new political epiphany occurred when he saw 500 people turn up on a Friday night for a refugee forum in Howard?s own seat of Bennelong.
But what about the wider group who have gathered to his flag?. Brian Deegan, the former South Australian magistrate who lost his son in the Bali bombing and is taking on Foreign Minister Alexander Downer is one of them. ?I am part of the Coalition of the Unwilling,? he declared. ?We are not against Australia or Australians ? only the current leadership. We are not against war on terrorism and tryanny ? only war waged incompetently?.
Can these people have clout?
?Politicians have got us at the stage where all we do is rant and rave at each other,? Margo Kingston, the Sydney Morning Herald?s webdiarist and author of the Not Happy John polemic said. ?We take our democracy for granted.?
Kingston?s big tent approach is one of the strongest attractions of the Not Happy John campaign ? but can it all hang together?
It did for the launch ? but can it last for the campaign? Andrew Wilkie is the only Green I?ve ever seen in double cuffs ? but is he electable in Bennelong?
There are a lot of ?ifs? there.
If you?re like me, you hate those pooncey MBA types who think they?re cool because they know a few lines from Sun Tzu and The Art of War.
The thinking of a different sage should be applied now ? Vyvyan, the indestructible punk from The Young Ones and his advice: ?This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence?.
If the Not Happy John types really want to remove Howard, then its time for an for an odd mixture of shameless pragmatism to bring as many people together and then utter ruthlessness in delivering the hardest possible blow against the Libs in seats like Bennelong, Wentworth and Mayo.
If people want to bring down the Howard Government, they need to help Labor do it in the marginals and then run a guerrilla style campaign in the safe seats that would do the Viet Cong proud.
The anger is out there ? particularly after last week. All the polls show it.
?John Howard has done us a public service by making us look at our values,? Richard Neville said in his closing comments today.
?We are the Coalition of the Unwilling, and believe you me, our numbers are growing steadily by the day,? Brian Deegan observed.
But are the organisers there? Is the money? The strategists?
It?s doable, but? And perhaps that?s it. If the Pauline Hanson revolution was an uprising by ordinary Australians marginalised by a political class that ignroed them, then the Not Happy John movement is a similar revolt by a group from the political classes who feel that the values they entered politics to preserve are being overruled by politics itself.
Just as Hanson ? and the odd Coaltion she gathered ? is now seen as a wakeup call, perhaps the Not Happy John movement will serve a similar role.
Even if it fails to change our Prime Minister, it will at least serve to remind us why the political system that has created him exists, the values it is supposed to represent, how widely they are shared and how they have gone very, very wrong.
That will be a start. And then we can get a new PM.
An interesting development, isn't it, Deb? I saw some footage of the meeting on television last night & it really DID look like a very mixed bag of people there. And John Valder? Very strange.
The former president of the Liberal Party! For him to be behind the Not Happy John campaign & to be working against Howard in his own seat is fairly extraordinary.
No, I'm not, Deb. Check this out:
MANIFESTO OF JOHN VALDER CONVENOR OF THE "NOT HAPPY, JOHN " CAMPAIGN
A wide range of men and women from right across the political spectrum are coming together to oppose the re-election of Prime Minister John Howard in his own electorate of Bennelong.
The plan is to mount a major campaign under the banner of "Not Happy, John", the title of Margo Kingston's new and highly successful (if critical) book about John Howard.
A former Liberal Party President, John Valder, has agreed to head the "Not Happy, John" organising committee.
This committee has attracted the immediate and enthusiastic support of a great many individuals and refugee support groups.
We are now compiling a long list of names of prominent men and women from a wide range of activities who have already indicated their support for our "Not Happy, John" project. Their names will be made public at one of our planned campaign events after the election date is finally announced.
We are now attracting both the financial and volunteer help vitally necessary for success in any campaign.
The campaign is being developed in response to widespread and growing community concern with a variety of John Howard's policies and attitudes.
In particular has been his role in the aggressive invasion of Iraq which, for all of 16 months now, has been inflicting constant violence and awful suffering on the Iraqi people.
Combined with the Iraq issue has been widespread dismay at Howard's unquestioned acceptance of virtually every U.S. decision, opinion or assurance given by President George Bush, not just on Iraq but on issues like the the continuing rough and gross injustice imposed on the Guantanamo Bay detainees.
All this has caused damage to our international reputation, especially in Asia and Europe, and at home to our own sense of self-respect, in contrast to the situation in New Zealand.
Then there has been his long-held harsh attitude towards asylum seekers which continues to be a cause of so much anger.
In addition there have been many other less specific but nevertheless significant issues disturbing the community's mood and prompting the formation of the " Not Happy , John" campaign. They include:
* Taking the Liberal party too far to the right and thereby challenging its own basic, traditional democratic values.
* His assumption of a too dominant personal control of cabinet and the parliamentary Liberal party, thus both stifling internal party debate and silencing diversity of opinion.
* Strongly discouraging objective public service advice.
* Usurping some of the roles of the Governor General.
* Spending on government advertising for political purposes. * Condoning breaches of his own ministerial code of conduct.
* Allowing his own honesty and integrity to come into question.
Many now believe that these and other factors are producing a growing fear of what happens when too much power falls into the hands of any one leader. Even without another term in office, John Howard is already show9ing the first ominous signs of being ready to use his growing power to start threatening our fundamental freedoms - freedoms that every one of us, no matter where we've been born, have always been able to take absoutely for granted. Never before have they been under such threat.
The " Not Happy, John!" campaign does not intend to advocate support for any particular candidate opposing John Howard.
Despite our joint opposition to Howard himself, many of us, myself included, wish to see a Liberal Government returned but with a swing back to a much fairer, honest, decent and less divisive party based on true Liberal principles.
Many others of us are expected to support Andrew Wilkie (Greens), Nicole Campbell (ALP), or an independent candidate.
However, the one object we have in common is TO BRING THE HOWARD ERA TO AN END.
August 9 update: Since publication, Valder has slightly amended the text of his manifesto, replacing the second last paragraph. The altered paragraph originally read: "Many others of us are expected to support Andrew Wilkie or Nicole Campbell, the ALP candidate, or other independents."
***
And did you notice that Andrew Wilkie, the "whistle blower" former intelligence officer, is running against John Howard in his own seat? Here's some background to the Wilke resignation:
Senior intelligence officer, Andrew Wilkie, resigns in protest
AM Archive - Wednesday, 12 March , 2003 08:00:15
Unable, he says, to sit and watch in silence as Australia drifts towards war with Iraq, Andrew Wilkie, a senior Australian intelligence officer is this morning jobless at his own hand, after his resignation in protest against the Howard Government's position.
(Full transcript in link below)
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/s804540.htm
`
Andrew Wilkie's internet campaign site. He's become a Green!:
http://www.andrewwilkie.org.au/
I have his book.
Odd bedfellows in this one - this seems to be starting to gather most unexpected folk.
We have an ex-magistrate standing against Downer in his seat - re Bali matters - his son was killed.
Yes, I saw him interviewed on television last night. Seemed articulate & intelligent. Good luck to him!
Is he standing as an independent, or has he aligned himself to a particular party?
"One is pre-empted". 
