Home > Oz Politics > One Nation resurgent?

One Nation resurgent?

March 23rd, 2011

Until a month or so ago, I was under the impression that the One Nation party had shuffled off into history. So, I was surprised, attending a lunch at which Joe Hockey spoke, to hear repeated questions from reporters about the role of One Nation in attacks on Hockey’s standard against the appeals to racism allegedly advocated by (Lib Immigration shadow) Scott Morrison. Then, on a recent visit to Sydney I heard David Oldfield spruiking the One Nation line on 2UE. And now Pauline herself appears at an anti-carbon tax rally, along with a bizarre cast of characters including Angry Anderson and the League of Rights. Does anyone have any insight into what’s going on here? Is this just some bandwagon-jumping or is there a real resurgence of One Nation and similar groups?

Categories: Oz Politics Tags:
  1. Oliver Townshend
    March 23rd, 2011 at 17:58 | #1

    I think One Nation is dead. David hasn’t been a member for over a decade, neither has Hanson. Just a lot of right wing groups being more vocal.

  2. Freelander
    March 23rd, 2011 at 18:11 | #2

    Like the snake, the One Nation skin is shed, but that repulsive essence slithers on.

  3. iain
    March 23rd, 2011 at 18:34 | #3

    The anti-carbon tax movement (and more importantly its message) is definitely gaining momentum amongst the bogans who generally decide the outcomes of key Australian elections.

    Labour needs to launch a prudent PR counter message, get rid of Wayne Swan, and elevate the profiles of Shorten, Combet etc as quickly as possible.

  4. paul walter
    March 23rd, 2011 at 18:52 | #4

    Not Angry
    Anderson. I thought he had more wit, but he must be as dense as he looks.
    The garbage presented on teev tonight as a “rally”with Joyce and Abbott mouthing sly remarks about Browns bitch was enough for me. I was about to eat dinner and it put me off for a full half hour.
    What sort of a mentality develops this as a supposedly form of acceptable politics?

  5. Freelander
    March 23rd, 2011 at 19:15 | #5

    Yes. Tonight Joyce and Abbott were trying hard to ‘dog whistle’ every note they hope a bigot’s ear can reach.

    Tony believes in climate change – “The climate changes all the time”.
    Tony believes that humans have some impact on climate – “Not so you would notice though, and who know whether that impact is good or bad?”

    When will an interviewer pin him down on the topic? How exactly does he believe the climate is changing? What exactly does he believe is the major driver of this change?

    Tony touches on that Gillard is not a christian and is therefore a lier, as if he is not proof that you can be both a christian and the latter. The misinformation, hatred and vilification on display in the crowd is a very bad contribution to Australian politics, but Abbott has made it very clear from the start that he will do anything and feed any dangerous faction to win.

    Tony is going after the Hanson vote with a vigor that might even have embarrassed ‘Children Overboard’ Howard, the populist past-master of the wedge.

  6. Tyro Rex of Auchenflower
    March 23rd, 2011 at 19:18 | #6

    One Nation is now the frontbench of the Liberal Party.

  7. pablo
    March 23rd, 2011 at 19:24 | #7

    I think Gillard should have fronted. Sure she would have been howled down, but the imagery of the PM trying to reassure Aussie battlers, or Jonesy’s ‘struggle street’ that we need to make a start on inter-generational survival would have had a good polling result. Not that that would be the reason for fronting, but Gillard has to be shown trying to take the country with her on this one. Either way she would have gained points.

  8. March 23rd, 2011 at 19:38 | #8

    The Libs crushed ON with the ‘Australians for Honest Politics’ slush fund and reabsorbed much of it’s motivating issues in the 2001 election. But the driving forces behind it, a desire for the stability and security of bland old Pre-’75 Australia never went away and have been revived by the much broader intergenerational split that emerged in the lead-up to the 2010 Election. Abbott is fanning this as he thinks this is his Tea Party but I suspect the climate just isn’t the same down here (in more ways than one).

  9. Fran Barlow
    March 23rd, 2011 at 19:43 | #9

    A more cunning tactic would have been to get the crowd to nominate “an ordinary Australian” to join her on the podium to articulate his or her concerns rather than a politician.

    One wonders whom they’d have nominated — but the person — unprepared, ignorant and almost certainly a ranter, would have made the entire crowd look stupid by default. Abbott would have been unable to keep the person on message and would have had to then do damage control as a calm PM would, simply by remaining calm, have provoked the person and the crowd into utterly embarrassing their patron.

    And if the person had not gone nuts, she could have invited him or her to endorse or reject the “Ditch the Witch”, “Bob Brown’s Bitch” or “UN/IMF genocide signs” — after all, she could have added, Mr Abbott tells us that references to genocide in this context are wrong and offensive …

    That would have been my advice … good old fashioned politics, Sydney Domain style.

  10. March 23rd, 2011 at 19:48 | #10

    Totally disgusting rally in Canberra. The next Federal election will develop as a referendum on right-wing, shock jock boganism. I would like to be optimistic about the outcome.

    I wonder how middle Australia reacted to the placard describing Julia Gillard as “Brown’s bitch”. Hopefully they will react with a bit more discrimination than Tony Abbott and Bronwyn Bishop did.

  11. paul walter
    March 23rd, 2011 at 20:02 | #11

    Yes Freelander that’s EXACTLY the sort of sick inconsistency that worries about Abbott. He is either barking mad; a nutter, or the devil incarnate.
    Either way, he warrants very close watching.

  12. paul walter
    March 23rd, 2011 at 20:04 | #12

    FB, the thing was amateurish, and perhaps they did make embarrassments of themselves, like Pyne last Monday night.

  13. SJ
    March 23rd, 2011 at 20:05 | #13

    Ditto what Harry said.

  14. March 23rd, 2011 at 20:11 | #14

    Pauline Hanson is a candidate for the NSW Legislative Council, which will take on increased importance following Saturday’s election. I saw a suggestion that the Shooter’s Party is expected to be part of the group holding the balance of power in the Upper House. I would prefer John Hatton and his “team” of independents. Pauline Hanson will do well enough to fund her next tilt at the electoral windmill. Who know where or when that will be.

  15. derrida derider
    March 23rd, 2011 at 20:20 | #15

    I think this was a tremendous victory for the government.

    A piddling 1500 people (gee, even the Trots could gather more people than that), with a large proportion of them evidently ugly nutters. And Abbott being stupid enough to get himself identified with that crowd.

    I reckon if Gillard gets through the next few months (and they will be fairly tough months) then she is looking very good for reelection.

  16. Alice
    March 23rd, 2011 at 20:31 | #16

    @paul walter
    I thought exactky the same thing
    Angry Anderson is just plain dumb.

  17. March 24th, 2011 at 06:31 | #17

    That rally seems to me to announce the formal merger of One Nation with the coalition. Hanson won.

  18. Jeepers Creepers
    March 24th, 2011 at 07:38 | #18

    DD is on the mark.

    the crowd was made up complete nutters. did the ALP place that sign behind Abbott.

    Was Abbott completely bonkers given the signs around to say this was a crowd representing Middle Australia.

    Given it was organised by 2GB in Sydney this is not surprising.

  19. Alice
    March 24th, 2011 at 07:50 | #19

    That rally looked like a pro Gaddafi rally – the signs were bigger than the crowd. A busload of bogans goes to Canberra to be welcomed by Tony Rabbit.

  20. Donald Oats
    March 24th, 2011 at 08:09 | #20

    Juliar is a pretty bad thing to say but whatever people think, she arguably was economical with the truth pre-election. Just like Liberal politicians before her, Howard being the regular offender. People make a big deal about how he took a GST to the election (apparently), and yet they ignore the “Never ever” comments preceding that, the non-core promises identified only after the election, objectively incorrect claims that interest rates will always be lower under a Liberal government, etc. I wish politicians wouldn’t engage in this sort of behaviour. However, in Julia’s defence when she made the pre-election promise of no carbon tax under a Labor government she was referring to a scenario – a Labor government in its own right, not a diverse coalition of Greens, independents, and Labor, -which didn’t eventuate. I certainly didn’t hear her say “no carbon tax if elected as part of a coalition of competing views and opinions on how a carbon price should be handled”, or words to that effect.

    As for the rallies I think they are politically useful for the coalition. Labor would be better served if instead of going on about how extreme the rally attendees are, they explained that the attendees are being misinformed by the opposition. While it is reasonably clear to those able to see the rallies first hand that they are largely a stunt, the view from afar through the screen of a TV is rather different. Furthermore, should one (radio-station-organised) protest generate sufficient interest to be genuinely large, Labor will not be able to get away with characterising the protesters as extremists – it simply won’t wash when viewed on TV in more remote parts of Australia.

  21. TerjeP
    March 24th, 2011 at 08:43 | #21

    I recently read Pauline Hanson’s maiden speech. She was spot on with some things:-

    Reconciliation is everyone recognising and treating each other as equals, and everyone must be responsible for their own actions. This is why I am calling for ATSIC to be abolished. It is a failed, hypocritical and discriminatory organisation that has failed dismally the people it was meant to serve. It will take more than Senator Herron’s surgical skills to correct the terminal mess it is in. Anyone with a criminal record can, and does, hold a position with ATSIC. I cannot hold my position as a politician if I have a criminal record – once again, two sets of rules.

    And way off the mark on others.

    Arthur Calwell was a great Australian and Labor leader, and it is a pity that there are not men of his stature sitting on the opposition benches today. Arthur Calwell said “Japan, India, Burma, Ceylon and every new African nation are fiercely anti-white and anti-one another. Do we want or need any of these people here? I am one red-blooded Australian who says no and who speaks for 90 % of Australians.”  I have no hesitation in echoing the words of Arthur Calwell.

    Unlike a lot of politicians things have actually changed because of Pauline. Welfare is no longer spoken of by either major party as a right. ATSIC is gone. Cultural debates are more public.

    On economics Pauline was as leftwing as they come. She opposed free trade and privatization and wanted a domestic Tobin tax. On these issues she would be right at home in the Socialist Alliance.

    I think Pauline has matured since her maiden speech, as has Australia. I still couldn’t vote for her but I’m quite comfortable having her as a part of the public discourse. Wrong ideas should be openly refuted, not silenced. And sometimes people with wrong ideas have a few right ideas.

    http://www.australian-news.com.au/maiden_speech.htm

  22. Doug
    March 24th, 2011 at 08:46 | #22

    Pauline hanson will not benefit financially from her run at the NSW Upper House – she has to get over a threshold limit (I think 4%) and then she will only be paid for expenditure actually incurred.

    doubt that she will get anywhere – her appearance on the ticket will cut into the shooters and Fishing Party vote – but see anthony Green’s blog for detail,ed accounts of all these issues.

  23. TerjeP
    March 24th, 2011 at 09:26 | #23

    That’s right Doug. You have to be both a big fish and a big spender before you are entitled to political welfare. One of the many legislated barriers to entry erected to disadvantage new political parties.

  24. rog
    March 24th, 2011 at 09:27 | #24

    Hanson complains about discrimination based on skin colour and then calls for the end of multiculturaism and non white immigration.

  25. Paul Norton
    March 24th, 2011 at 09:38 | #25

    Here’s an example of the company Abbott et al were keeping at the rally.
    http://www.freestatevoice.com.au/politics

  26. Doug
    March 24th, 2011 at 10:14 | #26

    TerjeP – there were some perverse incentives in the previous system in NSW and it is part of a wider package of changes that I don’t pretend to be fully up to speed with.

    Are you suggesting that there should be no minimum hurdle before public funding can be accessed?

  27. TerjeP
    March 24th, 2011 at 11:16 | #27

    Doug – ideally political parties would not get any public funding. Public funding of political parties is a most unhealthy development in our democratic system. I’d be happy enough to also see a ban on donations by all entities other than citizens. Parties should be of the people, not of the government, or corporations or unions.

    The major parties also get their application fees refunded whilst the minor parties don’t.

  28. TerjeP
    March 24th, 2011 at 11:18 | #28

    p.s. If we keep public funding we should ditch the threshold.

  29. jakerman
    March 24th, 2011 at 12:04 | #29

    TerjeP :Doug – ideally political parties would not get any public funding. Public funding of political parties is a most unhealthy development in our democratic system. I’d be happy enough to also see a ban on donations by all entities other than citizens. Parties should be of the people, not of the government, or corporations or unions.

    TerjeP is satisfied with the plutocratic ponzi scheme where the wealthiest are advantaged above the poor in political process.

    Public funding of election campaigns is pro-democratic and counters the anti-democratic plutocratic feedback system.

  30. jakerman
    March 24th, 2011 at 12:16 | #30

    TerjeP :Doug – ideally political parties would not get any public funding. Public funding of political parties is a most unhealthy development in our democratic system. I’d be happy enough to also see a ban on donations by all entities other than citizens. Parties should be of the people, not of the government, or corporations or unions.

    TerjeP is satisfied with the plutocratic ponzi scheme where the wealthiest are advantaged above the poor in political process.

    Public funding of election campaigns is pro-democratic and counters the anti-democratic plutocratic feedback system.

  31. TerjeP
    March 24th, 2011 at 12:22 | #31

    Jackboot believes in the Nazi socialist scheme where party and state are joined at the hip. He is also fond of strawmen and hyperbole.

  32. Alice
    March 24th, 2011 at 12:29 | #32

    @TerjeP
    Terje –
    There is no way to police who is an “individual citizen” and nicely separate that from who is an “entity other than a citizen”. That means dear old Frank Lowy and Meriton and any other two bit, three bit or five star shelf company can go on offering to bribe this politician or that politician…as they do now here and in many countries.

    This business of allowing private donations to fund political parties – whether its the $10 donation made by Ma kettle or the post political plum jobs made by Macquarie Bank, or the “you scratch my back and Ill scratch your back under the table” after a deal is done to flog or buy a once state asset.. is corrosive, robs the citzenry and leads to corruption.
    We see it time and time again – here is an example
    Currawong (union owned holiday cottages c 1920s on remote Pittwater shore – maybe earlier and been there for decades) is apparently sold 6 weeks ago by unions NSW to some ???cardboard ???short shelf life company called eco villages or something similar for 9.5 mill or 11 mill depending on which piece you read…6 weeks later KK is spitting chips because someone who was authorised to negotiate on behalf of the government (authorised by KK and Tony Kelly) to buy it back from eco lot ACTUALLY bought it back for 12.2 mill. (why didnt unions NSW just sell it straight to the government if they wanted it)

    Now the buyer has been stood down and reported to ICAC and KK is screaming..”he didnt have the authority to proceed with sale”

    Yeah right. Someone made money on this and you can sure as hell bet it wasnt the taxpayers.

    Stay tuned. This is going to get interesting but my guess is it wont be returned to public hands even though the Government now apparently owns it. My guess is it will be redeveloped into luxury allotments on the Pittwater waterfront and we will all be wobbed again.

    This stuff goes on everyday. Politicians, bureacrats and other public servants, and creepy two minute private company managers are fighting us and each other like rabid dogs with their teeth bared over every public asset we ever owned.

    It turns my stomach and private donations and kickbacks has everything to do with it.

  33. Alice
    March 24th, 2011 at 12:36 | #33

    @jakerman
    jakerman – you are dead right
    “Public funding of election campaigns is pro-democratic and counters the anti-democratic plutocratic feedback system.”

    If some in the private sector or unions for that matter or any other organisation of private individuals want to make donations let them make those donations directly to a charity or something useful like a school or university….then we could sort out the real philanthropists from the scum.

  34. jakerman
    March 24th, 2011 at 12:42 | #34

    TerjeP :Jackboot believes in the Nazi socialist scheme where party and state are joined at the hip. He is also fond of strawmen and hyperbole.

    More emtpy words TerjeP,

    I assume you’ve got no sensible point yet again? Goodwins law fail BTW.

  35. jakerman
    March 24th, 2011 at 12:44 | #35

    @TerjeP

    I think I’ve been over estimating you TerjeP. I’m currently recalibaring my estimation with comments like your last.

  36. TerjeP
    March 24th, 2011 at 12:45 | #36

    Empty words for your empty words. Seems like a fair trade.

  37. TerjeP
    March 24th, 2011 at 12:47 | #37

    Alice – your story about corrupt deals with unions, shelf companies and the government hardly makes the case for public funding of political parties.

  38. Alice
    March 24th, 2011 at 13:04 | #38

    @TerjeP
    Terje – lets all read about some ordinary everyday donations shall we? It seems the Currawong episode goes right back to Costa. No wonder KK is all hot air and spitting chips now about the government buying it, now especially. Labor wont get to control it and keep their developer donations flowing from it as it will be fairly and squarely in liberal donation land now.

    http://www.friendsofcurrawong.com/ii.html

    Wake up and smell the garbage decisions and profiteering that come to us solely via political party donations Terje.

  39. jakerman
    March 24th, 2011 at 13:10 | #39

    TerjeP :Empty words for your empty words. Seems like a fair trade.

    More empty words,

    Unlike you, my critique was accurate, ie. “Public funding of election campaigns is pro-democratic and counters the anti-democratic plutocratic feedback system.”

    And nailed you for your wish to repeal public funding while proposing no alternative counter ballance to the wealth imbalance in politics that results in democractic participation fruther displaced with more an more plutocratic influence.

  40. jakerman
    March 24th, 2011 at 13:21 | #40

    BTW TerjeP, once your fallacious go-to tactic is transparent wouldn’t it be wise to reflect and consider a different tactic?

    TerjeP :</

    I avoid concrete positions when I have nothing concrete to say. I can and do however take quite specific positions on certain issues from time to time. Sorry if you have not noticed.

  41. jakerman
  42. may
    March 24th, 2011 at 13:48 | #42

    barnett in the west made a little throw away comment a while ago about the need(?) for a tea party in Aust.

    the mutterings are being orchestrated into a screech.

    this nasty push to give credibility to verbal vileness and mob rule in our public discourse is just begging for a close up of the perpetrators.

    then we have the concentration of ownership of news/information happening where the usual suspects have squeezed through the cracks of the legislation designed to ensure no concentration of ownership.
    (newspapers and telemedia? no no i don’t own both or more,i just own bits of both or more.)

    this isn’t something imported from the american chamber of commerce a la the caught out “Themis” project is it?
    nah. i’m just getting carried away.

  43. PatrickB
    March 24th, 2011 at 13:56 | #43

    TerjeP is extremely naive, as are ,most so-called libertarians. I watched a fair bit of the doco about Jack Abramoff on SBS on Monday night. Now there’s some clever political funding for you.

  44. Fran Barlow
    March 24th, 2011 at 14:40 | #44

    On the question of political funding, it might be better to place a cap on spending on political advertising 900 days after the last election (in the case of the feds) or 90 days before the full term mark of state elections. For the purposes of calculation, expenditures would be deemed to have occurred when the advertising was published or circulated.

    In the case of third party advertising, this would remain unrestricted but these third parties would have to pay tax on the advertising at the corporate rate as if it were income, if they referred to matters deemed by the AEO to be likely to affect the fortunes of any candidate contesting the election. In order for this provision to be activated, a candidate would be required to file an objection. An avenue of appeal against an adverse finding would be to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and then to the Federal Court.

    Spending itself would be capped at a fixed number of dollars per vote at the last election (in the case of parties or individuals who had stood before) and in the case of new parties and individuals on the basis that they achieved 3% of the vote in each of the seats they were contesting. Spending above that would be a breach. All donations from individuals above $100 would have to be suitably documented and registered with the AEO. Candidates would need to know that these records would be made publicly available within three months of the declaration of the poll.

    Of course, I’d sooner have sortition + deliberative voting + direct democracy … but that’s another matter.

  45. Dave McRae
    March 24th, 2011 at 14:41 | #45

    Paul Norton – that link of yours was a heck a lot of crazy..
    ..have a gander at http://www.freestatevoice.com.au/politics/item/654-so-you-think-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-conspiracy? and be afraid (and/or amused).

  46. wilful
    March 24th, 2011 at 14:55 | #46

    I think that the debate about what’s the most democratic and fair way of funding politics can be had without derisive namecalling. It’s not something that automatically and clearly has a moral solution, all options have their failings.

    I also don’t think that terjeP is anti-democratic. Sure he believes crazy libertarian stuff, but that tends to be pro-democracy. Jakerman, I hardly see how you’ve proposed solutions that counter the plutocratic tendencies we currently have.

  47. Paul Norton
    March 24th, 2011 at 15:20 | #47

    Yes, Dave, they’re a disturbed and disturbing bunch in the “Christian Central Queensland Free State, which seceded from the evil iniquity of the illegal State and Federal governments on July 1st, 2004.”
    http://www.freestatevoice.com.au/about-us

  48. jakerman
    March 24th, 2011 at 15:45 | #48

    wilful :

    I also don’t think that terjeP is anti-democratic. Sure he believes crazy libertarian stuff, but that tends to be pro-democracy.

    Wilful does TerjP need to be anti-democratic to propose measure that have anti-democratic effect?

    Jakerman, I hardly see how you’ve proposed solutions that counter the plutocratic tendencies we currently have.

    Rather than proposing new ones, I was defending one of the existing things we currently have that counter the plutocratic tendencies we currently have.

    Wilful, I’m happy to address any comments you have on what I actually wrote.

  49. jakerman
    March 24th, 2011 at 16:02 | #49

    wilful :
    I think that the debate about what’s the most democratic and fair way of funding politics can be had without derisive namecalling. It’s not something that automatically and clearly has a moral solution, all options have their failings.
    I also don’t think that terjeP is anti-democratic. . ..

    Wilful you point might be difficult to understand because you have not cited the particular instances you are referring to. A reader such as my self can’t workout which instances you are criticizing in a lengthy discussion involving half a dozen contributers without citations.

  50. Alice
    March 24th, 2011 at 18:28 | #50

    @Fran Barlow
    Frans solution is to “it might be better to place a cap on spending on political advertising 900 days after the last election (in the case of the feds) or 90 days before the full term mark of state elections.”

    What good would that do Fran – would it stop the racketeering by policians for donations? Would it stop shady cretins advancinh their own wealth at taxpayers expense (with a small kickback to appropriate political party?)

    So you will time the donation period and assume trhe problem is solved. As naive as Terje – you desperately hope your liberatarian little villages can look after themselves.

  51. Fran Barlow
    March 24th, 2011 at 18:56 | #51

    @Alice

    I forgot to add — {and irrespective of the timelines, as soon as an election is called}

    I said:

    it might be better to place a cap on spending on political advertising 900 days after the last election (in the case of the feds) or 90 days before the full term mark of state elections

    And Alice commented:

    What good would that do Fran – would it stop the racketeering by policians for donations? Would it stop shady cretins advancing their own wealth at taxpayers expense (with a small kickback to appropriate political party?)

    Your questions are imprecise. Possibly not, but the intent is not to stamp out shady dealings but to level the playing field at elections. If you want to stamp out “shady cretins advancing their own wealth at taxpayers’ expense” you will probably need more intrusive state supervision and transparency. That sounds easy and appealing, but not everyone would like where really effective oversight might finish up.

    What about we stick to the topic of election funding or else go back to the original topic of “One Nation”?

  52. Donald Oats
    March 24th, 2011 at 19:41 | #52

    Only need to look to the USA to see how distorted and expensive private funding of politicians can be – witness Obama vs Clinton, and both of these vs their republican counterparts. And these hundreds of millions must be raised every four years, to fund yet another presidential campaign.

    If political parties were granted a publically funded kitty for running their respective election campaigns, I’m not real sure how it would work, but limits could be good for us all. Perhaps a thousand bucks per house of reps candidate, five hundred bucks per senate candidate, and ten grand or so for the federal party as a whole. Boy would that keep it simple – a few placards at the voting booths on election day and that would be it!

    On another note, I’m spectacularly unimpressed with the Liberal’s tame interviewer on the ABC 7:30 show. Never in my life of watching the 7:30 report, TDT, and now 7:30, have I seen such a series of Dorothy Dixes handed to the opposition leader of a major party – one Catholic to another, as well! So much for balance and unbiased journalism at the ABC :-(

    Makes me very cross.

  53. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 24th, 2011 at 19:43 | #53

    This used to be a polite little blog where ideas got discussed.

  54. Donald Oats
    March 24th, 2011 at 19:57 | #54

    Just checked out the League of Rights froot loops, and I take back my earlier comments. These dudes are seriously out there near Jupiter. If they are acceptable company for the Liberals, then the Liberals have even more issues than I realised.

  55. bobalot
    March 24th, 2011 at 20:02 | #55

    TerjeP (say tay-a) :
    This used to be a polite little blog where ideas got discussed.

    TerjeP repeats his disastrous performance in yet another thread and beats his chest crying his people are not being civil to him.

    This is simply hilarious to read. Please continue.

  56. jakerman
    March 24th, 2011 at 20:47 | #56

    TerjeP (say tay-a) :
    This used to be a polite little blog where ideas got discussed.

    Yes, that was Until someone started calling others names like Jackboot and laying out the Goodwin “NAZI”. Still most of us managed to keep it civil.

    TerjeP :
    Jackboot believes in the Nazi socialist scheme where party and state are joined at the hip. He is also fond of strawmen and hyperbole.

  57. TerjeP
    March 24th, 2011 at 21:38 | #57

    Never mind the context in which it was a sarcastic response to your drivel about me promoting plutocracy. I’ll vacate this discussion now given it’s unproductive decline.

  58. jakerman
    March 24th, 2011 at 22:25 | #58

    @TerjeP

    Terjep its not drive to expose the fact that your preferred policy would remove one of the pro-democratic mechanisms that acts as a counter the anti-democratic plutocratic feedback system.

    Nor is it drivel to point out the you were satisfied to remove this anti-plutocratic measure with not discussion of replacement for it.

    But thanks for reminding us of what you consider drivel, and demonstrating what you consider discussing ideas.

  59. Jill Rush
    March 25th, 2011 at 00:11 | #59

    Patrick B – I watched that documentary about Jack Abramoff too and saw some rather awful parallels with the current trend in Australian politics – although in a much less awful form. One Nation might have lost its way but the ideas keep bouncing around and with Tony Abbott looking more and more like One Nation in exile there is every chance that the money will be used to assist in elections as it has done in the USA for the right wing there. And there is no doubt that even though the right wing numbers are small there they are having a huge amount of influence and affect on policy.

    The people with money are very happy to bombard those who are disaffected and uneducated with suggestions to act against their own interests because they are politically naive. The Abramoff story had the Indians ripped off without even realising it was happening and that there was a lot of double dealing going on.

  60. March 25th, 2011 at 04:50 | #60

    Pr Q said:

    Does anyone have any insight into what’s going on here? Is this just some bandwagon-jumping or is there a real resurgence of One Nation and similar groups?

    Abbot is trying to do to the L/NP what Palin did for the REPs, start a grass-roots Right-wing populist rebellion. One Nation is the epitome of that political movement (AUS’s Tea Party). But the prospects for anti-scientific Right-wing populism are less glittering in AUS, our electorate is pretty well grounded in reality.

    Also, having the former stars of ON fall in to a rabble-rousing rally is a bit like having a re-union of the Sex Pistols thirty years on. What might have been interesting, infuriating and incandescent when it first happened grows old fast.

    More generally the AGW-denying Right-wing in both US (TP) and AUS (ON) are both in the same boat, they need to whip up public enthusiasm for their cause based largely on free-floating anger and ignorance. But this kind of political sentiment invariably suffers burn out if it is based on nothing much more than confected outrage and personal grievance. Also, the generational and racial demographics tides are flowing against them.

    I thought the Right-wing burn-out would happen sooner rather than later. So I (mis-)predicted that Palin-REPs would do poorly at the 2010 Congressional election and the Abbot-L/NP would do poorly at the 2010 Federal election.

    However the AGW-denying Right-wing burn-out is now on the cards. It looks like these movements are starting to splutter & cough, going by polling numbers.

    My predictions that Obama-DEMs will win in 2012 and the ???-ALP will win in 2013 remain in place.

    My ALP (FEB 2009election predictions stand up pretty well to hind-sight:

    If the peridocity of the electoral cycle has any regularity then its the ALP’s turn to have a decent go at federal administration. Such “turns” usually last a minimum of two terms. We are still in the early stages of the procession of this cycle.

    Also the state ALP govts are likely to start toppling over the next few years. This will only serve to make the federal ALP look like a good bet, based on the counter-cyclical balance of power theory of fed-state partisan alignments.

    events appear to favouring the ALP. By this I mean that the ALP is probably trusted to fairly pump prime the economy with social spending rather than tax cuts. Also the attenuation of cultural identity and national security issues, partially through Howard’s successful policies, has neutralised these issues – paradoxically helping the ALP.

    So there is an over-determination of causes promoting ALP success over the longer-term. Based on these considerations I predict a three-term ALP administration. This will occur irrespective of whether Rudd, Gillard or someone else are leader.

    My MAR 2010 prediction for the Obama-DEM election in 2012 is also looking good, going by the betting market:

    My psephelogical instinct is that the REPs are committing slow-motion political suicide by having no positive program. Their rabble-rousing do nothingism will work in the short-term 2010, but back-fire big-time for them in the long-term 2012+…

    I predict that Obama will win convincingly in the 2012 elections, doing better than Bush in 2004.

    Its time for other self-styled psepheologists to come out of the wood work and place their predictions on public record. Generally speaking very few pundits make predictions and then review them.

    Punditry and social science seem to be parting company in the internet age.

  61. Ken Fabos
    March 25th, 2011 at 10:02 | #61

    Were there any people at the rally who accepted the reality and seriousness of human induced climate change and only had problems with specific policy measures? Did anyone, Abbott or others, tell that mob that they should take the problem seriously but respond to it differently? The crowd didn’t look that big – the news footage I saw seemed deliberately selected to make it impossible to gauge and didn’t give estimated numbers – and maybe there were people there who did not deny the existence of the problem, but the impression was otherwise. I can only see the focus on Gillard’s ill-considered electoral promise as implacable opponents of action on emissions going for the chink in her armour; they wouldn’t be upset if she’d said she’d introduce a carbon tax but then changed her mind, would they?

  62. March 31st, 2011 at 10:25 | #62

    These groups/individuals “never went away”, they’ve undergone a form of cultural evolution since the heyday of “One Nation”.

    I’ve been tracking the denial movement closely for a year, and and what I’ve noticed how they believe not in one conspiracy – that climate science is a scam – but a cluster of conspiracies.

    Indeed, “climate change” is but one more example of a century long conspiracy that goes back to the Rothschilds’, “international bankers” and the like:

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/dance-with-the-devil-tony-abbot-may-be-backing-away-from-last-weeks-protests-but-is-he-aware-of-the-antisemitic-flavour-of-climate-sceptics-rhetoric/

    When you dig into the literature – not what they write in the Murdoch press – but in their blogs, papers and forum posts a very dark form of politics emerges.

    Here are is some text form a publication by Dr David Evans, who spoke at the Perth rally against the CO2 tax:

    “…There are a small number of families who, over the centuries, have amassed wealth through financial rent seeking. They are leading members of the paper aristocracy. For example, the Rothschild’s are the biggest banking family in Europe, and were reputed to own half of all western industry in 1900. That sort of wealth doesn’t just dissipate, because unless the managers are incompetent the wealth tends to concentrate. The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible. Since they own or influence all sorts of media organizations, it isn’t too hard. There are unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, but nobody can really credibly say how much wealth and influence they have…

    …Perhaps today’s fiat currencies—the US dollar, pound, yen and so on—will go up in smoke in an inflationary crescendo in the next few years, perhaps as planned by the paper aristocracy. Maybe they will reintroduce an asset backed currency. And guess who has all the gold? Those banking families have been salting it away for years. Possibly a global currency, so one cannot escape the predations of the paper aristocracy. This is not just about money, but about power, of course. Anyway, these are only unsubstantiated rumors. We shall see.”

    Evans is one of the most prominent deniers out there, and is mentioned in the same breath as Plimer and Carter by the conservative press. He is married to Jo Nova.

    Evans went with Fielding as an “expert” to take on Penny Wong back when she was Climate Change minister.

    It should be no surprise this rag-tag bunch form the fringe all turned up in Canberra.

    They have in fact been swapping information, tactics etc. for some time. Indeed, thanks to the Internet their various conspiracy theories are coalescing into a grand meta-narrative:

    - there is a world wide conspiracy headed by “elites”… scientists, journalists, academics, the UN/IPCC (but never fossil fuel companies) seeking to control every aspect of our lives
    - they use a variety of “false flag” operations and theories to push their agenda (9/11, climate change, the GFC) and thus extend their control
    - their objective is to either a) improvise us and cement their power or b) reduce the world’s population or c) both

    Hence the posters such as “UN/IPCC = genocide”

    We may all think them mad, but it would be dangerous to underestimate their growing influence.

    Outfits like the IPA will happily use them to help drive their campaigns of disinformation. But of course, one can only dance with the devil for so long…

  63. March 31st, 2011 at 10:35 | #63

    *impoverish, not improvise us….

  64. March 31st, 2011 at 15:11 | #64

    A follow up to the discussion…

    These people exist in every society, and tend to be “right-wing authoritarians”.

    They’ve simply migrated from one right-wing fringe conspiracy/cause to another.

    Last weeks protests simple threw a light on their continued existence…

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/coming-out-of-the-wood-work-john-quiggin-asks-a-pertinent-question-about-right-wing-authoritarians-australia/

Comments are closed.