One Nation resurgent?

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?

64 thoughts on “One Nation resurgent?

  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. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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).

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

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

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

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

  20. 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?

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

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

  25. @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.

  26. @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.

  27. 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.

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

  29. @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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. @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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s