Pauline Hanson - One Nation Party

[Ghost Patrol]

 

[crowman2]

Well no it's not a matter of opinion.

I'm not making the case for people to vote Libs or Labor.

But if people are going to vote ON expecting she'll be better than Libs or Labor (and a pooload of them clearly believe she will be - flying in the face of her 30 year track record of incompetence, division and infighting) - then absolutely, they're ignorant, yes.

No one knows who will be better until they have taken over

Pretty sure most are unhappy with albo maybe not his fault either

 

[Carringbush2010]

Why would it be racist if you ask where a white person is from? Last time I checked I didn’t notice that white people were the victims of institutional and historic racism. Asians, Africans, Muslims; different story.

One thing you don’t have from your posting is perspective on racism. Have a look at the victims of racism in the majority, they aren’t white.

You come up to me and ask me where I am from and it has a totally different connotation than asking an Asian, African or middle eastern person. I’ll give you a good clue where they are from, Australia.

You're assuming that if a white person is asking a person who is not white, where they come from, that equates to 'connotations' of racism.

That at its very least is drawing a very very long bow on an assumption.

Not surprised that this is your view.

 

[Carringbush2010]

she's now just a paid puppet of Australia's richest person.

And she ain't alone, both the majors are beholden to influential parties as well.

Greens dunno, but wouldn't be surprised if they're also influenced by wealthy donors.

poorline, wouldn't trust as far as a broken tape measure.

Not that it'd be armeggedon if she did gain office, our polity would never allow it. Barely would the needle move toward 'Armegeddon!'

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

No one knows who will be better until they have taken over

Did you miss my bit about 30 years of incompetence, infighting and division?

We know perfectly well what she’d be like. Pauline Hanson is not going to suddenly discover how to govern competently for all Australians after all this time.

75% of ON candidates who have been elected to office in any legislature in Australia end up falling out with her in their first term and seeing out the term as an independent. And then failing to be re-elected.

Those are the facts. Any government with a substantial ON representation will be a ratbagocracy.

Pretty sure most are unhappy with albo

Then perhaps you need to read more widely.

You do realise his recent slump in the Preferred prime minister rating merely takes him back to the same level he was two months before he achieved the biggest majority in post-war federal politics?

And no, I’m not barracking for him. I didn’t vote for him and it’s extremely unlikely I’ll vote for him next time.

But this sort of wishful thinking is no argument at all.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Not that it'd be armeggedon if she did gain office, our polity would never allow it.

Can you explain this? In the unlikely event ON did win government they would have a mandate and control of the HoR. They would more than likely have at least significant numbers if not outright control of the Senate, which is often the chamber which is easier for these fringe/cooker groups to gain power in due to be less concentrated electorates/divisions.

So why do you think if ON gained power they would not actually enact any of the harmful policies they spruik? It just comes across as wishful thinking rather than having any basis in reality.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Can you explain this? In the unlikely event ON did win government they would have a mandate and control of the HoR. They would more than likely have at least significant numbers if not outright control of the Senate, which is often the chamber which is easier for these fringe/cooker groups to gain power in due to be less concentrated electorates/divisions.

So why do you think if ON gained power they would not actually enact any of the harmful policies they spruik? It just comes across as wishful thinking rather than having any basis in reality.

Labour now, they have numbers like no other partys has ever had - yet have not proposed any poiicy that has / will lead to drastic change.

• Any proposed policy / policy change is debated in the houses and in the end are diluted down or abandoned altogether anyway, because usually you need numbers from opposition parties - even the ALP now.
• No drastic policy would be accepted by the broader electorate in the first place. Political suicide.

You say that this is wishful thinking when it has been the norm since forever.

The reason why I have faith that no party would be able to implement radical policy (in Australia), a google search.

3. Royal Assent and Enactment

• Governor-General's Assent: Once both Houses pass the bill in identical form, it is sent to the Governor-General for Royal Assent.

So for the bill to pass it has to be agreed in identical form from both houses, unlikely that a radical policy is agreed upon, unless there's numbers in both houses that are fruit cakes that out number the sensible that shouldn't be there i:e the US. We'd never get to this point.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Labour now, they have numbers like no other partys has ever had - yet have not proposed any poiicy that has / will lead to drastic change.

• Any proposed policy / policy change is debated in the houses and in the end are diluted down or abandoned altogether anyway, because usually you need numbers from opposition parties - even the ALP now.
• No drastic policy would be accepted by the broader electorate in the first place. Political suicide.

You say that this is wishful thinking when it has been the norm since forever.

The reason why I have faith that no party would be able to implement radical policy (in Australia), a google search.

3. Royal Assent and Enactment

• Governor-General's Assent: Once both Houses pass the bill in identical form, it is sent to the Governor-General for Royal Assent.

So for the bill to pass it has to be agreed in identical form from both houses, unlikely that a radical policy is agreed upon, unless there's numbers in both houses that are fruit cakes that out number the sensible that shouldn't be there i:e the US. We'd never get to this point.

Labor could implement radical policy if they wanted, they're just too scared of their own shadow and the right wing media backlash. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

The only thing stopping ON implementing any radical policies would be a hostile Senate, but that's assuming they have a hostile Senate to navigate. The Senate is far more prone to fringe parties due to its nature, therefore if ON ever had a majority in the HoR you can almost guarantee that would translate to something near a majority in the Senate. Half Senate elections may be the only saving grace however once again, you are merely hoping they wouldn't be able to enact any of their lunatic/discriminatory policies rather than it being founded in any type of reality.

 

[Carringbush2010]

A/ Labor could implement radical policy if they wanted, they're just too scared of their own shadow and the right wing media backlash. B/ That doesn't mean it can't be done.

C/ The only thing stopping ON implementing any radical policies would be a hostile Senate, but that's assuming they have a hostile Senate to navigate.

A/ You're also forgetting the electorate, the one that all parties are most concerned about where their power comes from - the voters. You're also forgetting those influentual donors they have, like poorline and the libs and nats.

B/ It means it won't be done, if there is anything you should be worried about it's this. But you've basically admitted what I've been saying all along.

You can come out from under your bed now.

C/ See A/

The ALP couldn't give a shit about their shadows or right wing media, they're low on the radar.

 

[The Punter]

Just a point of order on One Nation potentially controlling the Senate.

Say One Nation do well and win 2 Senate spots in every state and one in the NT. That would give them 16 Senators out of 76 in the new Senate after the next election, because they only won three last year.

That would leave them with 21 votes to secure to pass anything.

We are a loooooooooooooong way from having to seriously consider a One Nation government.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Just a point of order on One Nation potentially controlling the Senate.

Say One Nation do well and win 2 Senate spots in every state and one in the NT. That would give them 16 Senators out of 76 in the new Senate after the next election, because they only won three last year.

That would leave them with 21 votes to secure to pass anything.

We are a loooooooooooooong way from having to seriously consider a One Nation government.

I'm talking about a hypothetical and also talking about a future state (ie not necessarily the next election).

The point is that just thinking that ON won't enact any of the discriminatory policies they have been spouting for 30 years if they were elected based solely on the faith that they wouldn't be able to is just hoping more than anything. I tend to believe people when they tell you what they are.

 

[Not Important]

terrific piece by, john. one nation has zero interest in workers. i well recall a doco on them by four corners showing how close they wanted to get to the gun lobby in the u.s and how they sought to adopt the gun lobby's ways of manipulating public opinion and influence

One Nation is not the worker's friend

Is One Nation the worker’s friend? Or a fully owned subsidiary of Gina Rinehart, as Jim Chalmers suggested?

johnmenadue.com

 

[peetoo]

I’m thinking back to the famous ‘please explain’ where everyone poked fun at her ignorance. Fish n chip shop owner etc

Putting the trumpian politics to one side (which clearly doesn’t play well in Oz yet) maybe her voters see themselves as being talked down to, ridiculed etc and identify strongly.
If that’s the case any amount of facts on policy or competence are lesser considerations

The series of ‘please explain’ cartoons was very pointed and amusing. Made fun of the being made fun of

 

[peetoo]

Just a point of order on One Nation potentially controlling the Senate.

Say One Nation do well and win 2 Senate spots in every state and one in the NT. That would give them 16 Senators out of 76 in the new Senate after the next election, because they only won three last year.

That would leave them with 21 votes to secure to pass anything.

We are a loooooooooooooong way from having to seriously consider a One Nation government.

Aren’t they hoping to luck out with balance of power in the senate? I’m reading that is why teals want to form so they get a significant senate vote

How did it play out in South Australia?

 

[The Punter]

Aren’t they hoping to luck out with balance of power in the senate? I’m reading that is why teals want to form so they get a significant senate vote

How did it play out in South Australia?

They won three spots. Labor need two other MLCs to get legislation passed, and there are 2 Greens MLCs. They can deal with One Nation, or can deal with the Libs or Greens instead.

 

[peetoo]

Also election to be held by May 2028

US presidential election Nov 2028 so the primaries will be in full swing and the ‘what will trump do’ circus apparently

 

[RedStarUncle]

Just a point of order on One Nation potentially controlling the Senate.

Say One Nation do well and win 2 Senate spots in every state and one in the NT. That would give them 16 Senators out of 76 in the new Senate after the next election, because they only won three last year.

That would leave them with 21 votes to secure to pass anything.

We are a loooooooooooooong way from having to seriously consider a One Nation government.

I'm not PREDICTING them to get as far as winning a lower-house majority or at least an opportunity to form minority government with LNP support at the next federal election.

But if they did... and knowing that can't translate to a Senate majority due to 6 year terms... they would almost certainly use the political outcome and avalanche of momentum to roll into a double-dissolution.



More likely... PHON would be aiming to at worst give themselves full balance of power in the Senate (ALP/Greens/Teal non-majority but ALP/PHON can form a majority) or at best actually dig out more lower house seats than the LNP and form the official opposition.

Their current trajectory puts them somewhere between those 2 outcomes.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

eanwhile, Barnaby Joyce turns 'only' 60 next year.

Wait Barnaby isn't 60 yet? **** the booze really does age you.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Sling all the mud you wish. At some point the country needs to return to democracy, not rule by the noisy minorities.

One Nation is the noisy minority.

 

[Fire]

Just a point of order on One Nation potentially controlling the Senate.

Say One Nation do well and win 2 Senate spots in every state and one in the NT. That would give them 16 Senators out of 76 in the new Senate after the next election, because they only won three last year.

That would leave them with 21 votes to secure to pass anything.

We are a loooooooooooooong way from having to seriously consider a One Nation government.

How would you react to the LNP forming a coalition with ON for government?

 

[Carringbush2010]

How would you react to the LNP forming a coalition with ON for government?

Nothing much would change and there'd be no radical policy implementation. I explained this earlier in the thread

The reason why I have faith that no party would be able to implement radical policy (in Australia), a google search.

3. Royal Assent and Enactment

• Governor-General's Assent: Once both Houses pass the bill in identical form, it is sent to the Governor-General for Royal Assent.

So for the bill to pass it has to be agreed in identical form from both houses (which means compromise or dilution of policy proposal), unlikely that a radical policy is agreed upon, unless there's numbers in both houses that are fruit cakes that out number the sensible that shouldn't be there i:e the US. We'd never get to this point.

Seems the boogeyman theory is still alive and well in this thread.

And this is the problem, for example, the tax reform the govt. has 'proposed' - it's a proposal, not set in stone, parliament has to agree to the changes.

But the narrative is that's what we're getting.

Apparently the PM has 'warned Australia' not to expect big changes to NGT and CGT (not that the ngt was much different to current anyway). Don't hear much about that do we.

So for all the end is nigh posters in here, poorline may wish to propose ice agents authoritarian style, does anyone seriously think this sort of society changing proposal would get through parliament?

You can all come out from under your beds now.

 

[Fire]

You can all come out from under your beds now.

Did you mean to quote me?

Not to detract from your thoughtful and effortful post, I was more specifically asking Punter how he would react if the LNP supported ON to for government, given his apparent faction, and how this could be a realistic conclusion of his party constantly drifting further from him. I am not hiding under my bed.

 

[The Punter]

How would you react to the LNP forming a coalition with ON for government?

Poorly.

 

[Ratboys]

This is the kind of problematic phrase (which I also would use) which hardens the 30% of Australians who currently would.

I don't know why you think Not Important needs to post like the representative of a political party

 

[Ratboys]

Authenticity is in. Albanese or the Greens leader calling Hanson "stupid bitch" during the campaign would go over well. "This guy says it like it is I've noticed Hanson is a bit of a stupid bitch isn't she?"

 

[schneebly111]

The new Farrer ON MP is going to fly all 3 official flags (including Indigenous and TSI flags) in his office:

New MP Farley's first move on flags puts him at odds with Pauline Hanson

One Nation member for Farrer addresses national symbols display.

www.bordermail.com.au

3 or 6 months til becoming an independent?