At 18:50 17/10/98 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>One Nation is currently the only significant party that genuinely
>>opposes both the ALP and the Coalition.
Firstly, I'd say that this is not necessarily true - One Nation would be
quite happy to work with the Coalition... remember in Queensland they were
talking about a naitonal-Liberal-Independant-One Nation coalition! Also
remember where both Hanson and Oldfield came from.
But this is not the point I wish to argue just yet.
>[DK]
>Bullshit Albert! Surely it is possible for intelligent people to agree
>to
>work together on some things without necessarily agreeing on everything.
Who are you willing to work with? If One Nation wish to go about seeking
PR, let 'em, but looking to them *as a party* for support is, in my
opinion, a bad thing. Why? Because the nature of their party is
authoritarian, their policies and statements range from the ludicrous to
the racist to the just plain evil, and they're just another group of
politicians.
This is not to write off *supporters* - people voted One Nation for a wide
variety of reasons.
>1. The origins of Neither and the group currently running it are "on the
>left". See the links in my message in the subject thread "Organising
>Neither? - History" for background on that.
Which is certainly why I'm here. The thing is, ON and Neither may support
changing our electoral system, but is it in the same way? They're
currently talking first-past-the-post as if it's democratic. One supporter
on their web site today (Snuday 18th) wants the two major parties charged
with conspiracy do deny ON representation. They've got no idea what
they're going on about with regard to electoral reform.
>3. A substantial proportion of people who have contacted Neither and
>expressed support for its core principles are not "on the left" and
>many are supporters of One Nation.
People who claim soft-left-nationalistic politics support ON too...
If Neither seeks support from ON, I don't see a difference betwen seeking
support from the ALP, Liberals, or for that matter the CEC. Neither should
stand on its own feet, and not tie itself to right-wing parties who don't
really know what they want, except to have their fair share of snouts in
the trough.
What sort of reform are we seeking? If we're talking about some form of
parliament, I imagine something as democratic as possible. Off the top of
my head, I'd say abolish states, have electoral regions in which groups of
people get elected (similar to Hare-Clark), and a national senate... we all
know that one Tasmanian's Senate vote = 6-8 NSW Senate votes, after all.
Regards,
Alister
--
"Let us not fool ourselves, half a century after the adoption
of this Declaration (of human Rights) and supposedly under its
protection, millions of people have died in the world without
reaching the age of 50 and without even knowing that there was
a universal document that should have protected them."
Roberto Robaina, Cuba's Foreign Minister
