[AA]
Fair enough. I take your points, but respectfully disagree with all
except
the Queensland Liberals working with One Nation in a State govt
coalition
(and where the DLP etc came from). I don't really wish to argue it now,
if
that's OK, because we've got more important things to discuss (as much
as
I'd like to wonder what an anarcho-Stalinist is, or to go on about how
horrible our mate Vlad Lenin really was).
[AL]
Ok (as much as I'd like to wonder whether the points you disagree with
are that
One Nation is genuinely hostile to the National Party or genuinely
hostile to the
Liberal Party :-)
>"independents" (political outlook to the right of the Nationals) opting
>for "stable government" under the ALP (which in any case turned out to
>have a parliamentary majority).
Does it? I thought the ALP had 44, needing the support of Peter
Wellington
to govern? Anyway, it's no big deal.
[AL] Thanks for the correction.
[AL]
>My attitude is that if One Nation supporters can wear it, there is no
>reason to exclude them from being members, but I doubt that many will
>comfortable about working together in a common organization with others
>of such diametrically opposed views.
[AA]
I agree - because we've got fairly serious (and I think legitimate!)
concerns about ON... if we're democrats (radical or otherwise) then I'd
think that democratic structures aren't an add-on, they're a necessity.
If
a *party* (as opposed to people who happen to vote for it) is not
democratic, then surely we shouldn't work with them? Before you think
I'm
going for ON specifically (and I've got good reasons to) I'd say that
the
same holds for the ALP at least, if not the Libs and Nats...
[AL]
>others opposing those views. They have certainly not said anything that
>could be characterized as "authoritarian, ludicrous, racist or evil"
[AA]
Supporters, no. The party they support, yes. But then again,
socialists
vote Labor as well, and I suppose the same arguments hold for them...
they
support a capitalist party, but that does not automatically make them
capitalists... just complicit in the evils of an ALP government.
[AL]
>My prediction is that they are bound to realize - as the Democrats and
>Greens have, that the electoral system they want is PR. As I mentioned
>they are larger than the Nationals, twice the size of the Democrats and
>have not been defeated but merely denied representation in the House of
>Representatives.
[AA]
Yep - which (as democrats) we admit is bad. Personally, I think the
best
way to discredit ON is to see the performance of their elected reps :-)
[AL]
I must confess that my enthusiasm for PR is not unrelated to a similar
expectation with respect to Democrat, Green and various "left" reps ;-)
[AL]
>We have asked for support from anyone opposed to the two party system
>and we HAVE received, quite genuine, support from people who also
>support One Nation as well as from people who support the Democrats,
the
>Greens and none. This is simply a fact.
[AA]
Yes, and I don't think this is a problem - after all, Neither has not
been
showering praise on Dems or Greens either.
But, how do we move on? Should we leave the ON issue till later? Or
perhaps we shuold think about other parties at the same time...
Alister
[AL] We seem to be in agreement. I suspect this subject thread will keep
re-opening -
especially when a lot more people get involved after the 1996 contacts
list
is processed and and we start actively advertizing this list, but I'd
rather move
on for now.
Are we agreed enough now to say to David Kidd, "Welcome to Neither -
looking forward
to working together on issues we agree on and productive debates on
issues we disagree on"?
Either way I certainly agree we should be moving on. I'd really like to
see more
discussion of concrete proposals on what to organize around in other
subject threads.
Either development or opposition to my proposals in the threads on
"Democracy Act"
and "Vote No http://www.neither.org/vote_no/confound.htm " or additional
or alternative
proposals from others.
