[DK]
Albert wrote:
>One Nation is currently the only significant party that genuinely
>opposes both the ALP and the Coalition.
i.e. they support the core position of Neither
[AL] Exactly my point, this is a fact.
>The widespread celebration of the fact that One Nation won no seats in
>the House of Representatives will also be used as an argument against
>Neither's campaign for PR.
[DK]
By Neither's enemies maybe; not by One Nation
[AL] Agreed. So far Pauline Hanson did not vote against and has
said nothing against the anti-Neither legislation and illegal rigging
of the 1998 election. Instead she is babbling about how she would
have won under first-past-the-post - which is nonsense. One Nation
currently has no policy on the electoral system and does not advocate
PR. But, however clueless they may be, the logic of their situation will
inevitably result in them supporting PR, opposing the anti-democratic
anti-Neither legislation and ballot rigging, and thus being aligned with
Neither both in having common enemies and in having a common immediate
objective (as is the case already with those of their supporters who
have contacted Neither).
[AL]
>We cannot oppose the "two party state" and support PR without admitting
>that this does indeed mean we support One Nation being fully
represented
>along with the Democrats, Greens and other minor parties in a
>representative House of Representatives.
>
>That makes it all the more important for Neither to clearly oppose One
>Nation and add them to the list of parties to put equal last, despite
>their (anticipated) support for PR.
[DK]
Bullshit Albert! Surely it is possible for intelligent people to agree
to
work together on some things without necessarily agreeing on everything.
[AL]
It is possible but it isn't easy and requires clear
understanding of what we are working together on and what we
disagree on. It is logically possible for Neither to
become an organization which includes both One Nation supporters
and people "on the left" united solely by its core principles of
opposition to the ALP and Coalition two party state and its objective of
achieving PR. This thread is largely about whether or not we
should attempt to do that.
My view is that in the long run, One Nation will lead opposition to the
two party state and support for PR from the right, Neither will do so
from the left and we will coordinate our activities to the extent
necessary through direct liasion between opposing organizations with
certain common objectives and through common support for "neutral"
organizations such as Electoral Reform Societies which really do have no
other agenda.
Four simple facts should be recognized in that discussion:
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.
2. The group currently running Neither has forfeited any claim to decide
what direction it should take by the fact that it has not been running
it and has not established any organization to involve the large number
of people who expressed support for its core principles. Any decision
about where to go from here will have to result from discussion in this
mailing list and further organizational measures taken as a result of
such discussion.
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. (This may well be a surprise to
supporters "on the left", and the "left" background to Neither may be a
surprise for One Nation supporters, but these surprising facts are true.
It is an interesting phenomena in Australian politics worth extensive
discussion.)
4. There is no pressing urgency that requires resolution of these issues
without full discussion. All viewpoints will benefit from that
discussion. Let's agree that it is an "open question" under active
discussion now.
[DK]
may be difficult to get the media to draw the distinction, but that is
scarcely good reason for alienating a lot of people who are potential
allies
in achieving your core objective.
If it is going to be Neither's policy to join the gang opposing One
Nation
you can take me off this mailing list now, and you can say goodbye to
another supporter.
Dave
[AL] As Brian Jenkins mentioned in another message in this subject
thread, there is a lot of peer pressure for people "on the left" to
"join the gang opposing One Nation". In fact the ALP hypocritically made
that a central reason for voting against the Coalition (while still
competing with the Coalition to get One Nation preferences and even
handing out How to Vote cards with first preference for One Nation and
second preference for the ALP). The Coalition less hypocritically took
on One Nation as the central problem facing their National Party
component with potential extinction. The Democrats and Greens made
opposition to One Nation the central theme of their campaign.
I think it is clear that Neither's core principles of opposition to the
two party state and support for PR make it unlikely that we would
succumb to that bullshit and "join the gang". Whatever else we may
decide, we cannot be "Neither" if we are not committed to rejecting both
the ALP and the Coalition while they oppose PR and exclude all other
views from representation, regardless of whatever particular excuse they
come up with for supporting one or other of them from time to time.
But it is equally clear that supporters of Neither who are "on the
left" will continue to oppose One Nation at least as strongly as they
oppose the ALP and the Coalition. (Whether we oppose it more strongly or
not is just as irrelevant as whether we oppose the ALP or the Coalition
more strongly - we reject it, we won't vote for it and we will therefore
put it equal last along with the other parties that we reject and won't
vote for).
Whether Neither as an organization adopts that position is a matter for
decision by its members, not just by those who happen to be "on the
left" but also those who happen to support One Nation.
As you say, the inevitable difference of opinion on that does not
preclude working together on those points we agree on. But it certainly
won't be easy to do so in the same organization unless that organization
really is a neutral forum like an Electoral Reform Society.
This is a public email list which anyone can join or leave. How we
handle the discussions in it will determine the decisions individuals
make about that. Let's have the discussions first, both on this issue
and many others, and see how we go.
