[AA]
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.
[AL] Well, you *have* argued it, so I'll respond.
Neither side ever contemplated a "Coalition". The Queensland Nationals
were desperate to retain office and were willing to form a minority
government vulnerable to One Nation and the ALP combining to refuse
supply at any time. One Nation would have been delighted with that
situation, just as they were delighted to swap preferences with the
Nationals. The Queensland Liberals and Federal Nationals squashed that
idea, which would have been disasterous for them because they *know*
that One Nation is fundamentally hostile to them and they regard the
long term interests of the Coalition as more important than the
Queensland Premier's desperate desire to remain office. Other Coalition
premiers such as Jeff Kennett in Victoria made it quite clear that they
would prefer to see an ALP Government in office in Queensland than a
minority Coalition government dependent on One Nation not allying itself
with the ALP to bring them down. The issue was resolved by conservative
"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).
Hanson and Oldfield originate from the Coalition, just as the leader of
the Australia First Party, with substantially identical policies,
originated from the ALP, and just as the breakway "Democratic Labor
Party" originated from the ALP.
In all three cases they are deeply hostile to the party they originate
from both because they are competing for the same social base and
because of personal disputes. Kalgoorlie was previously a safe ALP seat
and is now a Liberal seat. The DLP kept the Coalition in office for
decades.
One Nation openly targeted the Nationals and if they succeed, they are
likely to keep the Coalition out of office for decades. The ALP already
has a majority of the two party preferred vote, has established that it
is the "natural party of government" in Queensland and is likely to be
able to win the next election AND MANY FUTURE ELECTIONS on the basis
that Coalition supporters are fragmented and the ALP is the only party
able to govern effectively.
(This incidentally opens up interesting prospects if the Coalition
thinks that through. It could actually be in their interests to
introduce PR as the only way to fragment the ALP in the same way that
they have been fragmented.)
One Nation is quite prepared to tactically ally with the Coalition where
it suits them, and with the ALP where it suits them - e.g. they handed
several seats to the ALP in WA by their preferences and are likewise
responsible for Cheryl Kernot not seeking a career in photography.
Incidentally Hanson first became well known because she was elected with
the support of disaffected ALP voters in a safe ALP seat after being
disendorsed by the Liberal Party but still retaining their name on the
ballot paper and therefore also receiving the minority Liberal vote in
that seat.
One Nation is hostile to both. The Coalition knows it, the ALP knows it
and they know it.
They are hostile to them, in a way that the Democrats and Greens are
not,
and in a way that Neither is.
>[DK]
>Bullshit Albert! Surely it is possible for intelligent people to agree
>to
>work together on some things without necessarily agreeing on
everything.
[AA]
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.
[AL] If individual Neither members say of One Nation "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" it will not be easy to work with
supporters of that party in the same organization, whether or not
Neither as an organization says that it does not "write off" such
supporters. Since some will say such things, including myself, I have
raised the issue of how we are to handle that.
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.
A second question is whether Neither as an organization should take that
position. My view is that it eventually should, but there is no hurry
about it and it should not be simply assumed that it will without
thorough discussion in which One Nation supporters are as entitled to
say their piece as anyone else. So far people claiming to be One Nation
supporters have been a lot more polite in putting their views than
others opposing those views. They have certainly not said anything that
could be characterized as "authoritarian, ludicrous, racist or evil" nor
anything to indicate that they are just another bunch of politicians but
have merely indicated their disagreement with those estimates of One
Nation. I think the above two issues should be discussed in a manner
that REALLY does not "write off" supporters of One Nation.
[AL]
>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.
[AA]
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.
[AL] As long as they continue that way, and continue not opposing the
denial of free elections by the ALP, Coalition and Democrats
anti-Neither legislation there is no question of a tactical alliance
concerning the electoral system.
(BTW I'm told that one of their research officers rang up during the
elections to complain about the ad listing them equal last as being
opposed to free elections along with the ALP, Coalition and Democrats -
said that Hanson had not voted against the legislation simply because
she was not in Parliament that day and promised that they would be
issuing a media release against it).
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.
When a Party with 8% of the national vote, 25% at the very recent
Queensland State election, 1 Senator, more seats in the Queensland
Parliament than the Liberals (who actually fell below the number
required for official recognition as a Parliamentary Party), 2.5 million
of public funding and more active members than all the others put
together, starts fighting for PR that is going to be very significant.
What this tiny group says about them is not going to bother them one
bit. How we handle the issue is going to affect whether we come to be
seen as the alternative to One Nation "on the left", or whether the ALP
and Coalition succeed in making PR look like a proposal to support One
Nation.
I don't know what the Greens and Democrats are thinking about this but
so far they haven't shown much capacity to think ahead. We should.
[AL]
>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.
[AA]
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.
[AL]
Neither has not so far sought support from any of the parties and will
never be tied to any, "right-wing" or not.
(We had a good working relationship with the Greens in 1996 but not
in 1998 - in fact they threatened to sue the Australian for publishing
my ad saying their policies were anti-immigration).
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.
(In addition, many ALP and Coalition supporters have supported our
democratic rights and I expect many would support PR, but that it is a
different matter from supporting Neither on the issue of actually
putting the ALP and Coalition equal last. Also of course many ALP,
Coalition and One Nation voters have exercised their elementary
democratic right to put more than one of the candidates they reject
equal last. The numbers may be larger than those who put the ALP,
Coalition, Democrats and One Nation equal last as recommended in Neither
ads during the last election.)
I'll respond to the remainder of your message, concerning electoral
reform, under the subject thread "Democracy Act".
