Why won't Pauline Hanson go away? (For Australians)

The NSW election has just taken place, and it appears that Pauline Hanson (ugh!) has been elected to the Legislative Council.

Do any Australians wish to comment on that?

Do you mean why is there an element that will always support her, or why does she keep trying?

The answer to the latter is in the former, plus she is addicted to public exposure.

The answer to the former is that there are always a small group of people who are a bit slow to keep up with the ideals of a civil society. Her voters are these people.

However, it is good that she exists as an outlet for this proportion of the population to express themselves. It ends up acting as an educative demonstration to the rest of us. Thats the good thing about democracy.

There are a couple of posters in the SD who would probably vote for her - it is good to let the lease out and give them a bit of a run. :slight_smile:

Linkety? I can’t find news of this at The Australian news website or at the Sydney Morning Herald.

Ooooooooo, that woman!

When she announced her candidature for the Upper House, and could not say who the police commissioner was, or who other ministers were, but would be demanding that ‘they’ tell her what was going on in NSW, I thought “the arrogance of that woman. Election campaigns should be an education process for voters, so they can make an informed choice. She is demanding that it become an education process for the candidates!”

The problem is, all her critics come from what she perceives as the ‘elites’ (professional politicians, bereaucracy, media). Since the ordinary rural/bluecollar/white trash people she mixes with support her, she sees criticism of her as validating her wish to represent them.

I am irrational about this woman.

I have vowed to move to New Zealand for four years if she ever gets the top slot. Fortunately, I don’t think that will happen, but that fact that anyone votes for her disgusts and sickens me. Geez, she’s the only reason why I fill out ALL the options, so I can put her last.

Unfortunately, there are enough narrow-minded, uneducated, rascist morons in this country that she apparently thinks she’s standing up for the ‘average’ guy.

And you can add the “One Nation” party and the “Australians Against Immigration” Party, too. I’m going to go for a walk to lower the blood pressure now.

Not Australian - but lived there, and witnessed her many rises and falls.

As a journalist, gotta say I loved her. She was an easy story, easy tabloid fodder, her exploits helped more than a few foreign correspondents turn a nice coin.

As a politician, well I’ll just ditto everything Goo says in her post above.

That said, if we compare Hanson to the current party in power, and benchmark them as “middle ground” - she is only slightly right of centre :wink: - I mean Phillip FKING Ruddock for Immig AND ATSIC? I genuinely thought that was a joke when I first heard it, now, have experienced a little more about Howard and his boys, nothing can surprise, only further sicken and depress.

I can answer this from personal experience. No, not me, what are you? Insane?? [sub]I voted Unity and Greens. Carr lost us over Alan Jones and the police portfolio [/sub]

No, this is the text of a conversation I had with a close acquaintance (mumblefathermumble) two days before the election.

Him: “Think I’ll vote for that Hanson woman on Saturday.”
Me: "What? Why? "
Him: “Yes. She has guts.”
Me (squeaking): “She has no policies. How can you?”
Him: “Oh, she doesn’t have a brain in her head, but she has the guts to say what everybody thinks.”

Never thought I’d get to wish for the Good Old Days when he was a rabid Little Johnny supporter and didn’t think women should speak up.

He isn’t uneducated blue collar trash as suggested in prior posts. He’s a retired lawyer who lives in Wahroonga, whose Super just isn’t going the distance.

I think her base is the disaffected. Mainly men who feel that they haven’t got quite what the world owes them because they have taken his share, where they = their pet hate group. She provides a public face for hating different minorities in turn, so each disaffected person gets a chance to have their prejudice publically validated.

Could be wrong though.

Link, anyone? I’ve been away from news-bearing sources for the last few days.

I’m appalled that she still gets votes. I think Mame is right - disillusioned people vote for her, believing that because she is different from other politicians that she will therefore be better than the rest.

Ugh. Somebody save us from people who feel like the world owes them something.

I looked earlier, but I couldn’t find what quota is in the NSW upper house. It can’t be very big. There are what, 7 non-aligned members? I don’t think it’s a big deal. She may well become ineligible to sit after her trial anyway.

Can only find links to subscription sites but:

The latest results are here for the Legislative Council. Note that Pauline Hanson is in Group “L” with other rat’s & mice single/no issue parties. The One Nation group is David Oldfield’s group (ex director of the National One Nation party and Pauline’s ex beau)

As to the reasons people vote for her, well she’s photogenic, taps neatly into the “plague on all your houses” voter, and enough people like simple solutions (however ill founded) to complex problems.

As to the reason she ran, it’s probably for pure pecuniary gain. The legal wash-up from her federal party and Queensland branch has left Pauline virually bankrupt. Which is why she’s running in NSW. The NSW Upper House has one of the democratic world’s more generous troughs with a pension scheme that cuts in after seven years service. Now when MLC terms were three years, this meant that they had to win three elections, which was probably a fair deal. However, terms are now 8 years. So it’s currently a matter of picking up about 20-30,000 votes and with a bit of luck on the preference flow, then eight years in sleepy hollow followed by a life pension and perks.

To get a seat requires winning 4.55% of the state vote (about 150,000 votes) after the allocation of preferences. The low water mark was Malcolm Jones of the Outdoor Recreation Party. He received a total of just 6734 votes in 1999 and through a truely Byzantine series of preference deals with dozens of other micro parties ended up with the last spot. The regulations are tighter now, but lots of people are still trying.

I take it “Little Johnny” is (I know I’m going to misspell this) Jon Bljeke-Peterson.

I made the guess that Pauline could win from the New South Wales election website. (If you use Yahoo, it should be the very first site you run into) That creditied her group, Group L, with 41,000 votes. One Nation won 38,000. Adding the two together (and I do think that most One Nationers have Pauline as second preference) gets us 79,000, slightly higher than Christian Democratic Appeal (e.g., Fred Nile’s ego-trip). Since the CDA is always able to find the vote to get into the Legislative Council, I presumed that Hanson would as well.

As a side-note, I notice that Australia has gone from prefering third-parties that placed themselves between the two (technically three) big ones (DLP, Democrats) to liking third-parties that outflank the major parties (Greens, One Nation). With One Nation, however, I like the comment I found explaining why it momentarily hit big in Queensland (sorry, I can’t find a link anymore):

“Did you think that the state that voted for Vince Gair and Jon Bjelke-Peterson WOULDN’T support [One Nation]”

having a sudden freaky mindflipped moment

…imagine …just imagine… Pauline Hanson as the first President of the future Federal Republic of Australia…

…because if talkback radio callers have their way…


NZ is not much better Goo - having recently come from there (as an aside I vowed to leave, and did, if Labour was re-elected there). NZ has its Hanson style people, notably one Winston Peters, a protege of perhaps the most autocratic politician in NZ history, one Robert Muldoon. he espouses anti-immigrant (esp asian) policies and the worst of populist policies. Actually he and Hanson may make great friends. The thing is, under the proportional representation system in NZ he gets multiple seats in parliament for his party

If she does win, you could go into political satire. The jokes write themselves!

No, “Little Johnny” refers to John Howard (the PM), Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, former Queensland Premier is always referred to as “Joh”

This because there isn’t much electoral oxygen in the middle. The only minor party making electoral gains are The Greens, and Australia wouldn’t be the only example of this.

on the last figures I saw the Democrats had only 1.5% of the vote with no chance whatsoever of reaching a quota. Hanson, on the other hand, had 0.4 of a quota with an outside chance of getting a seat, allowing for preferences. Mind you, these figures are quite old and I can’t remember where I got them from…

I’m glad Carr’s back though.

So, does anyone know how many votes it will take to reach a quota?

I did the math myself. Using psephos.adam-carr.net as a source, I found that Pauline has 0.37 of a quota, One Nation has 0.31, and Australians Against Further Immigration have 0.19. Added together, this is 0.87, more than enough to get into the Legislative Council.

Even worse than Pauline Hanson getting a seat in the Upper House: Pauline Hanson Sings for Peace](http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6157839%5E13762,00.html[/url)


**Hehe, “virtually saying” – ie, almost saying.

Personally, ol’ Pauline doesn’t bother me too much. Unlike Goo, I can’t work up the energy to be offended by her anymore. The unabated gaffes, electoral scandals and party infighting have made her more of a comic figure than a force to be reckoned with.

Besides, there’s always going to be the loony disaffected fringe attracted to the nutbag candidate du jour. I’d rather they back a stupid, incompetent woman such as Hanson rather than someone equally bigotted, but clever enough to use his or her power effectively.

NSW seat or not, she’s harmless.