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

She’s not a very bright woman, is she? And yet, she seems to be surrouned by an endless sea of sycophants who are capable of convincing her that she has something “substantial” to offer.

Most democratic countries seem to be prone to this sort of “slightly fascist” tendency. There’s always that segment of society who would have us believe that complex issues can be dissolved into simplistic solutions - and candidates like Pauline Hanson appeal to those sort of voters.

It makes me proud that the democratic processes worked so well during the mid 90’s while her star was still very much on the ascendancy. We like to believe in “giving someone a fair go” down here, and that we did… but ultimatley she proved that she was quite prone to dubious financial dealings at a party level, and further, was actually quite the puppet when you delved into some of the anonymous string pullers working for her in the background.

Pauline Hanson actually represented quite a test for us Australians - in terms of taking a direct hit to those ideals we hold dear and the insitutions which uphold those ideals. I’m the first to concede that our current political leaders are not without flaws as well - but in their defence, the nature of the Westmintser system allows us to vote them out, even if they’re just a Shadow minister in the Opposition.

Pauline, conversely, represented a naked grab for power - out of nothing - riding on little but a rather ugly appeal to the xenophobic terror which exists within all humans.

In short, it’s her right to keep trying - certainly - but it’s also my right to point out that, given enough rope, she would have undoubtedly started to head down the path of Germany’s National Socialist Party circa 1928.

“Australians Against Immigration Party”? Is there really such a beast? I would think the only people who would belong to it would be either aborigines or hypocrites.

Actually, now, there’s an idea. The Australians for European Expatriation Party. Go back home, whitefella.

The party is actually called the "Australians Against Further Immigration.

They may be obnoxious, but they aren’t silly.

I really thought she was a nutty Queensland thing, and that us here in sensible NSW would give her the boot.

I think I was being optimistic.

I’ll be kicked out of the snobbish NSWman club for this, but why can’t we be like Melbourne? When we sent them our trash (in the form of Stan Zemanek), they gave him six weeks and sent him packing. When Qld sends us their trash, we give her a seat in the MLC.

Seriously, this pisses me off. MLCs have power. If Pauline gets her seat, she’ll be there for eight years, will retire comfortably and will no doubt influence no end of legislation.

And I certainly don’t look on her career in federal politics as lightly as some of the rest of you do. She might have been a joke, but she pulled politics in this country firmly to the right. The Liberals benifited hugely from her.

Sorry for the misquote of the party title, Punoqllads and thanks for the clarification, Woolly.

The “Further” part was lost in my hilarity at the ridiculous concept.

Thinking about it, I actually find Pauline Hanson considerably more bearable than Natasha Stott-Despoja. God I was happy to see her downfall.

But Natasha was so cuddly. We all know politicians are stupid idiots, why can’t they at least be nice to look at? Hence, make them all young females - stupid, yet pretty. Better than stupid but fat, old, balding and with caterpillar eyebrows. Actually, if we had female politicians it’d be pretty likely they wouldn’t support the U.S. in this “mother-of-all-bombs” versus “mother-of-two-girls-and-a-boy” (props to Leunig for that comparison) war/conflict/game/pissing contest. We can’t have compassion in the Senate - send our boys to war now. It’s not like people would be less inclined to listen to soft, sweet blonde angels as opposed to rotund dickheads in suits and ties. John Winston couldn’t give a decent, impassioned speech to save his country. I’d probably be more enthralled if the Commonwealth Government national address was given by the winner of the latest “Girlfriend” magazine model competition than some sober-looking bald guy with hairy ears. Word.

Nah - NS-D was just freaky. IIRC she had no life experience outside university politics: straight from the student union into the Senate (sort of!). I have a personal loathing for student politics, this loathing was even stronger while I was a student.

The main reason I loathe NS-D is for the whole Meg Lees thing. The way she ousted that woman was quite loathsome, IMO. I saw little grace in her victory, whereas Lees appeared extraordinarly graceful in defeat.

I am all for (somewhat) younger politicians in the mix, and certainly for women. But I think politicians in Upper Houses should be much more senior figures - or where the fk is the differentiation? - which is also another good reason why the subject of the OP would be a bad, bad selection. Upper Houses should be people of seniority, extensive life experience, and good credentials/calibre.

Personally, I have always found Australian politics horifically bloated. Way too many politicians supported by far too few taxpayers. When and if my migration application ever succeeds, I intend to live a hermit life in FNQ and later, should I ever take citizenship, vote for no party except radical environmentalists aiming to save the last few remaining hairy nosed wombats.

What?

1 quota = 1 seat. If she’s only got .87 of a quota, her preferences will be syphoned off to whoever her voters nominated.

Heh Heh Heh! Well… the cynic in me has to agree… it’s a blatant example of “power and influence intoxication” at work, no doubt. As Churchill once opined… “Any man who is under 30 who is NOT a liberal is a liar… any man who is over 30 who is not a conservative is a fool…”

Now that might be a cruel characterisation, but it’s one which is not EXACTLY borne out of a lack of wisdom either. For someone so young to be so expertly adept in the seedy machinations of party politics reeks of epic contrivement I would suggest.

Ah well… to this day, no one has yet invented a way of putting an “old head” on young shoulders, have they?

Would that it were that we could somehow accurately replicate, the world over, the Swiss model of a “system of Elders”.

Shit yeah! How true is that? I’ve heard over they years, time after time, that no other country on the planet has so many politicians per capita as Australia. Without doubt, it’s an industry unto itself these days - no two ways to call it I’m afraid.

Heh Heh Heh! :smiley: Arguably, Far North Queensland, excluding the slightly reddish necks of some of the inhabitants, is the safest and most beautiful place on the planet. And bear in mind, I was born, and continue to live (after much overseas life) in the southern most part of Queensland.

I thought that they round up in case someone had over .50 of a quota. Thanks for correcting me.

I’m no fan of Natasha (she is a little comical, I must admit), but she’s far preferable to Lees, who actually knows what she’s doing. She played a major part in the implementation of the GST, and I can see her crumbling and playing the same role in helping Howard’s media deregulation laws through. That woman is dangerous, and at least now she only has one vote, rather than contributing the full party’s support to anything dodgy Howard brings to the table.

Boo - you are so lucky to live in the sunshine of South Queensland! We will have to have BrisDope or something better named (that sound a bit like a foreskin snipping party!) when and if I get there.

That’s if they get more than 50% of primary votes required for a quota. It’s assumed that preferences will take care of the rest, depending on known preference deals and past voting patterns. Hanson only got 37% and after 2 redistributions still only had 87%, best case scenario. It’s very unlikely that she’ll get the seat, but it’s possible.

That’s if they get more than 50% of primary votes required for a quota. It’s assumed that preferences will take care of the rest, depending on known preference deals and past voting patterns. Hanson only got 37% and after 2 redistributions still only had 87%, best case scenario. It’s very unlikely that she’ll get the seat, but it’s possible.

Pauline’s scarier than Winston because she’s had success in more than one arena. I honestly believe that if Peters ran anywhere other than Tauranga he wouldn’t get a seat.

Has anyone heard her song?

Istara, ducky, Brisdope will remain Brisdope, 'cause Bris doesn’t have the connotations here that it does in the US. Down with US cultural imperialism! :wink:

She has a song? For her campaign, or just for fun?

A WMD I think.

It’s supposed to be some sort of anti-war protest–a cover of “What a Wonderful World”, a duet with Brian Letton to be included on his next album, due out in May 2004.

But she’s evidently using it to blackmail the electorate. From this link:

I think that’s pretty clear. “Vote for me, and I’ll drop the C & W singing career.” Hats off to her for thinking up the most novel campaign strategy I’ve heard of in a long time, and I’m including the 19th century American practice of bribing the voters with free whiskey. :smiley:
what’s next–a career as a stripper? “Vote for me or else I’ll take my clothes off?”

I think Pauline’s support base was similar to Joh’s - she doesn’t come across as “just another politician” so on those grounds alone, let’s support her. Stupid but there you have it.

I don’t give her much credence just because she is lazy. You may not respect the people in power but you should at least know who they are and what their function is. She didn’t do a whole lot for her salary when she was in Federal politics.

That said, I think it would have been instructive if the media had picked up on her maiden speech about foreign ownership - a different issue to xenophobia/anti-immigration/aboriginal-bashing - and one taken up by both the Far Right and the Far Left. We had a unique opportunity while there was so much focus on her to look at issues that did actually make sense but, of course, we can only demonise or glorify. Who now gives Hitler credit for rescuing Germany from financial oblivion?

As for Natasha. I couldn’t find anything wrong with her policies; they were very similar to the Greens. I withdrew my support for the Democrats for the short shrift they gave her leadership. It was as though the party blamed her for the loss of following when the blame should have been placed squarely on Meg Lees shoulders for selling out her constituents. How many Democrats supporters wanted the GST? Natasha would at least have held out for no tax on books.