Talk:One Nation (Australia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	One Nation (Australia) is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Link addition. The latest external link added to the article is to a Crikey.com contribution written by "Anonymous Anonymous". While it seems honest, factual and an excellent example of the rise and fall of One Nation at a State level, I wonder about the authoritative nature of a source apparently just hanging in mid air, added by an unregistered member. Skyring 20:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I intend to rv Gil-Galad's contribution. One could hardly call the Greens and Democrats major political parties, and the use of "other" implies that One Nation was as well. Sure, they were put last on HTV cards, but that happened at the Federal election in 1998 as well. The simple fact is that the party's vote dropped 1998-2001, and given the poor result in 1998 and the bitter infighting after that, this is hardly surprising.

In any case, positioning on other party's HTV cards doesn't cause a decline in support. It stops votes flowing that might otherwise help elect candidates. Typically this is best seen in the Senate, where the final seat or two are determined on preference flows.

Gil-Galad's edit gives the impression that One Nation's poor showing in 2001 was due to external forces and this is hardly the case. Skyring 03:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Despite their mere 2% of the primary Senate vote, One Nation and the cross-preferenced Independent Pauline Hanson together got more votes here than the Democrats or Family First. And yet both parties are considered by the media and most others to be more important parts of the political landscape. I intend to remove this. Is there a link to an election results page, which might be more appropriate than this sort of twaddle? FF and AD will have Senators after 30 June 2005, which ON won't, thereby making them more important, if that is the right word when the Government will have a majority in the Senate. Skyring 10:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, that paragraph is pure editorialising and has no place here. —Stormie 10:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

While that statement should have been supported by more facts (ie a link to the results [easy] and a comparitave Media Monitors or Rehame measure of mentions [quite costly]), I think the statement makes an important point. If you add together the One Nation senate vote with that of Pauline (who effectively formed a coalition, due to their near identical policies, cross preferencing and public perception), the total figure is more than that of the Democrats or Family First.

Despite the near total media blackban, people still vote for them. It is true the Democrats and Family First will each have a tiny number of people in a completely Coalition controlled Senate come July, and One Nation won't. But if you measure the strength of party (in this democracy) by the number of votes it gets, then One Nation is still a force - if only a minor one.

And BTW, I'm not a One Nation member, nor have I ever voted for them or preferenced them highly. matturn 06:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can see the point being made and I'm not averse to including some sort of statement to the effect that significant numbers of votes are and have been gained for limited representation, it's just that it's important to steer clear of editorialising in articles about political parties. For instance in 1998 One Nation gained a million Senate votes but elected only one Senator. And how many votes were divided amongst the other 39 Senators elected? Feel free to edit the article. Pete 06:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Party box 2 Redirection etc 3 Is "One Nation Party" == Pauline Hanson's One Nation (NSW Division) 4 a far right wing party?

[edit] Party box

Given that One Nation is no longer a national party, I think its infobox ought to be deleted. Opinions? Adam 06:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but that would leave it the biggest group of affilated state parties without such a box. matturn 09:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

But the party itself is only registered in two states, IIRC. Slac speak up! 09:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Three if IIRC (and that's what's in the article). It also has branches in other states.

We shouldn't have infoboxes for info which can't exist - One Nation cannot have a leader or a headquarters, because it no longer exists. I would include the party logo as an illustration ("this was One Nation's logo") and delete the rest. Adam 09:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

But it does exist, just not as a federally registered party. It's official status or lack thereof doesn't stop it having a leader, a founding date, a headquaters, a political ideology, international affiliations or a website. A backyard shed organisation can easily have all of these. It might not have a leader at the moment, but then neither does the Greens. matturn 08:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with matturn. The infobox should stay. However, I'm not opposed to PHON being removed from {{Australian political parties}}.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

So who is the federal party's leader and where is its headquarters? In what sense does ON exist as a federal party? Adam 08:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the party Pauline founded was 'Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party', not 'One Nation'. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What difference does that make?--cj | talk 00:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

For most purposes, not much.  :-)

Currently we say:

• One Nation was formed in 1997 by Pauline Hanson, David Oldfield and David Ettridge.

The current party is called One Nation, but the party that was formed in 1997 was Pauline Hanson's One Nation, not One Nation.

So we're not badly wrong. But we're not completely right either.

Regards, Ben Aveling 01:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

True. Fairly commonly known as One Nation, however.--cj | talk 01:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. And always has been. My understanding of the history is:

1. Federal party PHON created
2. Affiliated but distinct State parties ON created
3. Federal party PHON disolved

So currently, unless I've gotten confused somewhere in the turgid details, ON has only State parties. I guess a Federal party will be (re)formed before the next election.

To some extent it's administrivia, but it was neglecting administrivia that sent Pauline inside. I wouldn't want to beat the reader over the head with it, but I think it's worth being precise here.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection etc

Currently, One Nation Party is the redirector with Pauline Hanson's One Nation being the actual page. Shouldn't it be the other way around, given Pauline Hanson hasn't been a member for some years and actually ran against the party, and in recent elections the party's volunteers tape over the "Pauline Hanson's" bit of the name on their corflutes? Orderinchaos78 16:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Fixing. Slac speak up! 22:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is "One Nation Party" == Pauline Hanson's One Nation (NSW Division)

Are they one and the same? ie is it right to link an election contestant for Pauline Hanson's One Nation (NSW Division) back to this page as I am doing for the Chifley election 2004? Thanks--Garrie 00:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

They are the same thing, so that should be right. Drett 02:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The title of this article has always been a problem. There was never a body called the "One Nation Party". The correct name of the federal party, which no longer exists, was Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The state divisions had variations on that name. I'm not sure which state parties still exist, but they should probably now be considered seperate parties. Most people will search for "One Nation", but that term has several meanings. I'm inclined to rename this article Pauline Hanson's One Nation to discuss the federal party, and then create new articles for whatever state parties still exist. Adam 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Be very careful about this. David Oldfield had a falling out with the rest of One Nation a couple of years ago, and founded a seperate party called, rather confusingly, One Nation NSW (or something along those lines). I'm not sure which this is referring to, but it would be a good idea to check first. As for the broader picture, I think Adam has a sensible idea for this. Rebecca 03:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It was Pauline Hanson's One Nation until May. I agree this article should discuss that entity.--cj | talk 05:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the NSW Parliament website, Oldfield now sits as an independent. There is a One Nation (NSW) website here but as far as I can see it makes no mention of Oldfield. This seems to suggest he has left One Nation altogether (a smart move IMHO). Adam 06:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

He left One Nation, founded One Nation NSW, then left One Nation NSW to sit as an independent in, I believe, early 2005. Rebecca 02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a far right wing party?

"generally considered as a far right wing party" has just been added and removed from the article. Personally, I consider One Nation far right, and I think most people would? Any objection if I re-add it? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

While, yes, it is very much a "far right wing party" such a term is pejorative. "generally considered" is unencylopedic language; keep it defined as Populist, Nationalist and Conservative - which it is. michael ^talk 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Populist can be right or left, as can Nationalist. Conservative usually means right wing, but there are radical right wing parties as well. Why is it insulting to call One Nation far right? Given that they are? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Right/left can be slapped on any party, and as a descriptor is inaccurate. It's like calling the Greens 'far left'. michael ^talk 07:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "right" and "left" are hopelessly subjective terms and should be avoided. If someone wrote that the ALP was a left-wing party I (an ALP member) would object and delete it. The ALP is a labour party, not a left-wing party. If One Nation people object to being-called "far right" I think that is a reasonable objection, since "far right" is a term which cannot be defined and an assertion which cannot be verified in any objective way. If you mean "neo-Nazi" or "fascist", then provide some evidence for those labels. One Nation should be objectively classified as far as that is possible. It is (or was) a nationalist, protectionist, anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalist party. Adam 07:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The terms are subjective, but not hopelessly so. The greens are very hard to characterise. They're a mix of far left views on the importance of the planet, with a few far right views on the unimportance of society. The liberals are clearly right wing, though increasingly radical rather than conservative. One Nation is a bit further still to the right. The Nationals are right wing in most ways, but not all; witness the common description of them as agrarian socialists. I don't believe we can still call Labor left wing. While the rank and file are left wing, head-offices are on balance slightly to right of center, when there's any ideology left at all. "neo-Nazi" and "fascist" are clearly far-right wing, but there are other far-rightous groupings, such as the white supremicists, in which I would include One Nation, no? Certainly, it didn't used to be hard to find praise and support for One Nation on their websites. Ben Aveling

You obviously have a mission to fulfill—-why else would you attempt to smear them by referring to them as "white supremacists"? It is accurately described as Adam said earlier: "nationalist, protectionist, anti-immigration [and] anti-multiculturalism". I doubt both supporters and opponents could disagree with such a description. michael ^talk 02:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

While not all One Nation members were white supremacists, a number of prominent members and candidates were - off the top of my head, Andrew Guild, candidate for the seat of Deakin, and Welf Herfurth, candidate for the seat of Riverstone, amongst others. I think "far right" is a fairly accurate description of where they stood on the political spectrum. Drett 18:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just calling it as I see it. I agree that far right is a vague term, but I think it's one that fits. Does anyone think that One Nation is not 'far right'? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said before "far-right" is a completely subjective term with no fixed definition. Is protectionism "left" or "right"? These terms should be avoided except in direct quotations. Being as fair-minded as I can, I never heard Hanson say anything that could be called "white supremacist", and I doubt ON's platform or election policies contained any such language. Individual candidates may well have held such views, but this cannot be used to characterise the party as a whole - all parties from time to time nominate candidates with crank views. It is true that ON opposed Asian immigration, but that's not the same as "white supremacism" in the sense the term is usually used. Remember that all parties opposed Asian immigration until the late 1950s. I wouldn't call Menzies or Chifley "white supremacists." Adam 22:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

White supremacy was a mainstream POV umungst white people in Australia until at least the 50's, if rarely with the same murderous ends as some of today's supremacists... I also think "nationalist, protectionist, anti-immigration [and] anti-multiculturalism" is a much better description than "far right". "Right" can't easily be NPOV defined. matturn 09:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)