Having observed Pauline on Tv, I see she is determined, and note she is resilient.
However, I have also observed other less favorable aspects to her presence.
And I am obliged to say that I think she is not smart enough to lead Australia.
I am sorry to say this, but it is our duty to observe and express ideas about those who aspire to political service.
And those who aspire to such a high office must be conversant with significant events taking place around us.
They need a high level of awareness to formulate responses normally expected of government.
Without it, a government would be as manoeuvrable as a rudderless sailing boat.
I do not see this needed level of awareness in Pauline.
I see she has clear ideas, and is dogmatic in her approach to things she sees as important.
But she doesn't appear to have an all encompassing grasp of current events.
I don't think she would perform well on the world stage.
So I worry she would not be able to assess problems properly, and then decide on a logical course of action.
This is how I see it anyway.
But if her party were truly democratic, perhaps the majority intellect would save the day.
Is this the way forward for her party?

She has indicated that she has no interest in government, nor in any coalitions with anyone. She gave voters the unearned respect of working out their own preferences, and some of the dills cast informal votes in the SA election because they weren't told how to think.

One Nation has put the frighteners on the uniparty, which should see big improvements their in their attitudes to Australians and Australia. Certainly the SA Premier has changed his tune in matters SA Labor has never been interested in until it the possibility of a real Opposition popped up.

All the focus is on the "bad" Liberals, but it should be on Albanese Labor, they're the ones who delight in their net-zero open-borders low-productivity economy, ensuring falling living standards.

After the big ON vote in the SA election, Albanese once again mocked voters, lecturing them to be modern, multicultural, and cohesive. It is the Labor Party, not the Liberals, who are wrecking the joint. Albanese will leave a toxic legacy, and it is debatable, that Australia can recover.

Hi Steve,

You have a certain political bent that makes you sour on Labor. Truthfully there is little difference between the big two centre parties in Australia, it comes down more to emphases that any radical policy differentiation. Labor tends to be more progressive, whilst the Liberals take a somewhat more conservative approach. Both parties in government generally produce the same outcomes, with only minor variations.

You say; "Albanese once again mocked voters, lecturing them to be modern, multicultural, and cohesive." So if he had lectured them to be regressive, aryan and divisive then he would not have been mocking them. That might have satisfied a minority, and its clearly a minority, such as yourself, but the vast majority are not buying what people like you have to sell.

Claims that Australia is being "wrecked" by evil socialism, are simply not true, we have a very strong and stable liberal democratic society, delivering well balanced outcomes regardless of whoever is currently in power. The wrecking would come if radical incompetents like One Nations Pauline Hanson were to take control, just like in Trumps America, you can see what an utter fool can do with power.

Thanks for the article Graham Young- I'll need to think more before I can offer a more complete answer, but One Nation and other Traditionalist groups around the world have been frustrated for a while by Liberal Libertarian interests that refuse to acknowledge the paradoxes of their stance. This is now coming to a head in a civil war within Liberal Libertarian parties and those that have been kicked out of these parties and formed their own parties. The Traditionalist parties are the messengers of the paradox, but the Libertarian's find it's easier to shoot the messenger than listen and define the paradox. Now it is getting harder for liberals on the social (left Labor) and market (Right Libertarian) sides to shoot the Traditionalist messengers (such as One Nation) that are getting louder and more numerous in spite of Liberal party militarization and dominance of the institutions.

The reason why Traditionalist groups have existed within Libertarian Free Trade groups of course is because of the way that politics has evolved historically.

The media have mentioned the civil war within libertarian business parties around the world but refuse to explain what it is about. Workers parties have lost touch with workers, but "Rusted On Labor" workers still vote for them seemingly out of momentum, and the dominance that the worker parties have in tradie and other similar communities. Worker parties have been dominated by Marxist elements around the world since at least the 50's when they infiltrated working men's clubs and other institutions. It notable that the rise of Marxism in the world paralleled the rise of the workers movement. Catholic "BA Santa Maria" of "the movement" was involved with the DLP split with the Australian Labor Party in the late 50's citing that the Labor Party had become too Marxist. How much more Marxist is it now in 2026?

The biggest threats to the world come from Marxist authoritarian regimes yet we still fail to address the Marxist authoritarian threat and it's friends within Western nations.

The (Free Trade) Liberal Party has acted to contain Traditionalism but Traditionalist's have now realised that Liberals are not negotiating in good faith. Traditionalist's such as Pauline Hansen and others within and without liberal groups are not credited with patience, but they have been patient, until now.

Traditionalist groups believe that local communities are having their identity, their franchise, their existence, stolen from themselves, and want to give it back. This is why perhaps One Nation doesn't want to take away voter agency by choosing preferences for them, but sometimes what people want is not what they need. Perhaps One Nation will be adding preferences in future elections.

Perhaps Traditionalist groups around the world believe that they need to remove the "Liberal Libertarian" containment and framing before they can bring the voters to the fight through the Overton window and reframe the bias and misinformation in the political landscape in the minds of the voters.

Commenters such as Patrick Deneen have said that Liberalism has dominated the political sphere since the world wars so that no one knows that there could even be a possible alternative. The rise of the Traditionalist movement around the world in groups such as One Nation/ AfD/ Le Pen/ Meloni/ Wilder/ many others will take away the "veil of liberalism". And the world will light to the knowledge that politics has another "traditionalism dimension". We are not far right, we are not extreme right, don't blind yourself to those that seek to cover your eyes to the political dimension of Traditionalism. It is the social structure of your heritage, your ancestors, it is you, it isn't new, it isn't novel, it is solid, it won't be stopped.