Who are these mysterious "lefties" that most of you seem so distressed about?

Who exactly are are they "left" of and who represents "the middle"?

Is it anybody who disagrees with you for whatever reason or just a generic term of disdain because the "right" represents a better class of person?

Since the end of the Cold War the environmentalists have been made the new enemy of industry and free market capitalism so maybe it's anybody who dares question their right do do whatever they like whenever they like.

I really would like to know because its manufacturing a split in society - much like Pauline.

rache,
It's not Pauline who's splitting society, those who feel so threatened by her are the ones causing the rift. Those who don't agree with having to put in an effort are the ones who represent the left. The right minded are generally better citizens. The middle or rather the fence sitters are the worst. I believe in reward for effort it's as simple as that. The present setup with the more effort one puts in the more one gets fleeced & vise versa. The time is coming for pollies to take notice.

individual
It was not the 'lefties' that conspired to jail Pauline Hanson. Hanson threatened the dominant two-party system (or duopoloy) in the same way the Greens and the Democrats, but Hanson was more likely to erode the Coalition support base.

I remember watching an interview with Hanson before she was elected all those years ago. I thought she was a bit of a rough diamond: hardly eloquent, but what she said made sense. Had I lived in her electorate, and had I been old enough, I probably would have voted for her. I'm glad that wasn't possible, because almost everything I have heard from her since that interview has been, in my view, bigoted, ignorant and downright silly.

In the intervening years, she has switched between two roles. Sometimes she plays the strong woman; other times she plays the innocent and helpless victim. I don't think there's enough stability in her to justify another term in Parliament; that said, if she gets into the NSW Parliament she'll have no impact on my life whatsoever. I think the real problem, and the cause of her constant media ridicule, is that she simply wasn't ready for office. She didn't know how to behave, she didn't know when to shut her mouth and she didn't know how to play by the rules. That was certainly refreshing - in a fairer world she could have been a useful voice for her electorate rather than the butt of all manner of jokes.

I despise much of what Hanson says, but I wouldn't say that she is responsible for a rift in society. She has simply exposed a rift that was always there. Her politics don't cause division, but they cause us to talk about the division that does exist. Perhaps she does have a purpose after all.

"Left or Right"?
I'm glad you asked that question Rache because I've been wondering this too, and I think I have an answer for you:
Although previously it implied some kind of spectrum of stratification of rights, social positioning and resources (right being high stratification, left being more egalitarian), and before was nothing more than a label of British Lords over one debate.

In short I think it's just a way for some media lobbies to get a cemented gullible audience, and since the left/right pop culture divide is common knowledge and there is a 'we-are-at-war' mindset in the dumber members of society, many media groups are jumping on the opportunity to have a captive 'wartime' audience (Green Left Weekly and the Murdoch Press always go on about how their fictional enemy is controlling society and they must resist!)

Of course, the people who actually plaster themselves as members of the "left" or "right" don't even really KNOW what they are opposing or endorsing- one side picks a cause, the other opposes on principle.

For example, you get a lot of people assuming Julian Assange is "left wing" simply because they associate anyone who causes problems for a government as a hippy-marxist-Muslim-gay-anarchist-feminist plot, as opposed to say, someone who endorses Western Society's freedom of information and press.
Also, specifically in regards to Pauline Hanson, she and One Nation are regarded as "far right"- and although I have no policy site of Pauline, after reading through ON policies, it is rather hard to consider a pro-rights, pro-nationalization party as 'right'- even if they are full of racists.

I guess to wrap it up, it is for people who lack both independent non-binary thought- so they pick someone Else's views and cheer.

Pelican,
"However, Is Mise your post above about the Greens is pretty straightforward. It is reasonable I would think to argue a person who is unstable should not have access to a gun. It is not about people with physical disabilities in wheelchairs being denied access to guns or matches"

If a person who is unstable should not have access to a gun then why should they be trusted with matches, or kerosene, or petrol, or diesolene, or turpentine?
Just think what damage they could do with but one match and a little flamable liquid.

Who is going to say that a person, who is enjoying their freedom, is not to be trusted with a gun but can be trusted with matches?

If the Greens' policy is not about people with physical disabilities then why do they mention it?
Pauline Hanson isn't as arrogant as the Greens and although she has been accused of a lot of things she has never preached discrimination based upon physical disabilities.