Suchergebnisse

This paper does three things. First, it offers a critique of the academic literature on the One Nation vote, focusing on the limitations of the work of political geographers and the methodological shortcomings of survey researchers. Second, it re‐examines data from the 1998 Australian Election Study in order to explore the demographic and attitudinal forces that both drove the One Nation vote and distinguished it from the votes secured by the Labor Party, the Liberal and National parties and the Australian Democrats; this highlights the importance of gender, geography and class, of political alienation and of attitudes to Aborigines and immigration. Third, it suggests that the basis of One Nation's mobilisation did not lie in concerns about economic insecurity so much as in opposition to 'new class' values, particularly around race. In doing so, it challenges common understandings of the Party's constituency and of its distinctiveness.

A reply to Nick Turnbull & Shaun Wilson's critique of the article, "One Nation's Electoral Support" (2001), contends that their arguments "are marred by errors of logic, fact, &/or interpretation." It is maintained that Turnbull & Wilson focus on three things: the finding that the vote for One Nation was impelled by insecurity; the difference between explaining the One Nation vote & distinguishing it from the votes of other parties; & the refusal to accept comparative evidence about neopopulist parties. Each criticism is rebutted, arguing that Turnbull & Wilson do not understand the analytical techniques that were used in the analysis. Their claim of "two faces" of economic insecurity, or at least an "interplay" between economic insecurity & anti-immigrant values, overlooks the reality that the 1998 Australian Election Study, upon which the findings in "One Nation's Electoral Support" were based, in no way supports such a contention. It is emphasized that the fact economic insecurity is separate from other attitudes does not weaken its importance. J. Lindroth

This paper does three things. First, it offers a critique of the academic literature on the One Nation vote, focusing on the limitations of the work of political geographers & the methodological shortcomings of survey researchers. Second, it reexamines data from the 1998 Australian Election Study in order to explore the demographic & attitudinal forces that both drove the One Nation vote & distinguished it from the votes secured by the Labor Party, the Liberal & National parties, & the Australian Democrats; this highlights the importance of gender, geography & class, political alienation, & attitudes toward Aborigines & immigration. Third, it suggests that the basis of One Nation's mobilization did not lie in concerns about economic insecurity so much as in opposition to "new class" values, particularly around race. In doing so, it challenges common understandings of the Party's constituency & of its distinctiveness. 4 Tables, 1 Figure, 1 Appendix. Adapted from the source document.

'The most interesting experiment that has ever been made in a political democracy': conscription and the Great War / Robin Archer and Sean Scalmer -- 'A real heritage of the English people: British liberalism and 'continental despotism' / Douglas Newton -- Labour and liberty: the origins of the conscription referendum / Robin Archer -- Anti-conscription in Australia: individuals, organisations and arguments / Frank Bongiorno -- Universities and conscription: the 'yes' campaigns and the University of Melbourne / Joy Damousi -- The results of the 1916 and 1917 conscription referendums re-examined / Murray Goot -- Why was it easier to introduce and implement conscription in some English-speaking countries than others? / John Connor -- Conscription in the First World War: Britain and Australia / Ross McKibbin -- Legend and lamentation: remembering the anti-conscription struggle / Sean Scalmer