Bob Katter and Jacqui Lambie don't belong anywhere near this list. Neither of them are remotely Trumpian. You and I might disagree with their philosophies, but there's no denying that they are completely genuine and they fight for what they believe their constituents really want.

I'd argue Pauline Hanson kinda fits that description too, although it's certainly far less clear with her. But what's definitely true of Hanson and those other two is that they are focused on the issues, not on themselves. When you think of Pauline Hanson, the first thing you think is "racist", it's not "self-obsessed" or some other word like that, which would be the first thing about Trump.

Craig Kelly and Barnaby Joyce I don't know quite as much about, but the general sense I get of them is more along the same lines. Bad political positions, bad people in their personal lives, but not focused on bigging themselves up like Trump is.

Which leaves Palmer. Who definitely does fit that. But who, it's very notable, did not have a lot of electoral success. He got himself elected once, in one seat. His party has a single seat in the Senate, which no longer really even derives itself from Palmer who hasn't been strongly publicly involved in the party since long before that Senator won his election latest election. Palmer doesn't have the capacity to become a Trump because he doesn't have the capacity to win the widespread national success that would be necessary for that.

[–] rainynight65@feddit.de 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Oh, Hanson is absolutely self-obsessed. So much so that she had herself put in her party' constitution as party leader for life with the right to determine her successor.

I wouldn't class Katter or Lambie as Trumpian, but specifically Katter is very self-obsessed. In general though he is, despite his deeply irritating shtick*, fairly harmless and benign.

Palmer may not have had straight-up electoral success - but he has successfully manipulated public opinion and influenced election outcomes by injecting himself along with huge amounts of money into the campaign cycle and blasting his positions out there. We can largely thank him for the Coalition winning the 2019 election which they themselves absolutely expected to lose. The thing about Palmer is figuring out what his goals are, and aside from making money, those goals thus far have been focused around either preventing a Labor government, or preventing parts of Labor's agenda. However, if those goals ever change towards getting more political power, then Palmer will be able to spend a lot of money to achieve his goals.

One could argue that key reasons for Australian electoral outcomes being fairly benign are the preferential voting system (as opposed to first past the post in the US) and compulsory elections - high voter turnout is generally recognised to prevent swings towards the extreme. In the US, 60% voter turnout is considered high, whereas here the turnout is generally north of 90%.

*By shtick, I mean his general 'oh, don't mind me, I'm just a funny old dodderer' demeanour, from which he can pivot in half a second flat to become really toxic and aggressive

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 5 points 7 months ago

from which he can pivot in half a second flat to become really toxic and aggressive

Especially towards crocodiles!

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 7 points 7 months ago

I don't agree with that analysis of Hanson. Her political career has always been very focused on her as the sole figurehead. She does not have a good track record of sharing power with others and members of her party are heavily reliant on her endorsement for any kind of success. They can't run on her issues alone because specific issues aren't actually what get people to vote for her. They vote for Hanson because she is seen as a reliable culture warrior outside of the usual ruling political class. Her approach to politics actually has many similarities to Trump's.

[–] makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for the common sense response. Even Barry from insiders has said that Bob katter is probably the most representative politician in the country. He truly is there representing his electorate. Love it or loath it, it's true.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net -1 points 7 months ago

I agree, which speaks volumes as to why we're in this fuckig mess. He's representative of the deplorables.

[–] sqgl@beehaw.org 3 points 7 months ago

Jacqui Lambie and Glenn Lazarus were ex Palmer United Party and both were sincere.

[–] Mountaineer@aussie.zone 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Oh, I thought we were talking about "bad people who shouldn't be anywhere near political levers", not "egotisitical idiots".

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Did you read the article? I thought it was pretty clear that it was focused on Trump's egotism, and Australia's dislike for that style of interaction.

[–] Mountaineer@aussie.zone 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sure I read it, but Simon's premise is incorrect.

Even his tangential commentary is incorrect.
Neither Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott were booted for making "captains calls", they were booted as fall guys by their parties before going to election.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 4 points 7 months ago

Neither Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott were booted for making “captains calls”, they were booted as fall guys by their parties before going to election.

That's true. The centralisation of decision making annoyed other members and was part of the reason they lost faith in the leadership, but the biggest reason of all was the poor polling. The ABC documentaries made that quite clear.