Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
While acknowledging that our study represents “a considerable advance on other studies of One Nation, its electoral support and social foundations“, and “correctly identifies the importance of conservative social attitudes of One Nation supporters“, Turnbull and Wilson take issue with three things: one of our key findings, based on the 1998 Australian Election Study (AES), that the vote for One Nation was driven by attitudes to immigration (among other things) rather than by a sense of economic insecurity; our argument around the fundamental difference between explaining the One Nation vote and distinguishing it from the vote secured by any of the other parties; and our refusal to cringe before the “comparative evidence about neo‐populist parties“ or to defer to the superior wisdom of that political scientist extraordinaire, Australia’s present Prime Minister, John Howard.17 None of the points they make in relation to any of these things is even partly persuasive; for the most part, they are marred by errors of logic, fact, or interpretation. Each, however, is important ‐ or potentially so. They merit, therefore, a response.
Australian Journal of Politics & History – Wiley
Published: Dec 1, 2001
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.