Different Ideologies, Similar Tactics: A Look at Modern Political Playbooks

Before going further, let’s set the tone. This is not written to anger or inflame. It does not equate very different ideologies. It aims to understand political tactics, how they work, why they succeed, and why they appear again and again in history.

History shows that persuasive political strategies can mobilise large groups. But what works is not always what helps. Tactics that build momentum, loyalty, and attention do not always lead to better outcomes. When we understand how these methods work, we can judge political messages more clearly, no matter where they sit on the spectrum.

At first glance, comparing Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and Socialist Alliance seems odd. They sit on opposite ends of politics. One is nationalist and conservative. The other is socialist and progressive. Their policies and worldviews differ sharply.

But if we step back from what they believe and look at how they operate, some similarities appear.

This is not about equating ideologies. It is about political mechanics: the tools used to mobilise supporters, shape narratives, and gain attention.

Why This Messaging Resonates

To understand why these tactics work, we must look at the audience.

People who feel financially squeezed, culturally ignored, or politically sidelined often seek clarity and validation. When institutions seem distant and major parties feel out of touch, frustration grows.

Messages that highlight problems, blame a group for those problems, offer belonging, and promise to challenge power can be powerful.

Many people feel empowered when told, “The system is broken, and I will fix it.” Being told “we are fighting for people like you” builds connection. That emotional pull should not be underestimated.

This does not always mean supporters are irrational or malicious. It reflects a human need for agency, dignity, and recognition. When people feel unheard, movements that speak in direct, emotional terms can fill the gap, whatever their ideology.

1. Populist Messaging: “Us vs the Elites”

Both parties present themselves as spearheads of “ordinary people” against powerful institutions and perceived common enemies. 

• One Nation says it speaks for everyday Australians against political elites, bureaucrats and the media.
• Socialist Alliance says it represents workers and marginalised groups against corporations and political elites.

The targets differ. The message structure does not. Both frame themselves as outsiders fighting a corrupt or out-of-touch system. This builds loyalty and a sense of shared struggle.

2. Identity as a Political Lens

Identity is central to how they mobilise support.

• One Nation stresses national or cultural identity.
• Socialist Alliance focuses on class identity, workers versus capital, and other identities linked to inequality.

In both cases, policy debates are filtered through identity. Complex issues become stories about “us” and “them.” These stories are simple, emotional, and easy to share.

3. Emotional Framing Over Technical Detail

Modern politics rewards emotion more than nuance.

Both groups often:

• Use fear, anger, or moral outrage to energise supporters.
• Turn complex issues into short slogans.
• Repeat key phrases to strengthen their message.

Policy overview’s still exists. But in public messaging, emotion usually comes first. Detail comes later or not at all. 

4. Simplification and Repetition

• Political messaging relies on clarity and repetition.
• Complex debates are reduced to short, repeatable lines.
• Over time, repetition makes these ideas familiar and accepted.

This approach is common in modern politics. It is especially visible in outsider or populist campaigns.

5. The Outsider vs Institution Narrative

Both parties often portray institutions as biased or broken.

• One Nation criticises mainstream media, the government bureaucracy, elites and groups they perceive as the enemy. 
• Socialist Alliance criticises capitalism, major political parties and partners with those who see Australia as captured by colonisers and the privileged whites. 

This framing builds unity within the group. If institutions are seen as corrupt, then criticism from them can be dismissed. Supporters may view that criticism as proof the movement is challenging the system.

6. Media and Social Media Strategy

Provocation can be deliberate.

• Controversial comments create headlines.
• Headlines create attention.
• Attention builds recognition.

Even negative coverage can even help. Supporters see criticism as proof the movement is threatening powerful interests.

In a crowded media space, visibility matters. Sharp, emotional messages often spread further than detailed policy explanations.

The Key Distinction

The goals of One Nation and Socialist Alliance are very different. Their policies and ideologies are not the same.

What overlaps is the method:

• Provoke emotion.
• Simplify the message.
• Polarise the debate.
• Present as outsiders.
• Question established institutions.
• Use media attention, even controversy, to gain ground.

Understanding this does not require agreement. It requires recognising how influence works.

Why This Matters

If we focus only on ideology, we may miss wider patterns in politics. Looking at tactics helps us spot emotional appeals. It helps us separate messaging from policy. It helps us think more critically about political narratives.

Ideology shapes the destination. Tactics shape the journey.

Awareness is not about taking sides. It is about strengthening democratic literacy.

Powerful strategies are not always constructive.

Protest Politics vs. the Responsibility of Governing

When the capacity, and in some cases the genuine intention, to actually deliver isn’t weighed, voters are left choosing between words and promises alone. We saw that play out in 2022, and even more starkly again in 2025.

I worry we may head down an even more destructive path in 2028. I understand why many are gravitating toward One Nation. Pauline Hanson is a compelling communicator who knows exactly how to tap into frustration and discontent. But if past performance is any guide, strong rhetoric hasn’t translated into meaningful legislative outcomes.

There’s also the practical reality of governing. If One Nation were to find itself in government, or even as the official opposition, it would likely be backed by a large cohort of first-term, largely inexperienced MPs suddenly tasked with navigating complex portfolios, national security briefings, economic management and international diplomacy.

That kind of abrupt transition would not be a harmless experiment; it could prove deeply destabilising. Financial markets react to uncertainty. International partners reassess reliability. Public services stall while new ministers learn on the job. Protest votes can send a message, but governing a country is something else entirely, and the cost of getting it wrong can be profound.

I often hear the argument that “we just need a change”, that the major parties are indistinguishable, a so-called “uniparty” offering different slogans but the same outcomes. Frustration with the political class is real. But the idea that there is no meaningful difference between governing philosophies, economic approaches, or national security strategies doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Change for its own sake is not a strategy. Real reform requires competence, depth, and a team capable not only of criticising the system, but of responsibly running it.

Many will disagree with this, and that’s their right in a democracy. But disagreement doesn’t alter objective realities. Parliamentary records, legislative outcomes, and governing experience are matters of fact. Passion can shape opinion; it cannot rewrite performance

Is One Nations headline immigration commitment achieveable?

One Nation’s headline immigration commitment is to deport 75,000 undocumented migrants. There are no operational details attached to the figure, but the party has stated it would adopt the “action and style” of US President Donald Trump. While there is a legitimate, noble intent behind enforcing immigration law, namely, maintaining the integrity of Australia’s borders and the rule of law, translating that intent into reality collides with serious legal, logistical, and financial challenges.

To remove 75,000 people in a single parliamentary term would require an average of roughly 25,000 removals per year, a dramatic escalation of current compliance activity. Delivering that would demand a massive expansion of detention capacity, including thousands of additional beds, expanded guarding contracts, transport logistics, medical services, and court resources.

What would it cost?

Public data suggests that immigration detention in Australia costs approximately $350,000–$500,000 per person per year, with higher figures in offshore or legally complex cases. Using a conservative estimate of $400,000 per detainee annually, even holding 8,000–10,000 additional people in detention could cost:

• $3.2–$4 billion per year, and
• $12–$16 billion over a four-year term, before factoring in capital expenditure for new facilities.

Additional costs would include expanded court and tribunal workloads, increased Australian Border Force staffing, charter flights, legal aid, and potential compensation payouts for unlawful detention — a cumulative financial exposure that could exceed $15–$20 billion.

Legal constraints

The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) restricts detention to lawful, administrative purposes. High Court decisions have made clear that detention cannot be punitive or indefinite. Where removal is not reasonably practicable, detention may become unlawful, exposing the Commonwealth to legal challenges and compensation claims.

One Nation has proposed withdrawing from the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. While technically possible under Article 44 of the Convention, no country has ever withdrawn, and doing so would trigger unprecedented domestic and international legal challenges.

Unlike the US, where the President can issue executive orders to adjust asylum procedures, Australia cannot unilaterally override international treaties through executive action. Any withdrawal from the Convention would require our Parliament to pass legislation amending the Migration Act and related statutes. Even then, existing asylum seekers (~120,000 people) could not easily have their rights removed, as retrospective stripping of protections would almost certainly be litigated.

Practical barriers

Removals depend on cooperation from receiving states. Many governments do not prioritise accepting returned citizens or residents, and disputes over identity or documentation can prolong detention indefinitely. Even an accelerated legal process could be bottlenecked by international negotiations.

Noble intent — but achievable?

There is real merit in a well-resourced, lawful immigration compliance system: it protects borders, enforces the rule of law, and ensures fairness for those in Australia legally. But the scale and speed implied by a target of 75,000 deportations in one term raise serious questions:

• Is it legally achievable? Existing laws, treaty obligations, and High Court precedent place limits on mass removals and prolonged detention.
• Is it operationally feasible? Thousands of additional beds, personnel, and coordination with foreign governments would be required, all under tight legal scrutiny.
• Can we afford it? Conservative estimates put the cost in the tens of billions, with additional exposure to compensation claims for unlawful detention.

Bottom line

• Legally: Withdrawal from the UN Refugee Convention is possible but would face extreme domestic and international constraints. Parliament must pass legislation; Australia cannot simply issue an executive order like the US. Existing rights cannot easily be undone, and Australia would remain bound by other treaties.
• Financially: Direct legislative and administrative costs could be hundreds of millions, with operational costs in the billions per year, plus potential legal liabilities.
• Politically and diplomatically: Australia would be the first country in history to leave the Convention, with significant international backlash.

Context on the US: The United States has not withdrawn from the UN Refugee Convention. Instead, the Trump administration sought to bypass asylum protections through executive orders, administrative restrictions, and changes to the asylum system, while remaining formally bound by the treaty. This highlights that even with aggressive policies, a state cannot fully bypass the Convention without formally withdrawing, and doing so carries enormous legal, fiscal, and diplomatic costs.

Legally, Australia cannot replicate the US approach. Unlike the US President,Australian governments cannot simply sign an executive order to bypass treaties. Withdrawing from the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which One Nation has suggested would require Parliament to pass new legislation, amending the Migration Act and related statutes. Even then, rights accrued by around 120,000 existing asylum seekers could not easily be removed, and retrospective changes would likely face High Court challenges.

In short, while enforcing immigration law is a legitimate and noble goal, a mass deportation program of 75,000 people over a single term, modelled after US-style “action and style”, is unlikely to be legally sustainable, operationally feasible, or financially affordable. Aspiration alone cannot substitute for careful planning, legal compliance, and realistic budgeting.