One Nation’s unprecedented surge in the polls raises important questions about whether a party built on grievance can present coherent policies to voters.

While a Pauline Hanson-led federal government remains highly unlikely, One Nation now sees itself as a viable alternative government.

So what does One Nation stand for? How would the party change the country, if given the chance?

Strong views, light on detail

Since launching in 1997, One Nation has been a party driven by grievance, defined more by what it opposes than by a comprehensive vision for the nation.

As with many far-right populist parties, One Nation has been accused of offering simple solutions to complex economic, social and cultural challenges.

The party has typically relied on its supporters prioritising the party’s values and principles over a developed policy platform. The party believes its key strength is that Australians know where Pauline Hanson stands on the issues that matter to them, such as immigration.

In contrast to what One Nation sees as out-of-touch political elites and unelected “woke” bureaucrats, the party prides itself on a “common sense” approach to policymaking that recognises the needs of “ordinary Australians”.

However, if the party continues to ride high in the polls, it will face mounting pressure from voters, journalists and competing parties to do something it has long avoided – produce detailed policies to address Australia’s complex challenges.

New National Party leader Matt Canavan – whose party faces its greatest threat from One Nation – has accused Hanson of leading a party without substance:

Pauline [Hanson] has been in politics for more than double the time I’ve been, and I struggle to point to a single dam, single road, single hospital, that........

© The Conversation