When I think about Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, the word that comes immediately to mind, as it did for Senator Arthur Sinodinos on Sunday, is “sophisticated”.

Speaking to the ABC, he argued that One Nation is now “a lot more sophisticated, they have clearly resonated with a lot of people”. The two things don’t necessarily follow – Guns N’ Roses, another 90s act helmed by a ginger-haired icon, has also resonated with a lot of people across Australia this week but that hasn’t made them any more sophisticated.

By contrast, since their days of being excluded by Sinodinos’s old boss John Howard, Hanson’s party has aged like the finest wine – white, of course.

Coalition threatens to raise taxes if savings are not passed – politics live Read more

The party is like a box of fine cigars, enjoyed by only a discerning few (less than 5% at the last election), while others reject them on the grounds of health and taste.

Observing its senators in action, one could be forgiven for mistaking them for a string quartet, albeit one whose cellist had abandoned the group mid-recital to play a peculiar étude of his own devising before being thrown out of the concert hall.

And what could be more sophisticated than Hanson’s view of this country as an exclusive member’s club – our very own Australia-a-Lago? If she had her way, we’d have a strict door policy and a dress code of flag capes.

So when the WA Liberals are looking for an election partner, Hanson isn’t just the rightmost choice, she’s the right choice.

In 2017 One Nation is so much more than just its founder – or indeed James Ashby. Its other senators are creatures of – well, perhaps not quite high society, but certainly the Q Society.

Her party has grown in stature from when it was a one-person show – that person being David Oldfield. Nowadays she has a band of trusty sidekicks as powerful and unpredictable as Tripitaka’s.

Hanson once famously asked “please explain” but now she has the explanatory force that is Malcolm Roberts, who can discredit global warming in such a way that even Prof Brian Cox was left gasping in what one can only presume was awe.

Back when she first started railing against Asians, One Nation felt un peu déclassé. It seemed to be arguing for a return to the white Australia policy instead of maintaining our system of unofficial, subtle exclusions.

But Hanson’s newer approach of railing against Muslims isn’t technically racist – Islam being a religion, albeit one that’s overwhelmingly followed by non-whites. What’s more, rather than simply calling for a ban, Hanson first wants a royal commission into whether Islam is a religion.

Islam may well be a giant book club, or Saudi Arabia’s equivalent of Rotary – there’s no harm in asking the question, is there? At least if you aren’t Muslim.

What’s more, the party’s fiery rhetoric now comes accompanied by compelling examples. On its website, we learn that Cadbury, the “Australian icon” from Britain, sought halal approval for Easter eggs even though it’s a Christian festival. Why would Cadbury do that when we all know that chocolate eggs are a sophisticated treat to be enjoyed by Christians only?

On climate change, the party argues: “Paying a carbon tax or an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is not going to wave a magic wand and stop nature changing the climate change,” a claim so important that it’s written in bold text. Who, then, will stop nature changing the climate change? Well, not One Nation, but it certainly wants to stop us from trying to stop it.

Once a fringe party, One Nation remains a fringe party today, but one whose insularity is shared across the world. Its flag-draped nationalism, instinctive protectionism and demand for a huge drop in tax revenues are shared by none other than the president of the United States, an actual billionaire (we think) who boasts many gold accessories, and also just boasts.

But even beyond the impressive manner in which Hanson’s league has emerged from its slumber like a butterfly that refuses to touch halal-certified nectar, it feels appropriate for the Liberals to partner with her party.

This reinvigorated One Nation 2.0 is the creation of Malcolm Turnbull’s party – and the Nationals, ironically. Without the PM’s double disillusion, the party would have won only Hanson’s seat, according to Antony Green.

Roberts would have been just another crank writing Julia Gillard weird colon-studded letters about his soul. Brian Burston would never have devoted his maiden speech to demanding that the ABC make way for the Patriotic Broadcasting Corporation, that most North Korean-sounding of public broadcasters, which would presumably perform its task with the balletic grace of Kim Jong-un offing an uncle.

Australians are worried about Trump. But there's a lot to be worried about at home | Jason Wilson Read more

And poor Rod Culleton would never have been a senator, long before the high court ruled that he wasn’t.

The WA Liberals are in no position to refuse One Nation on principle. Howard did so from a position of electoral strength, whereas the last time Turnbull tried to draw a moral line in the sand on the carbon pollution reduction scheme, he found himself on the other side of it, watching Tony Abbott getting sworn in as PM. Pragmatism demands a deal with Hanson, unless of course you agree with Glenn Druery that it’ll make voters back Labor all the more.

Sinodinos is right that One Nation isn’t the party it was 20 years ago. None of us are who we were in the 90s. Back then I had hair on my head and he didn’t have any issues with Icac. The main difference between the One Nation of then and now isn’t so much its sophistication as the fact that it’s undeniably a player, at least until the 2019 election.

Power is ultimately what counts in politics. Principles are an indulgence for minor parties that are in no danger of forming government. And that’s why all that matters is that One Nation might help the WA Liberals win, even if they lose themselves in the process.