Australian Prime Minister has been affectionately called ‘ScoMo’ by many. However, while the meaning is pretty obvious (abbreviation and combination of his first and last name), you might be wondering why the name has stuck.

This is an understandable question to have about Scott Morrison. There is no doubt that you would want a quick and meaningful answer to these burning questions you have. Well, let’s get into the answer then.

Many journalists have claimed that they coined the term in their articles. However, the main reason the name has stuck is that Scott Morrison has embraced it wholeheartedly.

Even his social media profiles put the nickname in brackets. Love or hate Scott Morrison, embracing the moniker is one of the smartest PR moves he could have made.

For many politically illiterate young Australians who enjoy binge drinking and abbreviating things in the most obnoxious way possible, ‘ScoMo’ is a relatable character for them. All Scott Morrison has to do is pay lip service to this juvenile nickname, and he is immediately ingratiated into the hearts and minds of a dense population.

Scott Morrison is undoubtedly out of touch, but that doesn’t matter if he has a cuddly nickname – at least not for some. Morrison wants to be seen as a ‘man of the people’, when is anything but in reality.

However, articles like this one are going to be responsible for Scott Morrison continuing to have the nickname stuck to him. While some of the ways he has embraced are cringeworthy (like putting on the back of a sports jersey), it has mostly worked in his favour.

At any rate, Scott Morrison is going to be known as ‘ScoMo’ probably forever. Nicknames are tough to earn and even tougher to get rid of.

In the wacky world of Australian politics, there are few figures more divisive than Pauline Hanson, the leader of the One Nation party. Many have described Hanson and her followers as representatives of unadulterated racial hatred, while she would describe her party has ‘bringing down political correctness’.

One Nation is a political force that, love it or hate it, has stubbornly survived in Australian politics for a long time. If you don’t know about the history of the party and its leader, then you might wonder why Pauline Hanson is considered so divisive.

Pauline Hanson was dumped as a Liberal candidate due to comments she made about indigenous entitlements. She went on to win her local seat as an independent, and in her first speech in Parliament notoriously said that Australia was “in danger of being swamped by Asians”.

She also said that “a truly multicultural country can never be strong or united”. She has never apologised for these comments, which is perhaps why her supporters like her.

At the party’s peak, it had around 9% of Australia’s population supporting it. Opponents of the One Nation party have cited that the political movement is unashamedly based on racism and fearmongering about immigration.

When she returned to Parliament in 2016, her maiden speech was similar to the first except stated that the country was in danger of ‘being swamped by Muslims’. She notoriously came into Parliament one day wearing a burqa in order to push her view that the religious garment should be banned.

For many, Pauline Hanson has staying power because she is a representative of a significant portion of Australians who share her divisive views. Pauline Hanson is really just a symptom of the racism of many people in Australia.

Ex-Prime Minister John Howard is someone who has a divided reputation at best. He is remembered fondly for some things and seemingly hated for others.

One of the biggest things in the legacy of John Howards is, without a doubt, his response to the Porth Arthur massacre. The tragic shooting (then the world’s largest mass shooting), caused the deaths of 35 people and injured 23 others.

The shooting was a traumatic moment for the Australian psyche, and it was a moment where John Howard (then only two months into his role as Prime Minister) was forced to act. John Howard acted by famously issuing a gun buyback scheme after strengthening Australia’s gun laws, specifically to prohibit the sale of military-style firearms used in the massacre.

Despite facing backlash for the move from many Australian gun owners (not the kind of group you want to annoy), Howard persevered and even attending a meeting with gun owners wearing a flak jacket. Many people who disagreed with all other elements of John Howards’ politics supported him on the issue of gun ownership.

Most Australians understood that having free access to deadly firearms that can kill large crowds was a bad idea. It was particularly supported by women who felt that their children were endangered by guns.

The reforms started by John Howard are often cited by Americans to this day in the ongoing gun debate. What was easy for Australians is a source of fierce debate amongst Americans. America’s culture with gun ownership is much different from Australia.

The most important takeaway from this development in Australian political history is that it largely worked. Australia has not suffered any gun crime on that scale since the Porth Arthur massacre.

This is without a doubt the thing John Howard is most remembered for.