Sunday, December 30, 2007
Support for monarchy steady
Despite the anti-monarchist sentiment expressed in barrel loads here, support for the British Monarchy remains high. The 80% support for the Monarchy now, and 70% when Charles becomes King is about the same as in this poll more than 18 months ago.
Michael Shilliday @ 01:34 PM
Surely paying taxes for the monarchy is a bit like paying your licence fee in order to watch your favourite soap opera…
Posted by on Dec 31, 2007 @ 11:32 AMGood on yer ‘Arry.
You play long enough, you get presented with the odd open goal ;-)
Posted by on Dec 31, 2007 @ 02:25 PMHarry F,
The only whiney F*cks in Australia are the pommes every time they get beaten at cricket…
It is a great relief to Australia that Howard a Toad of a man is finally gone.
The one thing you are correct about is that the younger immigrant population do not give a damn about a republic/monarachy. The older Brit aligned popultaion do though and that along with Howards manipulation won the vote the last time.
Posted by on Dec 31, 2007 @ 04:23 PMBilly
‘I have no doubt that Kevin Rudd will schedule a referendum for 2009 or 2010 at the latest’Hmmm… Although his party is committed to Australia becoming a Republic Rudd has previously stated that a referendum would not be on the radar of his first term in power so it is unlikely that this will happen by 2010 at the latest. However Rudd, just like any other politician, will flip-flop if he senses a vote-winner. But, as Harry and Todd have stated, this topic is not at the fore-front of people’s thoughts - compared to interest rates, the environment and the war in Iraq, Australia becoming a republic just doesn’t matter that much to the Australian electorate.
Its unlikely that Rudd will want to get bogged down and distracted by constitutional matters in his first term - he’s gonna have enough on his hands paying for all the pork-barrel election promises without buggering up the economy!
Posted by on Jan 01, 2008 @ 01:30 AM*he’s gonna have enough on his hands paying for all the pork-barrel election promises without buggering up the economy!*
What are the odds he’ll have well and truly buggered it up by the middle of his term of office?
Posted by on Jan 01, 2008 @ 02:53 AMI don’t object to the monarchy for the money that’s spent on them but because they are so outdated and so grim as a family.
I expected this thread to be pretty funny and Michael Shilliday has not let us down, with his typical forelock-tugging defence of the monarchy. Do your knees ever get tired?
Posted by on Jan 01, 2008 @ 11:02 AMTwinbrook
again you misrepresent the civil list...can you gave me one reason why this Windsor family should be treated better than any other British subject? Why are they afforded an exclusive, elitest position within British society? Why is this family given state hand outs, live at the states expense and have a position well above the standard of their British subjects?
Quite simply, because the British people wish to maintain a monarchy rather than have a republic. Should that ever change, then the monarchy will be abolished, but there is no demand for it: people like it. Makes the UK distinctive.
Posted by on Jan 01, 2008 @ 12:34 PM“” The last referendum was cleverly manipulated by arch monarchist John Howard - there was a clear majority in favour of a Republic. Knowing this, Howard phrased the proposition so that any potential President would be elected by Parliament (i.e. his party) and not by the people. He knew that people would rather have
the Queen for another few years that a President that they weren’t allowed to vote for.”I hate to contradict you billy but this isn’t quite right.
What happened was that instead of going to the people with the straight question, do you want an Australian as head of state, yes or no, and vote on the model later.
Howard insisted that the Republicans put up a model knowing full well that this would split the Republican movement.The irony of ironies is that a lot people in Australia were so taken with Mary Robinson espesically Irish Australians that they wanted the same for Australia ie a directly elected President.
It wasn’t considered until she turned up, but if we go down that route it throws up the question of dual mandates who has the power the Prime Minster or the President. I know it works in Ireland but I can’t see it working in Australia the tories here are feral.
The preferred model is a President elected by 75% of parliment which would require cross party support and therefore should be impartial with no dual mandate issues.
So having spilt the Republican movement the tories then unleashed a vicious smear and fear campaign (I was actually embarrassed for the Queen) coupled with a if you don’t care or don’t know vote No campaign.
After all that they just fell over the line 54/46 and left a bad taste in everyones mouth Monarchist and Republican alike.
The Republic is not on the agenda for the first term of the Rudd Govt in part because of how nasty the last one was, but don’t worry our day is fast approaching.
I predict that Australia will be a Republic by 2016 about the same time that Nationalists take control in the North, a double celebration.
Posted by on Jan 01, 2008 @ 02:22 PMthe high support for the monarchy reflects what royal families are in the 21st century. they are national decoration, an ornate and grand institution at the centre of the country all the way back through history. living history if you like. its the colour and fuss of royal occasions that people like. as far as laws go, theres no difference in democracies that are republics or have a monarchy. this is the 21st century not the dark ages.. the only difference is a monarchy has an asset for people to look at and a republic doesnt.
imagine the queen arriving in her gold leaf horse drawn carriage with the household (think thats the name) cavalry on horse back in full dress. now imagine a republic where a black merc pulls up and some guy in a marks and sparks suit gets out, boring!
the country is richer for having a monarchy and all the grandness that goes with it.Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 11:23 AMeranu @ 11:23 AM:
national decoration, an ornate and grand institution at the centre of the country all the way back through history. living history if you like
Two thoughts:
1. Many of these flummeries date back, oh, all of twenty or thirty years. Even the “ancient” Coronation Service had to be substantially re-invented in 1838 and 1902. So, I am reminded of
(a) Ian Fleming:
Once is happenstance. Twice is circumstance. Three times is enemy action.
(b) The Bo’ness Rebels Song Book adaptation, in 1960, of Marie’s Wedding:
Sing a sang o’ tax and woe,
Empty pouchies in a row.
The Chancellor’s collectin’ dough,
A’ fer Maggie’s wedding.2. Look, on your keyboard, left-hand side, there’s this key. It’s marked “Shift” or has an upwards arrow. Why not find out what it does?
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 04:48 PMmalcolm, have to admire the detail in your posts but i thought it was ‘three times a lady’ or something ?? :)
i have 2 of those arrow keys. not sure what they do. dont think i’ll bother with them…im sure royal events have changed. would you agree that it would be swapping grandness for blandness to have a man in a grey suit as head of state?
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 05:12 PM
