PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

Flying Binghi 19th Dec 2013 11:08

Kicking the tin along...:}

500N 19th Dec 2013 11:16

And if said tin contains the "head of a lefty", all the better :ok:


I would like it if Worrals took the honours :ok:

Worrals in the wilds 19th Dec 2013 11:18

Nah, I'm a shy retiring type... It's like the NYE countdown. :}


How does he expiate his indebtedness for such partisan support?
I think Gillard and Roxon having a crack at the independence of the press during an election year had a bit to do with it. :ugh:; before that the capital city tabloids hadn't been too bad. Dumb Moves in Australian Contemporary Politics...

Captain Sand Dune 19th Dec 2013 19:35


I hope he blunts the UN/UNHCR in Aus and limits what they can and can't do
or talk about, maybe even restrict their movement in certain areas.
I'd like to see Australia divorce itself entirely from the UN. A self-serving, bureaucratic waste of our tax payer funds.

500N 19th Dec 2013 19:46

CSD

I would have put that if I thought it was even remotely possible,
as much as I would like to see us divorce from the UN and kick
the do gooders out of the country, I just can't see it happening.

parabellum 19th Dec 2013 21:27

So, William and Kate to visit Australia and New Zealand next April, for about a month. That's the Republican movement totally stuffed for a few more years! Maybe he is to be the next GG! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ilies/evil.gif

Worrals in the wilds 19th Dec 2013 21:51

Even Malcolm can't compete with a cute baby, model-worthy wife and a crown. :E

I never thought the Republican push in Australia had much public support, apart from the trendy inner-city chatterati and their associated lefty media friends. People adore the Queen, accept Charles (much more so these days than when the last referendum was held) and just love Wills and Cate (and Harry, particularly our young female citizens... and Prince Philip, particularly our older male citizens :E). Add a baby and the whole thing's in the bag.

The mainstream media outlets can safely sell any supermarket rag/newspaper with a royal on the front cover, so they're not going to be challenging the status quo any time soon :suspect:.

Even many people who dislike the concept of royalty (particularly foreign royalty) quail in fear at the thought of the alternatives. Whatever their politics, the idea of either President Bob or President John is equally :yuk: to roughly half the population, and we all know damned well that something along those lines would be the outcome. :eek:

Also, from a pragmatic point of view (and that's supposed to be one of our national strengths) we only have to pay for the Royals when they show up every two years or so. Most of the time the Poms pay for their upkeep (thanks guys)!

Theoretical President Bob/John would be swanning around Australia 24/7 complete with motorcade, overseas junkets and a bevy of flunkies, which would all be Very Expensive...:ouch: In comparison, GG's are quite economical on fuel. :}

I'd like to see Australia divorce itself entirely from the UN. A self-serving, bureaucratic waste of our tax payer funds.
Wouldn't it be nice...

Ken Borough 19th Dec 2013 22:15

So much for the 'budget emergency'! The Aust Govt has to pay for the totality of the visit to Oz. the money would surely be better spent elsewhere, or not at all, in these straitened times . What good will such a visit achieve?

bosnich71 19th Dec 2013 22:22

Ken ..... Rupert will be paid back by Abbott exactly as previous P.Ms, both Labour and Liberal, always have been.We mere mortals just have to turn up every few years or so and tick the appropriate box.
Last year, here in my Victorian town, the local council was not happy with a survey done ref. the ratepayers satisfaction with the performance of their council so this year decided to get some other organisation to do this year's survey.
The council, or rather their C.E.O. who by the way is paid $230,000 per annum, obviously didn't like the result yet again and so have refused to let the ratepayers, who paid for the survey, have the results.
However each time there are local elections we are all warned to turn up at the polling booth or suffer the consequences ..... ie financial...because it's all about democracy, you know ! Why we don't all rise up and string them all up from the nearest lamp post is, I suppose, a testament to the innate goodness of the average Aussie. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...cons/icon8.gif

parabellum 19th Dec 2013 22:26

Ken - Has it crossed your mind that Tony Abbott will have invited them down here for a purpose? About three months after the visit there could be the referendum, Monarchy v. Republic, Republic stuffed for at least ten years, no useless politician or lawyer gets to be president and their chance to spend masses of public money, (see Worrall's post above), Australia continues with a low profile, much less expensive GG, which makes the money spent on bringing the HRHs here miniscule by comparison and therefore well spent!


There you are, Tony was safe guarding your tax dollars after all!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/wink2.gif

Worrals in the wilds 19th Dec 2013 22:37


We mere mortals just have to turn up every few years or so and tick the appropriate box.
And don't they just hate it when people tick the Wrong box. Clive Palmer is a prime example, also to a lesser extent Wilkie and Xenaphon. While I'm not a big Clive fan the local Murdoch rag has been relentless in its anti-Palmer bile and vitriol ever since the election; likewise The Australian. Every time they mouth off I get more sympathetic, but only a little bit. :E


What good will such a visit achieve?
Lots of fluff and public bon vivre! Magazine sales will soar, people will faint in the street and we'll all be subjected to saturation news coverage of the Happy Trio! :bored:

This will provide much enjoyment for both supporters and detractors as we all either 1. spend every moment glued to our TV/internet screens watching the visit or 2. spend every moment complaining to all the people trying to watch that the whole thing is a sideshow that costs a fortune :E. Either way, we'll all enjoy it, and from the government and opposition's POV it will push any nasty budget / economic downturn issues off the front page for long enough that our hard working pollies :hmm: can enjoy their Christmas break post announcement, and their Easter break during the actual visit. :}

Once you remember that the average Australian cares a lot more about sport than politics, the whole thing makes perfect sense.

On another note, Ken wins the 10,000 Chook Raffle! (not saying you're a chook :))
http://www.pprune.org/data:image/jpe...iihCKTNLRQhf/Zhttp://www.urallabowlo.com.au/images...ok-Raffles.jpg

Yay for the longest running JB Oz Politics Thread ever! :ok::D Despite a wild variance in political views and some heated moments, we made it...:cool:


Also cheers and a chook 'n' chips to CFI. :ok:

Howard Hughes 19th Dec 2013 22:45

I think you misjudge Australia's sentiment towards the Royals. I was born a Brit (Australian by choice) and am a Royalist, but they are largely irrelevant to Australia and I would prefer a head of State who would take an active role in the Country's running.

Our present GG should have intervened during the term of the last Government and failed to do so!

Having our own Head of State wouldn't stop the women's magazines having the Royals on the cover!

Worrals in the wilds 19th Dec 2013 23:25


I think you misjudge Australia's sentiment towards the Royals.
People said that to me during the run-up to the last referendum when I ran the same argument. The papers predicted a closely run ballot, the republicans ran a massive It's Time style campaign and it all hung in the air until the votes were cast and counted. The day of the referendum I was working in a public place (which may or may not have had an aviation related purpose :suspect:) with tellys dotted around broadcasting updates, and I stood at my little 'Have a Free Whinge Here' counter :}, talking to people as the axe fell on the republican campaign. I spoke to a lot of Aussies that evening from all walks of life, and the public mood reflected the result.
Australian republic referendum, 1999 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

54.8/45.1 doesn't sound like a big win, but in federal political terms it was decisive. To compare, Howard's government in '96 scored 53.6 and Hawke's government scored 53.2 in '83, both of which are considered big victories in contemporary politics.

While the referendum was on a different and arguably apolitical question (I think more apolitical than the ALP realised at the time) it was decisive enough that neither major party has had the nerve to seriously run the issue up the flagpole ever since. I don't believe public sentiment has changed all that much since 1999, in fact if anything it's gotten more conservative and more pro-royal. IMO you are correct to say that the royals are largely irrelevant to Australians, but so is politics in general.

I would prefer a head of State who would take an active role in the Country's running.
This is where I think you differ from the mainstream population. That is the last thing most people want. They want a head of state who shows up to big dos in a nice hat/suit and stays away from running the Country. That's what the Parliament is paid to do and more importantly elected to do, member by member and by the majority of those members.

The idea of a head of state who inteferes with the running of the country scares a lot of people. They know that said head of state will undeniably be partisan, as has been the case with so many state Governors and federal Governors General. This is the nature of politics. Many people fear that if we have a head of state that takes an active role then either 1. the Socialists will take over or 2. the Tories will dominate (choose the opinion that applies to you :}). IMO there is not enough public trust in politics or politicians to get that model over the line when we currently have a system that works.

Even though I've moved on from my counter I still talk to plenty of people and I think the basic fear is unchanged; that some political flunky from the Other Side will be appointed and call the shots as dictated by their party. The King/Queen of Australia is irrelevant, and IMO that's why the majority of Australians like having them as the head of state.

Ken Borough 19th Dec 2013 23:48


Ken wins the 10,000 Chook Raffle!
Yippppeeeee! That's just in time for Christmas. :p. From where do I collect it?


On second thoughts I withdraw the question as too many people already tell me where to go. They do it free, gratis and for nuffin'.:{

rh200 20th Dec 2013 00:28


I'd like to see Australia divorce itself entirely from the UN
If only!! Could we have a referendum on that?


The Aust Govt has to pay for the totality of the visit to Oz. the money would surely be better spent elsewhere, or not at all, in these straitened times .
The cost of them coming here is sweet stuff all in relative terms, bit like telling the passengers on the Titanic to urinate overboard.


What good will such a visit achieve?
Will most likely generate more warm and fuzzy money. (mainly though womens mags, and download quotas of men trying to look at reveling photos of Kate:p)


I would prefer a head of State who would take an active role in the Country's running.
Oh god no, for ribbon cutting only, and to used for serious purposes only if the kiddy's are in real danger of getting out of the play ground.

We don't need more half wits running country. Some basic maths understanding is required, when you multiply two or more numbers smaller than unity together, you get an even smaller number. Hence the more halfwits running it makes it even worse.

This has always been one of the most stupid arguments of the republican movement, that some day an Australian child can one day aspire to be the head of state, like WTF!! Don 't you want your children to aspire to be a somebody if thats the case, not a nobody as any president would be in our system!

Pinky the pilot 20th Dec 2013 00:56


Our present GG should have intervened during the term of the last Government and failed to do so!
Howard; It is my understanding that the GG didn't intervene simply because there was no valid (and legal) reason to do so!

And re withdrawing from the UN; 'Oh wouldn't it be luverly...':ok:

Aint gunna happen though.:mad:

Clare Prop 20th Dec 2013 01:32

The GG Barbie is a Labor stooge. Mother in law of the leader of the opposition :ugh: and openly supports a republic while getting a free house and paid god knows how much taxpayers money to be the representative of the Queen. Would a president be any different? Just a ceremonial role at vast expense to the taxpayer?

Still waiting to be convinced by the republicans that our every day lives would be better as a republic and a guarantee that it wouldn't end up lie the farcical USA system where the person with the most money and the cheesiest grin wins.

Ken Borough 20th Dec 2013 01:47

The matter of a republic has been done to death but I make the following comments

1. An Australian born citizen cannot currently ever aspire to be our Head of State. That privilege belongs to a foreigner who rarely visits the country and who attains his or her position as monarch by dent of hereditary.

2. The referendum was lost for two reasons: Howard rorted the debate and the question while the republicans themselves could not agree on an appropriate model.

3. There are many stable republican democracies in the free world. How many of you can name, for example, the president of Austria, Germany or Singapore?

4. A republic for Australia can involve only minimal change to our system of government. A republic does not mean that we have to have the carry-on associated with the POTUS.

5. As a nation, we are smart enough to determine our lot in life with maturity and good sense. If only our elected representatives had the same attributes.


Declaration: I am an avowed Republican without membership of any political petty or political movement/society. :ok:

500N 20th Dec 2013 01:52

Ken

Re "1. An Australian born citizen cannot currently ever aspire to be our Head of State. That privilege belongs to a foreigner who rarely visits the country and who attains his or her position as monarch by dent of hereditary."

Yes, they get their position by dent of hereditary but would quite happily relinquish the role as head of Aus if we ever get our shyte together.
Liz herself has said that.

Problem is, we won't.

"5. As a nation, we are smart enough to determine our lot in life with maturity and good sense. If only our elected representatives had the same attributes."

Howard just took advantage of Republicans disorder, not all of whom were elected, if they had been more organised beforehand he wouldn't have had the opportunity. So you can't blame the elected people.


Someone mentiomed before that the GG should have acted on the last Gov't.
She did, she swore in a Gov't, when the time came she accepted the resignation of it. She could not have done much else. If she had she would have overstepped the mark. If she didn't do here job, Abbott would not have extended her term.

Howard Hughes 20th Dec 2013 01:53

Clare, from your post we are doomed either way, but I personally would like to see an Australian Head of State. For the most part I don't think it needs to change much from the present system.

Ken, I agree wholeheartedly and it all comes down to how the question is framed!

PS: Keep your hands off the flag! :ok:


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:06.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.