The republican movement thinks taking a direct election model to a future referendum (if there is one) will succeed where the previous referendum failed. They are mistaken. Why? Because the republicans will be going to the Australian people and asking for vast amounts of their money, and in return we get more election campaigns which will give us more politicians (because we can't have too many of those)and more bureaucrats, all with more power.
To cap it off, a direct election president will be the single biggest constitutional change in Australian history, and Australians actually don't like messing with the constitution. The biggest problem, for the republicans, is that they still do not really know what they want, and even if they do unite behind a DE model (never going to happen) they will have to move on to some pretty scary details.
For example, if we simply replace the Governor General with a president, that means one man (it will be a man) will have a bigger mandate than the government, supremacy over parliament and be Commander and Chief of the Australian Defense Forces. If you think the No vote ran a nasty scare campaign last time, you've not seen anything yet.
The republicans will no doubt try and respond that those powers will in fact be placed elsewhere. But where? When you remove an apolitical institution like the Crown on the basis that it is apolitical (unelected), all that leaves you with are other politicians. Regardless of how the republicans try and spin it, the politicians of this country will end up with far greater power than they have now. Scare campaign point two.
How will a direct election president be integrated into a party based political system while keeping the office non-partisan? In most other republics the president is a partisan politician. In our system the president is required to be a check against the power of parliament, and therefore can not be from a particular party. Without party funds, how will a presidential campaign be funded? Will it all come from the taxpayer, or will it be self funded? This is an important point. As a national figure all presidential election advertising will be on a national level, and thus expensive. At present much of our political advertising is at a local-electorate level. If the taxpayers fund it, these national campaigns could end up costing tens of millions per candidate. If it is self funded, only the very wealthiest Australians will be able to afford to run for president. For the 2004 federal election, $120 million was spent, with each party spending around another 20 million each. This was in contrast to the 2001 election which most 'merely' $105 million. The latest federal election was more again, coming in at $163 million dollars. This was with two national campaigns and a myriad of local campaigns. On top of this ever-increasing cost of elections, the republicans expect the Australian people to commit to an unknown number of national advertising campaigns.
How will candidates be selected, if not by a political party? By democratic petition/public nomination? What happens if there are dozens or hundreds of candidates nominated, how are the numbers to be whittled down, or will they all get a taxpayer/self funded national campaign?
What about the state governors? Will we be expected to elect the state governors also, or will they be appointed by the president (another increase in his/her power) like some republicans have suggested? The same concerns regarding expense and candidates apply.
So in return for vast amounts of taxpayers money, we will get more election campaigns, more bureaucrats and at the top of it all, the most powerful and un-checked politician Australia has ever had. All this, we are told, because the apolitical Crown, hitherto the greatest check on politicians power, is 'outdated' and (hilariously) un-democratic.
Sources:
AEC Cost of Elections and Referenda from 1901:
http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/Australian_Electoral_History/Cost_of_Election_1901_Present.htm
Cost of 2004 Election:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/2004-election-cost-120m/2005/10/10/1128796452889.html
Powers of the Governor-General:
http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/category.php?id=2
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Death of Marie Antoinette, October 16th, 1793.
Two hundred and sixteen years ago to the hour, the Queen of France, Marie Antoinette was murdered by Jacobin thugs in the Place de la Revolution (now Place de la Concorde)
Vive la Reine!
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Why I am a Monarchist
Below are the main reasons that I am a Monarchist:
- I do not trust politicians. When you take ordinary people, whether ambitious for their own ends or genuinely concerned with 'making a difference', and give them power they will use it. If given power without adequate checks and balances then they will abuse it. It may be cliche but power does corrupt. I do not hate or blame politicians entirely for this, a society gets the politicians it deserves, the ultimate fault rests with the electorate. Which brings us to:
- 'The People', I do not trust the people. I know it is considered terribly elitist to say this, but it is true. It is not that I consider myself better, more intelligent or more capable than the average person, but I am thoughtful, whereas most people tend to be reactionary and thoughtless.
We in Australia recently saw the end of a grossly incomptent 'conservative' government, after eleven years. It stayed in power through the judicious use of middle class welfare (and other even more despicable means) to effectly bribe the electorate. It was obvious, everyone knew but no one cared because they were being rewarded. The population at large put their bank balance above their integrity and above their duty to their democracy.
A democracy can not function when the population at large is willing to turn a blind eye to corruption and incompetence. I dare say the current centre-left Government of the Commonwealth of Australia will disgrace itself in a similar fashion eventually.
Now, before I am accused of being left or right ring I will say this: I am neither. Politics is too important to treat as a football league, with support for one side being unconditional and irrational. I will examine individual policies and formulate my opinions based on them, and the conduct of the politicians. I will admit a certain disgust for politicians (or anyone else) who one one hand claim to be conservative but also support a republic. You can not be a conservative and at the same time support the abolition of the oldest and most important institution in the Australian Commonwealth. That would be like claiming to be a Christian, but that you do not believe 'in all that Jesus rubbish'.
To those of you with partisan sympathies one way or the other, I ask you this: Would you want to give John Howard, or Kevin Rudd, absolute power? Because that is what would happen if you abolish the Crown.
-Monarchy is cheap and efficient. We have had over a century of politicial stability thanks to the Crowns check on political power, and we pay very little for it. The annual cost of the Governor General, the Governors and their respective staff and residence is nothing compared with the cost of to the taxpayer of our politicians and their staff and allowances and whatnot (I do not begrudge them any of that, so long as it is not abused). The cost of the Monarch herself (or himself, as it will be again in the future) is technically born by Her British subjects, but even then the annual allowance of fifty million pounds or whatever it may be exactly is more than offset by the hundreds of millions of pounds the Crown Estate (the income of which is granted to the Government by the Monarch in exchange for said allowance) generates per annum.
It may be that we could develop an institution that will provide the checks and balances of our present system under a republic, but how much more expensive will that be to initiate and maintain? How many independent watch dogs and committes will it require? We have a remarkably effective system at very little cost.
-Monarchy is the great equaliser. No matter how wealthy or distinguished an individual may become, they are still merely a subject of the Crown along with the humblest factory worker, teacher or tradesman.
-Monarchy provides continuity. Prime Ministers, Presidents and governments come and go, but the Monarch remains.
-Monarchy is beautiful. Watch the footage of Her Majesty's coronation, or the Trooping the Colour or even just the Monarch opening Parliament and tell me that it is not splendid stuff.
-Monarchy is compelling. We grow up with stories of Kings and Queen, Princes and Princesses. When did you last read a fairy tale about a noble president going on an arduous quest to save his first lady (republicans have tried to publish such stories, I understand)? The simple fact is, most people like the trappings and titles of Monarchy. Even those erstwhile republicans in the former American colonies of the British Empire have a fascination with royalty and titles.
Monarchy is dutiful. Her Majesty the Queen has over four hundred official engagements every year, the Prince of Wales even more. Never a complaint from them. Both Crown Prince William and Prince Harry have done mmilitary service, Prince Harry was even sent to an active war zone before his return was forced by the disgusting behaviour of the media. How many sons of presidents are serving in the military? How many sons and daughters of republican politicians worldwide are serving in an active war zone? The answer is very few.
God Save the Queen.
- I do not trust politicians. When you take ordinary people, whether ambitious for their own ends or genuinely concerned with 'making a difference', and give them power they will use it. If given power without adequate checks and balances then they will abuse it. It may be cliche but power does corrupt. I do not hate or blame politicians entirely for this, a society gets the politicians it deserves, the ultimate fault rests with the electorate. Which brings us to:
- 'The People', I do not trust the people. I know it is considered terribly elitist to say this, but it is true. It is not that I consider myself better, more intelligent or more capable than the average person, but I am thoughtful, whereas most people tend to be reactionary and thoughtless.
We in Australia recently saw the end of a grossly incomptent 'conservative' government, after eleven years. It stayed in power through the judicious use of middle class welfare (and other even more despicable means) to effectly bribe the electorate. It was obvious, everyone knew but no one cared because they were being rewarded. The population at large put their bank balance above their integrity and above their duty to their democracy.
A democracy can not function when the population at large is willing to turn a blind eye to corruption and incompetence. I dare say the current centre-left Government of the Commonwealth of Australia will disgrace itself in a similar fashion eventually.
Now, before I am accused of being left or right ring I will say this: I am neither. Politics is too important to treat as a football league, with support for one side being unconditional and irrational. I will examine individual policies and formulate my opinions based on them, and the conduct of the politicians. I will admit a certain disgust for politicians (or anyone else) who one one hand claim to be conservative but also support a republic. You can not be a conservative and at the same time support the abolition of the oldest and most important institution in the Australian Commonwealth. That would be like claiming to be a Christian, but that you do not believe 'in all that Jesus rubbish'.
To those of you with partisan sympathies one way or the other, I ask you this: Would you want to give John Howard, or Kevin Rudd, absolute power? Because that is what would happen if you abolish the Crown.
-Monarchy is cheap and efficient. We have had over a century of politicial stability thanks to the Crowns check on political power, and we pay very little for it. The annual cost of the Governor General, the Governors and their respective staff and residence is nothing compared with the cost of to the taxpayer of our politicians and their staff and allowances and whatnot (I do not begrudge them any of that, so long as it is not abused). The cost of the Monarch herself (or himself, as it will be again in the future) is technically born by Her British subjects, but even then the annual allowance of fifty million pounds or whatever it may be exactly is more than offset by the hundreds of millions of pounds the Crown Estate (the income of which is granted to the Government by the Monarch in exchange for said allowance) generates per annum.
It may be that we could develop an institution that will provide the checks and balances of our present system under a republic, but how much more expensive will that be to initiate and maintain? How many independent watch dogs and committes will it require? We have a remarkably effective system at very little cost.
-Monarchy is the great equaliser. No matter how wealthy or distinguished an individual may become, they are still merely a subject of the Crown along with the humblest factory worker, teacher or tradesman.
-Monarchy provides continuity. Prime Ministers, Presidents and governments come and go, but the Monarch remains.
-Monarchy is beautiful. Watch the footage of Her Majesty's coronation, or the Trooping the Colour or even just the Monarch opening Parliament and tell me that it is not splendid stuff.
-Monarchy is compelling. We grow up with stories of Kings and Queen, Princes and Princesses. When did you last read a fairy tale about a noble president going on an arduous quest to save his first lady (republicans have tried to publish such stories, I understand)? The simple fact is, most people like the trappings and titles of Monarchy. Even those erstwhile republicans in the former American colonies of the British Empire have a fascination with royalty and titles.
Monarchy is dutiful. Her Majesty the Queen has over four hundred official engagements every year, the Prince of Wales even more. Never a complaint from them. Both Crown Prince William and Prince Harry have done mmilitary service, Prince Harry was even sent to an active war zone before his return was forced by the disgusting behaviour of the media. How many sons of presidents are serving in the military? How many sons and daughters of republican politicians worldwide are serving in an active war zone? The answer is very few.
God Save the Queen.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Republicans: Deceitful or delusional?
I was recently engaged in a healthy debate on the issue of an Australian Republic on a popular blog, and it astounded me how many people claimed then Prime Minister John Howard rigged the referendum by removing from the question the words 'president' and 'republic'. Well, see for yourselves, here is the question:
Such a confusing question, what? I can see how 72% of electorates, 54.87% of voters and every state could reject the proposed changes on such an ambiguous and poorly worded question.
Incidentally, it was Australian Republican Movement leader Malcolm Turnbull (I think I've heard his name recently) who proposed the word 'president' and 'republic' be removed.
Now, I am no fan of Howard, Ifound his administration to be both unconservative and downright incompetent and times, not to mention profligate in its spending ($800,000 dollars spent on a few hundred refugees under the Pacific Solution for Gods sake. If you are going to lock refugees up at least try and do it economically). But had he rigged the referendum, it would have been such an immense breach of Australian law and constitution there would have been no end of legal challenges launched by the republicans. There were none. Why? Because Howard did everything according to the constitutional requirements and protocols.
As for the illogical statement that 'a No vote was not a vote for the monarchy' that is like saying 'a Labor vote was not a vote against the Liberals'. Not a perfect analogy I admit*, but it illustrates the farce.
*There are more than two parties, there were only two choices in the referendum.
Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament?
Such a confusing question, what? I can see how 72% of electorates, 54.87% of voters and every state could reject the proposed changes on such an ambiguous and poorly worded question.
Incidentally, it was Australian Republican Movement leader Malcolm Turnbull (I think I've heard his name recently) who proposed the word 'president' and 'republic' be removed.
Now, I am no fan of Howard, Ifound his administration to be both unconservative and downright incompetent and times, not to mention profligate in its spending ($800,000 dollars spent on a few hundred refugees under the Pacific Solution for Gods sake. If you are going to lock refugees up at least try and do it economically). But had he rigged the referendum, it would have been such an immense breach of Australian law and constitution there would have been no end of legal challenges launched by the republicans. There were none. Why? Because Howard did everything according to the constitutional requirements and protocols.
As for the illogical statement that 'a No vote was not a vote for the monarchy' that is like saying 'a Labor vote was not a vote against the Liberals'. Not a perfect analogy I admit*, but it illustrates the farce.
*There are more than two parties, there were only two choices in the referendum.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
The Naval and Military Club of Australia
THE nation's most famous military club, which once boasted members such as General Sir John Monash and Field Marshal Sir Thomas Blamey, is on the brink of collapse.
Melbourne's Naval and Military Club is in danger of closing its doors after one hundred and twenty seven years of hosting some of Australia's (and the worlds) most renowned military personages, according to the Australian.
(Also posted at The Monarchist)
Melbourne's Naval and Military Club is in danger of closing its doors after one hundred and twenty seven years of hosting some of Australia's (and the worlds) most renowned military personages, according to the Australian.
While technically not a gentleman's club (it accepts women members) it is still a club which deserves saving, and I intend to apply for membership to do what I can. But what else can be done to save such a venerable institution?
"THE nation's most famous military club, which once boasted members such as General Sir John Monash and Field Marshal Sir Thomas Blamey, is on the brink of collapse. The 127-year-old Naval and Military Club in Melbourne is saddled with debts of more than $10 million as a result of failed property deals and a fast-shrinking membership base. An independent audit report obtained by The Australian has found that the private club, which once hosted the Duke of Gloucester, Earl Mountbatten and Field Marshal Sir William Slim, could soon be forced to close its doors."
(Also posted at The Monarchist)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The Slow Death of a Republic
The latest Morgan Poll ( http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2008/4290/ ) shows the general level of support or a Republic in Australia at 45%, while support for the Monarchy has risen to 42%. While highly encouraging for anyone who truly cares about the future of this countries political system, the really important result is one barely commented on, even in what little media attention has been given to this poll. This is that 64% of young people asked, 14-17 year olds, support the Monarchy. This makes a mockery of Republicans claims that they only have to sit back and wait for the 'inevitable' Republic to come to them.
I have long held that most republicans are not fuelled by concern for our constitution, but an immature dislike of Great Britain and her institutions which developed amongst Baby Boomers as a reaction to their parents loyalty. The younger generations lack this, we travel to Britain, work in Britain, live in Britain in vast numbers. We have more respect for Britain, though we do not defer to them in any way, and rightly so.
Australia is a proud, independent nation that shares one of the most stable and free political systems in the world, and the bedrock of this is our constitutional monarchy. Thankfully, Australians, and particularly young Australians, are beginning to wake up to this fact.
I have long held that most republicans are not fuelled by concern for our constitution, but an immature dislike of Great Britain and her institutions which developed amongst Baby Boomers as a reaction to their parents loyalty. The younger generations lack this, we travel to Britain, work in Britain, live in Britain in vast numbers. We have more respect for Britain, though we do not defer to them in any way, and rightly so.
Australia is a proud, independent nation that shares one of the most stable and free political systems in the world, and the bedrock of this is our constitutional monarchy. Thankfully, Australians, and particularly young Australians, are beginning to wake up to this fact.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Those Mediocre Republicans
After reading even more Republican rantings and diatribes, I'm forced to conclude that Republicans are the soulless minions of mediocrity out to strip government and state of all semblence of grandeur, strength, authority, power, majesty, pomp and ceremony. The truly sad thing is, they do not care, nor would they regret it once it is gone.
What I find most ironic is they do all this in the name of 'progress', 'rationality' and 'modernity', yet all their arguments are based on emotion, the antithesis of reason. There is no hard, concrete reason to become a Republic, they know it, so they try and twist and manipulate peoples emotions to get their way.
Constantly I hear cries of "Once Queen Elizabeth is dead, Australians will stop supporting the Monarchy and vote for a Republic!"
You think so? Can you imagine how the media will react to the news of her death? Constant coverage, news stories, documentaries, biographies, etc. Then there will be a coronation, the media event of the decade, followed by news stories, documentaries, biographies of the new King, George VII (the name HRH Prince Charles favours). Interest in the Monarchy will be so strong if anything, the reverse will happen and support for the Monarchy will increase, as it usually does at such times. It is worth noting there have been very few popular Princes of Wales in the past 250 years, but once they are crowned their popularity increases as people wait to see how they perform as Monarch.
Then after Charles/George, you will have the young and popular, or atleast, interesting, William.
Waiting for a Republic with no hard reason to become a Republic is a long wait for a train which will not arrive, as it was derailed, probably on some of those pesky rural Victorian crossing we keep hearing about.
What I find most ironic is they do all this in the name of 'progress', 'rationality' and 'modernity', yet all their arguments are based on emotion, the antithesis of reason. There is no hard, concrete reason to become a Republic, they know it, so they try and twist and manipulate peoples emotions to get their way.
Constantly I hear cries of "Once Queen Elizabeth is dead, Australians will stop supporting the Monarchy and vote for a Republic!"
You think so? Can you imagine how the media will react to the news of her death? Constant coverage, news stories, documentaries, biographies, etc. Then there will be a coronation, the media event of the decade, followed by news stories, documentaries, biographies of the new King, George VII (the name HRH Prince Charles favours). Interest in the Monarchy will be so strong if anything, the reverse will happen and support for the Monarchy will increase, as it usually does at such times. It is worth noting there have been very few popular Princes of Wales in the past 250 years, but once they are crowned their popularity increases as people wait to see how they perform as Monarch.
Then after Charles/George, you will have the young and popular, or atleast, interesting, William.
Waiting for a Republic with no hard reason to become a Republic is a long wait for a train which will not arrive, as it was derailed, probably on some of those pesky rural Victorian crossing we keep hearing about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)