Yeah it was just a half-serious suggestion. Point is she needs to be put into a safe seat immediately, and be groomed for a top job, as she is actually one of the impressive female stars on the conservative side of politics (as opposed to going nowhere Kelly O’Dwyer).
From the evidence at-hand Credlin is, rather than impressive, really an appalling power-crazed meglomaniac totally unsuitable for an environment requiring teamwork.
1 Like
The “evidence” being Niki Savva’s craporama behind the scenes hatchet job of a book, giving a voice to every pro-Turnbull player around.
I prefer evidence such as actually listening to what Peta has to say. And comparing with what someone like Kelly O’Dwyer has to say. The difference is stark.
I mean, seriously, which professional person is actually like this in the real world? It’s such a lazy cliche description of someone - and by that, you should know immediately that others are briefing against her with an agenda.
You prefer to take the word of the woman who earned the hatred of LNP ministers she disrespected; one person over many. Yeah, that’s logical.
A post that’s worth responding to in a more relevant thread.
Realistically, I do think another referendum on an Australian Republic will happen at some point in the future. People’s opinions can change/evolve over time and we are almost at the point where there would be eligible voters for a future Republic Referendum who weren’t even born when the last one was held.
But at the same time, I wouldn’t expect Australia to go to another Republic Referendum while Queen Elizabeth II is still alive.
While I certainly don’t expect the Queen to live forever, it’s well worth remembering that her mother lived until the age of 101. For all we know, Elizabeth II might stay on the throne for another decade or perhaps even longer (knowing that people are generally living longer lives right now than they ever have before).
For those wondering where I stand on this issue, I’m not entirely against the idea of Australia becoming a republic in the future. But IMO, the Australian public would have to think very carefully about what type of republic they want because of the many extremely significant implications (some of which are obvious, others less so) a “Yes” vote could have.
Of course there’ll be people who’ll completely disagree with me, but as usual I’d be rather interested to hear what others think.
2 Likes
Very true, but it does mean that there is a degree of uncertainty about the future of the monarch that wasn’t there 20 years ago. The republican movement would probably make it a referendum on King Charles III rather than the monarchal system itself which could cause some squirming among all but the staunchest royalists.
Nor am I. I always used to consider myself a monarchist but my views have shifted somewhat over the last few years. You are right though, there are many different forms that a new system could take and my vote would probably be swayed quite easily by the final proposal.
I would not be in favour of a popularly elected President but I also have concerns about a system in which the parliament or government of the day directly appoints their regulator (though I know that this is basically what happens today anyway).
The other issue to consider is what happens at a state level. Do we maintain State Governors in some form alongside the new Federal Head of State?
2 Likes
This is simply Shorten wanting to create a wedge issue for Turnbull and make him look weak; that he’s “held hostage” by others in his party.
We all know Shorten said just a couple years ago that he was not in favour of a referendum because he had other things he wanted to achieve…now suddenly it’s a first term priority…please!
It was been previously suggested the Governors be elected by the State Parliaments.
I’m personally in favour of a directly-elected President along the lines of the Presidency of Ireland, except the 7 year terms (5 years would be my absolute max)
Do people really want a choice between Eddie McGuire or some retired sportsperson as President? Even if we directly elect a President, we know what the options will be…
I’d prefer if the President was appointed by the same process as the Governor General is today.
I’m a minimalist republican.
2 Likes
Despite highlighting Turnbull’s backflipping on everything he apparently believed in (a valid political point), having a simple vote to ask do the majority of Australian voters want a republic is the right first step.
There’s no point wasting time & money in arguing about what type if there isn’t the basic support of the idea.
We should just have this simple vote at the next election (coordinating with an election is the cheapest & so most efficient way).
If there is enough support, then maybe we can have a (hopefully) sensible discussion about what type of republic (I’m a minimalist, and so I think an overwhelming majority of parliament is good because it requires cross-party support and so the president will have to be non-partisan).
5 Likes
Jumping to assumptions aren’t we? Who cares if a “retired sportsperson” becomes President? There’s no guarantee that someone like McGuire could even secure a possible nomination (either by a political party or an Independent run) depending on the candidate nomination process.
I don’t think a Prime Minister should appoint a President. It’s one of the reasons the 1999 Referendum failed. People saw a potential constitutional crisis if the President and Prime Minister reached a political impasse and tried to sack each other (which both had the power to do if the Referendum passed).
Forgive me but that’s a ridiculous contradiction. The current situation is the PM appoints the GG, so there’s currently nothing stopping a repeat of exactly what happened to Whitlam’s Labor gov’t in 1975.
The minimalist model is for a overwhelming majority of parliament (i.e. two thirds) to vote for a president, thereby basically ensuring a non-political person, so avoiding any such conflict between the two.
A popularly-elected president would result in a conflict between the president and the elected gov’t lead by the PM. I don’t want such a system; the Americans can keep their ridiculous system to themselves.
Let’s have a minimal change with a non-partisan president instead.
2 Likes
I think that level of Head of State should just be eliminated altogether and rolled into the Prime Minister’s role. It would just add another level for the government to argue with.
Recent governments have had enough trouble negotating with crossbenchers in the Senate - adding a directly elected President on top could potentially lead to the kind of legislative blockages we’ve seen in America, and an appointed President is just another level to add on top of the gravy train. A person, probably unworthy of the role, getting a huge salary to sign off legislation and attend the occasional function.
2 Likes
A popularly elected presidency in parliamentary republics are common place in Europe, with the Irish Republican model being the most popular (i.e Lithuania, Iceland, Ireland, Portugal, Poland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Macedonia etc) . It doesn’t mean the President will get involved with day-to-day politics (more akin to a Semi-Presidential system), but is instead seen as a symbol of the nation
1 Like
Thank you… I was about to say. It can easily work like those models mentioned.
I am a staunch republican and have studied republicanism in Australia relentlessly. I have come to the conclusion that a republic in Australia will not happen unless the Australian public are choosing our Head of State. Otherwise we will just have ads and a campaign about the ‘politicians republic’ and given the publics hatred towards politicians, they will vote against the minimalist option. I can’t wait for the day we become a republic.
Yes…Australians are crying out to be more like these countries…
So when the politics are hijacked so the extremes are represented, like in Austria recently, such that a far-right wing individual may be elected, do you think that is an appropriate “symbol of the nation”.