• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Continuation] Australian Politics II

arthwollipot said:
On the other hand,

King Charles won’t stand in the way if ‘Australia wants to become a republic’
Click to expand...

The only shocking thing is that certain people thought he might be persuaded to do something else.

A good exercise for everyone - compare the reception King Charles receives with the reception Queen Elizibeth II received in her first visit as Queen to Australia. For one thing Charles is visiting only Canberra and Sydney. QE2 visited many places in Australia.

Edit. For those that cannot remember the visit of QE2 here is a link for you The 1954 Royal Tour of Queen Elizabeth II
When the 27 year old sailed into Sydney harbour on 3 February 1954, she practically stopped the nation. <snip>
The royals visited 57 towns and cities during the 58 days they spent in Australia. They traversed the country by plane, train, ship and car from Cairns in the north, Broken Hill in the west to Hobart in the south.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
So what happened? Did Charles call a special media conference to announce his views on an Australian republic or what? (I can't find any news reference as to how Charles' view became public).
Click to expand...
It came from the Palace. The Palace made the statement, in response to the ARM requesting a meeting.

This was all explained in the article.
 
psionl0 said:
So what happened? Did Charles call a special media conference to announce his views on an Australian republic or what? (I can't find any news reference as to how Charles' view became public).
Click to expand...

Don’t think so. KCIII’s secretary replied in a letter to ARM’s letter.
The UK’s Daily Mail reported on the content of the letter.
Perhaps ARM shared the details with the Daily Mail.

No press release from the palace or big ears is evident at this point, just the Daily Mails royal watchers reporting as far as I can see.
 
Technically, I suspect he still could. But to do so would be a tremendous breach of tradition and protocol. And the Royal Family are all about tradition and protocol.
 
lionking said:
My point, in case you missed it, was the press release was gratuitous. Big Ears cannot do a ******* thing about Australia becoming a republic. Do you not agree?
Click to expand...
I think you have shifted the goal posts slightly. Your original complaint was "He didn’t have to turn it into a press release telling his subjects how graceful he is". Obviously, since it is not a secret matter, his written views on the matter are going to be made public one way or another.

I agree that he can't prevent Australia from becoming a republic and would be most unlikely to try considering that other British Empire countries (eg Barbados) have already become republics. Had he expressed any doubts in his response to the ARM letter it would have been a most serious matter indeed. (Maybe he should have just to accelerate the process ;)).
 
psionl0 said:
I think you have shifted the goal posts slightly. Your original complaint was "He didn’t have to turn it into a press release telling his subjects how graceful he is".
Click to expand...

No, my original point #552, was that he can’t do anything about it, so why comment at all.
 
lionking said:
No, my original point #552, was that he can’t do anything about it, so why comment at all.
Click to expand...
And that brings us back to "because the ARM sent him a letter". When I asked if Big Ears should have ignored the letter, you shifted to his response was public.
 
psionl0 said:
And that brings us back to "because the ARM sent him a letter". When I asked if Big Ears should have ignored the letter, you shifted to his response was public.
Click to expand...

And?

He was trying to make himself into some sort of heroic benefactor who would not “stand in the way”. Please do so Big Ears.
 
psionl0 said:
What should have been the correct way to respond/not respond to the letter?
Click to expand...

Any other way than one which implies (at the very least) that he could stand in the way. Look, you’re smart enough to know what I’m getting at. I’m puzzled why your are supporting his choice of words.
 
lionking said:
Any other way than one which implies (at the very least) that he could stand in the way. Look, you’re smart enough to know what I’m getting at. I’m puzzled why your are supporting his choice of words.
Click to expand...
It was the best choice of words that I can think of. It is a relatively non-committal response written as a courtesy to the ARM who had requested his views.

Maybe you should be complaining about the ARM writing to the Monarch in the first place. Simply writing the letter implies that Big Ears has the authority to do something about Australia becoming a republic.
 
psionl0 said:
They are targeting the wrong guy.

Albo charged like a bull in a china shop to try and amend the constitution to give indigenous people a "voice" in Parliament but never had the stomach to even discuss a republic.
Click to expand...

You won’t get an argument from me about Albo’s gutlessness.
 
psionl0 said:
They are targeting the wrong guy.

Albo charged like a bull in a china shop to try and amend the constitution to give indigenous people a "voice" in Parliament but never had the stomach to even discuss a republic.
Click to expand...

lionking said:
You won’t get an argument from me about Albo’s gutlessness.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not sure I ever bought the whole "not the right time" thing.

I was very encouraged when Albo was elected. He did some good stuff. Penny Wong did some good stuff. But as the administration wore on, it just got more and more lame and disappointing.
 
arthwollipot said:
Yeah, I'm not sure I ever bought the whole "not the right time" thing.

I was very encouraged when Albo was elected. He did some good stuff. Penny Wong did some good stuff. But as the administration wore on, it just got more and more lame and disappointing.
Click to expand...
He squandered his good will on the voice thing. Funnily enough, he could still have set up those bodies without a constitutional change but chose to let the whole issue fade into oblivion.
 
He's still preferable to Dutton, and really, who else is there apart from him? Adam Bandt?
 
Orphia Nay said:
He's still preferable to Dutton, and really, who else is there apart from him? Adam Bandt?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of alternate Labor leaders, Charmers looking the best bet for now. It looks like Tanya has lost the desire for the top job, which is a pity.

My favourite outcome is for a coalition of Labor and Teals, as Labor will never trust or respect the Greens ever again. The coalition would be led by Albo, but hopefully he will get a tap on the shoulder and there will be an orderly transition.
 
lionking said:
There are plenty of alternate Labor leaders, Charmers looking the best bet for now. It looks like Tanya has lost the desire for the top job, which is a pity.
Click to expand...

Yes, pity about Tanya. But didn't I see Chalmers' name being tainted the other day, something about bullying? Or was that someone else?

My favourite outcome is for a coalition of Labor and Teals
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
 
Dutton is making a big blunder here, one of many let’s hope.

He has declared “gas is here to stay” and is committing to opening up new gas plants.

Just leaving aside the terrible environmental damage gas does compared to renewables, every consumer who has been using gas knows the astronomical increase in prices over the last few years. That’s why people have been moving over to reverse cycle heating in droves. I can’t see a single person saying “okay then, he’s found a way to cut gas prices” because he can’t.

This is a massive free kick to the Teals. I can’t see any upside at all for Dutton.
 
Maybe he's about to face a leadership spill and is just trying to hold on to his seat with his constituents.

I can't think why else he'd say something so backwards.
 
psionl0 said:
No it wasn't. Changing the constitution was only one of the things requested. The rest could still have been accomplished but Albo didn't do it.
Click to expand...


It was an important part of the pledge. The vitriol whipped up by the MSM (Murdoch Stream Media) was already planning for the next step of reconciliation. I was there watching question time when they were already foreshadowing they were ready for a fight. They are repulsive animals exploiting fear of the powerless.
 
a_unique_person said:
It was an important part of the pledge.
Click to expand...
Not important enough to abandon the voice entirely if the referendum didn't pass.

a_unique_person said:
The vitriol whipped up by the MSM (Murdoch Stream Media) was already planning for the next step of reconciliation. I was there watching question time when they were already foreshadowing they were ready for a fight. They are repulsive animals exploiting fear of the powerless.
Click to expand...
That sounds like Albo. Slinking away in the face of a fight.
 
I have no problem with Albo buying an expensive beach house at all. But it’s about time he gave up on his “I was brought up in a council flat” routine. It’s ancient history and it does not give you any particular credit.
 
lionking said:
Dutton is making a big blunder here, one of many let’s hope.

He has declared “gas is here to stay” and is committing to opening up new gas plants.

Just leaving aside the terrible environmental damage gas does compared to renewables, every consumer who has been using gas knows the astronomical increase in prices over the last few years. That’s why people have been moving over to reverse cycle heating in droves. I can’t see a single person saying “okay then, he’s found a way to cut gas prices” because he can’t.

This is a massive free kick to the Teals. I can’t see any upside at all for Dutton.
Click to expand...

Dutton's whole energy plan is just a bunch of knee-jerk reactions masquerading as a coherent policy. I think nearly everybody could see that his nuclear plan was impractical so he's pivoted to gas as a way to cover the holes in his nuclear transition concept.
 
Wildy said:
Dutton's whole energy plan is just a bunch of knee-jerk reactions masquerading as a coherent policy. I think nearly everybody could see that his nuclear plan was impractical so he's pivoted to gas as a way to cover the holes in his nuclear transition concept.
Click to expand...
He has concepts of a plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom