Prince William visits - and Australia swoons

[Noztradamus]

He should have worn the full SS uniform, not just that boring desert thing. ......

SS uniform would have been inappropriate. It was a 'Colonials and Natives' theme costume party
In context Afrika Corps uniform was an absolutely brill choice.

 

[politas]

Don't care about Willy. But I reckon Australia should offer a kingship to Harry and secede. We get an Australian as head of state in a couple of generations, max, and the monarchists will be happy, too. Stuff becoming a republic, it's too much hassle.

 

[politas]

Because "no" is the default position?

Basically, yes. The vast majority of referendums to change the Australian Constitution have failed.

 

[The Drain]

Charles has been understudy for this role for 60 years. Their gene pool may be shallow, but they live a long time these Saxe Coburg Gothas...at this rate he won't be king before he is 70. It is the only job he is qualified to do and he can't do it till mum kicks...he's not going to let it pass him by.

And the lesson for William is to lengthen the gap between generations. I'd recommend for him another 25 years at least of messing around with young swooning colonials on the beach before he even considers producing a legitimate heir.

 

[Wildy]

Not quite. The politicians stuff up the questions so that the proposals are not very good.

As far as I'm aware they have to frame the questions in a way to avoid bias.

A lot of them the main argument against is "This is just giving the commonwealth Canberra more power." Due to the question there is no argument against this.

Which question?

And how do referendums on things like the term length of Senators give Canberra more power?

If the question is reasonable there will be a yes vote.

You mean like "To alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia."?

However not only do you need a yes vote 4 of the 6 states must also vote yes.

I'm well aware of the double majority.

 

[enjoytheview]

As far as I'm aware they have to frame the questions in a way to avoid bias.

The question was: 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.

I can see why many republicans voted no, and I would have done the same. If the President will be so useless that it's alright for the government to decide who it should be, we may as well have the Queen. If the President has an important role, it's the voters and not the government who should choose.

I'm pretty sure that Howard and co. knew that a lot of people who wanted a republic would be against this. A biased question in my opinion, and certainly one aimed at giving Canberra more power.

 

[Noztradamus]

As far as I'm aware they have to frame the questions in a way to avoid bias.

If the question is reasonable there will be a yes vote.

You mean like "To alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia."?

Well if you say it like that ...

... it sounds so sweet that people like me get suspucious

The Goverment in power labels the bill and hence the subsequent referendum question. They could call it "Do you like Tim-Tams?" if they wanted to. The devil is in the details.

In this case the bill was to reduce the allowed tolerance in the variation of voters between electorates. On the face of ity it sounds good.

Except the tolerance was reduced so low that a redistribution would be required between every election, so no member of Parliament would ever have to face the same people who elected them, ever again.

I happen to think giving the people a chance to reassess their vote on the basis of the actual performance of the politician is more important than the theoretical fractional value of the individual vote, so I voted No.

If a government is on the nose, it'll lose, despite electorate variation.

For me that bigger problem was moving from a safe Labor electorate (where my vote didn't count), to a safe Liberal one (Where my vote still doesn't count), without changing my actual address. I think I had four elections where my vote might possibly have mattered, and one where it actually did.

 

[rjh01]

<snip>

For me that bigger problem was moving from a safe Labor electorate (where my vote didn't count), to a safe Liberal one (Where my vote still doesn't count), without changing my actual address. I think I had four elections where my vote might possibly have mattered, and one where it actually did.

That is something I hate. I am in a safe seat. So my votes do not count either. We need a system like in the ACT and Tasmania where each electorate elects several members. A swing could mean that extra members get elected from a certain party at the cost of the other. Plus the electorate can choose which members in your party are elected.

 

[rjh01]

As for Australian referendums the best site I could find was this http://www.convictcreations.com/history/republic.htm

It does list the referendums Australia has had and the results. Does not actually give the questions.

This one is better. It does give most of the questions http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/Referendum_Dates_and_Results.htm

 

[lionking]

As for Australian referendums the best site I could find was this http://www.convictcreations.com/history/republic.htm

It does list the referendums Australia has had and the results. Does not actually give the questions.

This one is better. It does give most of the questions http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/Referendum_Dates_and_Results.htm

Thanks for that link. More passed than I thought (and I forgot about the 1977 ones, when I voted). Off the top of my head I would have said the only one to be passed was the one giving aborigines full voting rights.

But I still believe that a referendum to establish a republic will not be passed in the foreseeable future.

 

[The Drain]

...
If the President will be so useless that it's alright for the government to decide who it should be, we may as well have the Queen. If the President has an important role, it's the voters and not the government who should choose.
...

It doesn't have to be either/or.

I think the system in the Republic of Ireland is quite good, in that the President is mostly Head of State with little executive power - she can delay a dodgy looking law by referring it to the Supreme Court and she can refuse to dissolve the Dáil (Parliament) if she reckons another government can be formed out of the same one before its term is up - and not much more than that. Not falling asleep at State dinners is the other main duty. But yet she still has to be elected by the people. Usually.

I say 'usually' because it's quite difficult to get nominated. You need the backing of 20 parliamentarians, from either or both houses, or 4 county councils.

When Mary the Second was elected, we had 5 candidates - including a man! Three were party political, and two were independents with county council backing. It made for a good contest.

And even though Mary only has similar powers to Elizabeth, she is in a much better position to be able to speak her mind in public - e.g., recently about the catholic church & child abuse - and, if she wishes, to give the finger to the government of the day because she has been directly elected by the people (and not by parliament, like the last Australian proposal). Not even the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) has that moral mandate.

Term of office is 7 years. You can go for a second term but no more more than that. Mary II got in unopposed for her second term - and, yes, there's questions about the fairness of how difficult it can be to get a nomination to stand against a sitting President.

Still, the option of a popularly-elected President but with mostly ceremonial powers is one that I would recommend to Australian republicans.

 

[Damien Evans]

That is something I hate. I am in a safe seat. So my votes do not count either. We need a system like in the ACT and Tasmania where each electorate elects several members. A swing could mean that extra members get elected from a certain party at the cost of the other. Plus the electorate can choose which members in your party are elected.

I'm happy with it as it is since my electorate only needs a swing of 7 votes to change hands.

 

[enjoytheview]

It doesn't have to be either/or.

I think the system in the Republic of Ireland is quite good, in that the President is mostly Head of State with little executive power - she can delay a dodgy looking law by referring it to the Supreme Court and she can refuse to dissolve the Dáil (Parliament) if she reckons another government can be formed out of the same one before its term is up - and not much more than that. Not falling asleep at State dinners is the other main duty. But yet she still has to be elected by the people. Usually.

You've essentially just described the role of our governor general, except that our GG isn't elected. If the president is going to be mostly a figurehead with some power but who rarely needs to exercise it, then there really isn't much point in changing things. All that would change is the title from GG to president.

I'm happy with it as it is since my electorate only needs a swing of 7 votes to change hands.

I still don't understand how your electorate was the most marginal of the 2007 election (50.02% vs 49.98%), yet mine right next door was the 8th safest Labour seat in the country (29.15% vs 70.85%).

So much would change with a re-zoning.

 

[Noztradamus]

It doesn't have to be either/or.
...
And even though Mary only has similar powers to Elizabeth, she is in a much better position to be able to speak her mind in public - e.g., recently about the catholic church & child abuse - and, if she wishes, to give the finger to the government of the day because she has been directly elected by the people (and not by parliament, like the last Australian proposal). Not even the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) has that moral mandate.
...

But that's the problem with an elected head of state, you are giving a single person the moral mandate to declare on things that in the Westminster system are supposed to be discussed in a parliament.
No matter how nice a person President Kylie is, this makes her dictator/warlord.
We might as well be ... American.

A moral mandate is the problem, not a solution.

 

[lionking]

Two competing political heads (assuming an elected President) would be a disaster for Australia.

 

[zooterkin]

Very good looking, thankfully looks little like his father, but he's no Prince Harry.

Who supposedly takes after his father.

 

[Cuddles]

Options 1 and 3 appear to be the same. Being a useless prat is exactly what I expect from royalty.

 

[Darth Rotor]

A prices to be fawned over

I am neither Australian nor British, however, I had to vote so that I could choose the silliness embodied in the typo. Better than a Planet X option, which was sadly missing.

DR

 

[quadraginta]

Options 1 and 3 appear to be the same. Being a useless prat is exactly what I expect from royalty.

I wasn't going to say anything.

But I would have included option 2 as well.

Just out of curiosity, is there a difference between a "prat" and a "twit"?

Twits seemed so much more popular on Python.

 

[Noztradamus]

Just out of curiosity, is there a difference between a "prat" and a "twit"?

Twits seemed so much more popular on Python.

Class. Prats may come from any, but there are no "working class twits"