Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
yes ... under the last government we had a vote on it and rejected the idea, we choose not to have a supreme leader and stay with government by a Parliament
Australian Labor implode.
- Thread starter classical_hero
- Start date
yes ... under the last government we had a vote on it and rejected the idea, we choose not to have a supreme leader and stay with government by a Parliament
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Come on , that's a pretty generous way of putting it . We voted to maintain the status quo under the British monarchy
mad: at the vote , not you)
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Wouldn't a republican Australia just look like Ireland anyway, i.e. a largely ceremonial office retained because you still need somebody to wheel out at state banquets?
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
What happened was that the options were to maintain the status quo or have a president elected by parliament . Polls indicated an overwhelming preference for a republic , but since only one model was put forward to vote on it failed to pass.
@Traitorfish....probably , and once again David Boon seems ideal
http://www.thefanatics.com/content.php?id=330
@Traitorfish....probably , and once again David Boon seems ideal
http://www.thefanatics.com/content.php?id=330
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
Come on , that's a pretty generous way of putting it . We voted to maintain the status quo under the British monarchy
Don't get me wrong ... I'm a republician at heart
but we voted and we have a parliamentary system, now Kevs on his way home to save the ALP... and Australia
and tony talks about nothing but strong leadership ... so i can wait a bit longer till we can get it right
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Makes sense. A president appointed as a government stooge seems even more disagreeable than a monarchy.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
but a president that believes he holds power over the Parliament would be equally disagreeable and our history shows that an appointed head of state will sack a government and call an election in a deadlock, while a populist president seems to want to "fix things themselves " because they "HAVE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE BEHIND THEM" from what i seem to observe around the world
I'd rather go with their only power being to call fresh elections
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Why do you assume that the President would need to have that sort of power? The Irish president doesn't; s/he's not even the nominal chief executive. I don't see why Australia couldn't use much the same model.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
its just the way the debate was caste here... we were dudded from the start...
the conservatives run the referendum and after a year of non partisan debate? , conferences, peoples congresses etc. etc. the question was not what powers the presidential model would have but HOW they were to be elected, so the one with the least chance of abuse was put up against the monarchy model ... and lost
define the powers first and then we could have a peoples elected President which most people want, but they don't want to give him/her a political mandate.
and i just heard Rudd's speech as he got off the plane and "people power" was mentioned again and again... he's running a presidential style campaign when we don't have a president?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Maybe you guys should have a good, horrifically bloody war with the UK so you can get a fresh start on the whole thing. Worked for the Irish, although if they're anything to go by you'd have to put up with the silliest party system known to man for the next eight decades.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
In this situation a presidential style personality contest is inevitable since the choice is between two different leaders for the same party rather than between two different collectives in this case. Rudd in this case is simply throwing his pitch to the people to drum up public support which in turn could help his chances in getting more supporters in the murky world of labour leadership ballot politics.
As to the presidential system thing... well I would hazard a guess it would be just as bad if not worse depending on the precise model. Politicians everywhere have a knack for total dysfunction no matter what system they are in.
As to the presidential system thing... well I would hazard a guess it would be just as bad if not worse depending on the precise model. Politicians everywhere have a knack for total dysfunction no matter what system they are in.
We didn't vote for a presidential system, we voted for on parliamentary republic along the lines of Germany/Ireland/India.
Yes, that.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
you have not seen the news this week???
how many times have they said peoples choice , people power, heck they even just used peoples will... I'd have to disagree with you, there seems to be a yearning for some sort of figurehead, is it a sort of collective madness maybe
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
I'd say most people think we should be a republic, yet we are not, so it dose matter what people think, i would guess most people see it as inevitable, but yeah we respect politicians so much we would let them choose our head of state... it was a doomed vote from the start.
I'm sorry, it's actually not clear what you're actually saying. I thought you were arguing that even a parliamentary republican model (ie, figurehead president) would end up with a president having lots of power. but now I'm not sure at all.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
no , i like that model (limited power), just that during the lead up to the referendum, it was the fear of a powerful political mandate that led to the option we were given, and its only in hindsight i see we were dudded by this, instead of a clear focus of what a president could do/not do, the focus became a selection process of how to elect a president, and the powers argument limited us to the choice we finally got, which no one was really happy with, hence certain defeat...it was a really educational experience... in hindsight
on topic, Kevin would probably make a good President (limited powers) he is good on the big picture,ceremonial, Sorry stuff, But as PM could not even get the Greens on side, properly
Ask Aussies this, do you trust the Queen to be impartial and to do her best for all Aussies through the GG.
Would you trust some old hack of a politician appointed by the party in power to be impartial ?
As for Kev, well at least he does not have a boyfriend who is a hair dresser.
If Kev does not win the chances of him calling a by-election for his seat would be what ? it would certainly keep the pot boiling under Gillard.
Of course if Kev lost, well that is when Abbott will take power and you lot will have a xtian government
Would you trust some old hack of a politician appointed by the party in power to be impartial ?
As for Kev, well at least he does not have a boyfriend who is a hair dresser.
If Kev does not win the chances of him calling a by-election for his seat would be what ? it would certainly keep the pot boiling under Gillard.
Of course if Kev lost, well that is when Abbott will take power and you lot will have a xtian government
Still the republic option! Hereditary privelege is daft.
And moreover, even the indirect election model proposed used a two-thirds majority of both houses. That's 151 MPs. Even in the most landslide election you're not going to have a single party have a 151 member caucus (thank you, proportional representation in the Senate).
That means it has to be a consensus candidate, not a "old hack of a politician". Currently the governor general is chosen by one MP out of 150 in the lower house. The republican model would be a big improvement on that.
Moreover, given the 2-thirds majority requirement and the ability of the public to nominate candidates to be put to parliament, you can't even prove the candidates would be politicans as opposed to judges or activists or other serious public figures.
But let's assume it is former politicans being chosen. It's all well and good to go "ooohh politicans suck" like reflexive cynicism makes you clever and insightful. But here's the thing: if the nominees were politicians, at least there'd some merit and democracy behind why they were considered prominent and popular and cross-partisan enough to be considered viable candidates. And at least they'd be chosen by 151 MPs rather than just one like currently.
