11 January 2006

Mate for Head of State picnic

| Kerces
Join the conversation
38

The Australian Republican Movement has gotten itself organised again and has a new campaign — “A mate for head of state”.

They have declared Sunday 22-JAN-06 to be “A Mate for Head of State Day”, with events around the country for anyone who thinks an Australian should be our head of state.

In Canberra there will be a picnic lunch in Commonwealth Place (an oddly named location for a pro-republic event) at noon with BYO picnic and drinks. Everyone is encouraged to wear a gold ribbon on the day as well, although I don’t know where you might obtain one of these (surely it would have to be a particular shade).

Join the conversation

38
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

A Charnie Latte? Is that a Kalhua and milk?

grey bar hotel = the pokie, gaol, the slammer etc

Now the Charnie Latte Set, that I’d have to see 🙂

My response to nobody in paticular is that the siting of a hotel isn’t a federal issue.

(At least, it shouldn’t be a federal issue, but in present time Australia there’s a substantial overkill of whingemongering, enough to make any Pommie proud).

In any other Democratic nation in the world, if a constituent called up their local member to complain about the siting of a hotel, they’d be told to fuck off and call the council, as that’s what they’re there to do.

On that note, the council, being locally appointed, would listen to the complaint as the resident does have the electoral capacity to oust them.

it wouldnt work well, look at the present senate.

if i want to complain about issue X and its a specific locality based issue, its easier to find the representative of that locale and complain to them.

look at the whinging the jerrabombera residents are doing over the act grey bar hotel – no one they can punish electorally so they have no seat at the table in the decision process.

Col, I wasn’t talking anything specific by my statement, as usual I was providing a suggestion and not an answer, as I’m sure that the intellectual crowd would come up with the dynamics behind the idea anyway, the idea being what counts.

I did however put thought into the process over the weekend, and have thought of a system of parliament where you as a voter register your vote with a representative that you think best represents your ideals and values (of which you can change at any time, to another member, or choose to abstain from having your vote counted – your democratic right to not vote)

The members wouldn’t be constrained to land boundaries, and represent the values that you have placed your votes upon, as they change, or you are dissatisfied with the service you are being provided, you may change your vote as you see fit.

The fluctuation of votes to and from your representatives would allow them to pass legislation based upon how many votes they wish to allocate to paticular issues, for instance it could be a nationalist representative voting on the issue of Gay Whale rights may wish to allocate 90% of their vote against, and 10% for.

Obviously a Social Welfare (Greens/Labour?) representative would go the other way, because they feel that the rights of the gay whale are pertinent to the wellbeing of it’s psychological makeup, even though a whale has a brain the size of 10 marbles, so it was probably just a little bit confused, and not gay at all.

The point being, your representative would allocate the vote that you have given them, based upon the ideals that you feel are important.

I think I would be satisfied, or at least feel more represented, under this form of governance.

Haha, good idea colsim.

“Todays result for the SMS-based referendum on whether government regulations on Telstra should be reduced is: 100% yes, 0% no.”

The only thing I remember about Dundas is her support for a 12am curfew for youths in Civic on weekends. I still don’t know where that came from.

And as for Maelinar’s remark –

Anyway, in a true democratic society there’s no need for representatives, as the populace could vote through any given situation.

– I’m not entirely sure about the mechnanics behind this – are we talking sms polls like Idol?

an actual head that makes no decisions is probably better than one who makes bizarre ones. look at what happened to mad king ludwig.

for any representative system of govt to work you need interested actors, not seat warmers.

following the glorious revolution and the dissolution of the rump parliament, cromwell asked all congregations in england to nominate a representative for a new parliament. this temporarily ensured that a govt representative of its people existed, and avoided elections.

i doubt this tactic would work in a secular society, but when i look at some of the oxygen thieves in our parliaments i wonder if we can come up with a better system to select better peopel to represent us.

so many sheep just tick the lib or alp box with no thought or reasoning. i think thats how dundas got voted out. stack porters achievements next to dundas’s.

Exactly Mr Evil, the comrade busies himself with matters of no importance to Canberra and then alienates himself from subjects close to home, and no wonder that we are now talking about the necessity to have him there at all…

Anyway, in a true democratic society there’s no need for representatives, as the populace could vote through any given situation.

i hope my talking boony works today.

I thought the ACT did have a Head of State – Jon Stanhope?

There doesn’t seem to be much discussion why we need a Head of State anyway. The ACT gets on without one.

Slinky the Shocker11:13 pm 12 Jan 06

Yes, and his christian sidekick Pope Warney I.

The Dalai Boony

(And don’t get me wrong, I love the guy – 52 cans and so forth – but what’s with the sudden cult of Boony that VB are trying to sell? I’m 90% sure that the Boony army at the 20/20 were marketing stooges)

“David Boon should be our spiritual leader”

Slinky the Shocker4:33 pm 12 Jan 06

Hehehe, Maelinar…i’d suggest “My Government Rules” as the title!

I agree with Colism, why bother with anything at the top that’s a waste of time and money and the only thing they contribute is material for tabloid newspapers ?

We already have something like that, it’s called reality television.

Perhaps we could amalgamate the two concepts, put some volunteers in a room and make them make the decisions of the government of the day, then punish them whenever they get it wrong, reward them when they get it right…

Hrmms…

*I hereby copyright my suggestion as my idea which I am developing into a television series, if you are interested in purchasing my idea, please contact me*

Slinky the Shocker4:23 pm 12 Jan 06

Sorry, Chris, I must have misunderstood you, I thought that you claimed that Spain and Japan had ‘better’ or more democratic histories.
Anyway, if you think that someone is a better ruler because of birthright then that’s fine. Just don’t slag off future King Charles, Monarchy isn’t about choice.

Actually, Slinky, I’ve worked in Japan and visited (for longish periods) Spain, and whereas those royal houses may be seen as less worthy, I have met Japanese and Spanish citizens who were more than willing to lay down their lives for their rulers. Greece currently is I understand prepared to have-is it Alexander- back ? (Royals are well received in the EU )
The all-time shining example IMO of royal noblesse oblige was Harald of Norway who pinned a Star of David on his coat when his Jewish subjects were forced to do so under the Nazi occupation of his country… all that aside, I agree with Thumper, I’m sure we will have a republic in time, just hope it won’t be in my time.

i voted for a republic, but have had second thoughts recently.

im now in favour of constitutional monarchy after long and serious thinking. i think that a country needs tradition and roots and that the tradition and roots that our first settlers provided guided us to federation. they were british and our culture and its system of governance has that also as its roots.

i cant think of anything we gain by being a republic. im also sort of fond of the english and after spending time their its obvious that they all aspire to be australian anyway.

and no my background is not english, but european. from a place where they chucked off constitutional monarchy for a republic. it didnt really do them any good.

stability is a nice thing. be happy we have it.

Slinky the Shocker3:30 pm 12 Jan 06

Chris: I was just picking as selectively as you…
And historically better examples? Japan? Spain? I would frank(o)ly disagree with you. And in terms of stability, ask the royal houses of Greece or Bulgaria.

Actually Slinky I’d say the Royal houses of Denmark,(you haven’t forgotten Our Mary ?) Spain, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands,Thailand, Japan, et al are historically better examples of good governance than most Republics (or Republiks).

Not bad AD…

I’ve had this discussion over a few beers wioth mates recently, and I came to the same conclusion as Thumper – it makes no difference to the day to day running of the nation if we were a republic or a commonwealth. And as Thumper said, we have heaps of problems we should be focusing on before we try and fly this flag again.

I have no problems with either system provided that the people of Australia are the ultimate beneficiaries of change. I don’t buy that ‘vital part of history’ crap – no offence to those who have served and died under the flag and commonwealth intended – they were Australian Troops before they were Allied Troops, and as such fought for the Nation, not a political ideal.

In the nutshell – if it ain’t broke – dont fix it. The system isn’t broken, but the support for the citizens is comng adrift at the seams.

Pity Phar Lap’s not alive then?

Absent Diane12:42 pm 12 Jan 06

I would like to see a household pet (eg a dog) as the head of state… so kind of like your best mate running the state…. it would be just like having johnny as president… because you know there would be lots of noses up arses except in this case everyones arse not just mr/mrs americas arse…

And when the humans revolt against dogs for misabuse of power and too much leg cocking we can and sell the dog meat… and we can market it as Man’s Best Meat..

Slinky the Shocker10:27 am 12 Jan 06

Chris prefers to align with Saudi Arabia, Oman, Swaziland and Malaysia. Good choice.

maybe we’d get a bit less gossip about overpriveleged English inbreds in the daily news

I dunno about that…you’d be amazed the amount of gossip about the English royals that gets published in French magazines and papers. And they supposedly hate the Britons’ guts!

That’d be privileged I guess – hate that word 🙂

Just out of curiosity, why exactly do we need a head of state at all?

Why not just leave that to the PM of the day – abandoning any pretence that the h.o.s isn’t an appointment with political baggage.

I don’t see any logical reason for us to remain the nominal subject of another nation – on a day to day basis sure it won’t make a lot of difference to our lives although maybe we’d get a bit less gossip about overpriveleged English inbreds in the daily news. (Leaving more space to focus on the more attractive overpriveleged inbreds of our new imperial masters)

Don’t forget it was only 20 years ago that you could still appeal to the Privy Court in the UK if you didn’t like the way the High Court here judged your case.

People’s Republic of Bangladesh…Republic of Botswana (they’re actually not bad!)Federative republic of Brazil…Federal Republic of Deutschland..Republic of Indonesia..more than a few Democratic republics…more Peoples Republics, Islamic Republic of Iran, United Republic of Tanzania (are they, truly ?) – hmm, think I’ll stay a monarchist.

When I look at some of the people who have voiced their support for Australia becoming a Republic (e.g. Bryan Brown, Malcolm Turnbull, etc) I’m more and more inclined to think we should stay a Constitutional Monarchy!

ARM should accept that a referendum was held, and the majority voted to stay as is. I think most people are wary of all the promises made by the likes of Turnbull and Co, and were not happy about not having much say in who was elected as President.

The other problem with this approach is it’ll fail in the same way the “do you want your child to be able to be head of state” angle didn’t go over with the masses.

Out on Point Piper, Toorak, or in Canberra’s leafier suburbs they might be thinking about their child, or their mate, becoming head of state.

But out in chainsaw wielding, welfare bourbon drinking australia they have a pretty embittered view of the chances their “mate” would have.

If America is to Republicanism, as England is to Monarchy, then I certainly don’t want Australia to be more like America.

Heavens forbid that we actually think up a new method of governance that might actually have a chance at succeeding.

“Commonwealth” is not out of place. The poms had one for their first foray into republicanism after lopping off Charles’ head. (Need a repeat performance here?)

Howard’s still in power, still lacks imagination… he’ll use blunt wedge politics same as last time.

The Republicans would have a chance if their slogan was

A Mate as Head of Something to Replace the State

but its too cumbersome

Wow, there’s a shithouse slogan to keep her majesty and her heirs reigning over us for decades to come.

But John Howard’s still in power. I wonder how he’ll kill it this time.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.