Is he going to make a comback?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-24/former-prime-minister-tony-abbott-to-recontest-warringah/7110786

Is he going to make a comback?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-24/former-prime-minister-tony-abbott-to-recontest-warringah/7110786

He is probably thinking his party will "see the light" and re-elect him as party leader.

(by the way, Don Dunstan posted the same link yesterday)

Is he going to make a comback?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-24/former-prime-minister-tony-abbott-to-recontest-warringah/7110786

Interesting how they tried to 'sound him out' about being Australian High Commissioner in London... one of the few professions where being sacked for incompetence gets you even more promotions.

Personally I'm not sure what Tony hopes to achieve while remaining member for Warringah - he mumbled something about wanting to work with Premier Baird to try and build better transport links to and from his electorate but surely the time to have done something about that was when he was in the big chair? He complained bitterly about having to sink back to the salary of a lowly MP's late last year, surely the High Commissioner's gig would have paid a lot better - Joe Hockey certainly wasted no time getting his hooves into that trough.

Is he going to make a comback?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-24/former-prime-minister-tony-abbott-to-recontest-warringah/7110786

Interesting how they tried to 'sound him out' about being Australian High Commissioner in London... one of the few professions where being sacked for incompetence gets you even more promotions.

Personally I'm not sure what Tony hopes to achieve while remaining member for Warringah - he mumbled something about wanting to work with Premier Baird to try and build better transport links to and from his electorate but surely the time to have done something about that was when he was in the big chair? He complained bitterly about having to sink back to the salary of a lowly MP's late last year, surely the High Commissioner's gig would have paid a lot better - Joe Hockey certainly wasted no time getting his hooves into that trough.

Yes and as he is not a fan of rail, what sort of transport is he talking about?

Personally I think Nth Beaches should be Phase 3 of the Metro roll out, but that's another story and the timeline will exceed Tony's time as MP under even a longterm stay.

One final comment on Tony, I suspect he was the last pro-Monarchist PM, perhaps this is why he's hanging on?

We'll have to do without his great wisdom for a while - he's off to the US of A to talk to an anti-gay group called the Alliance Defending Freedom.
This mob's work includes trying to wind back "tolerance training" in schools, criminalizing abortion, and funding the legal defences of people wishing to discriminate against gay and lesbian people based on Christian beliefs.

I find it strange that these people are defending freedom by removing it from others.

I do not find it strange that Abbott will be there.

Yes and as he is not a fan of rail, what sort of transport is he talking about?

Personally I think Nth Beaches should be Phase 3 of the Metro roll out, but that's another story and the timeline will exceed Tony's time as MP under even a longterm stay.

One final comment on Tony, I suspect he was the last pro-Monarchist PM, perhaps this is why he's hanging on?

Tony was just mouthing things he thinks will please his electorate, he was probably talking about new toll-roads to the North Shore anyway. Even though he doesn't face an internal challenge from the Liberal Party he could still lose his seat in the next election to a popular independent campaign. Sophie Mirabella's demise in Indi put the fear of God into a lot of sitting duopoly MP's.

And as someone who openly supports the current constitutional monarchy (if it ain't broke then don't fix it) I despair in the fact that there's people like him on my side...

We'll have to do without his great wisdom for a while - he's off to the US of A to talk to an anti-gay group called the Alliance Defending Freedom...

I actually didn't know about this until you posted about it but it doesn't surprise me either. Tones should break away with Erica Betz and Cory Bernardi and start the Aussie version of the Tea Party - it will split the Liberal Party but I think it will give Malcolm Turnbull a clear mandate and they can clear out the lunar right for a while.

I actually didn't know about this until you posted about it but it doesn't surprise me either. Tones should break away with Erica Betz and Cory Bernardi and start the Aussie version of the Tea Party - it will split the Liberal Party but I think it will give Malcolm Turnbull a clear mandate and they can clear out the lunar right for a while.

The problem is that Turnbull doesn't have the numbers to remain in the PMs office (his objective) if the conservative rump (those mentioned above plus more) move on.  Turnbull knows this.  That's why he has a problem and there is a few opinion pieces around suggesting he is Abbott in a better suit from a more expensive postcode.

I actually didn't know about this until you posted about it but it doesn't surprise me either. Tones should break away with Erica Betz and Cory Bernardi and start the Aussie version of the Tea Party - it will split the Liberal Party but I think it will give Malcolm Turnbull a clear mandate and they can clear out the lunar right for a while.

The problem is that Turnbull doesn't have the numbers to remain in the PMs office (his objective) if the conservative rump (those mentioned above plus more) move on.  Turnbull knows this.  That's why he has a problem and there is a few opinion pieces around suggesting he is Abbott in a better suit from a more expensive postcode.

Like him or not, Turnball needs to remain PM from this election through to the next to provide leadership stability and get Australia away from rotation PM's.

And as someone who openly supports the current constitutional monarchy (if it ain't broke then don't fix it) I despair in the fact that there's people like him on my side...

The definition of broke is entirely relative and dependent on your position.

The reality is many people feel the system is broke when you cannot become Head of State of your own country.

Having our own Head of State is ideal, but I worry that the appointment process may be less so. I would hate to see the American system whereby flipping great wodges of cash are needed by the candidates to travel everywhere spruiking their claims to power.
The Monarchy, whilst largely irrelevant, is at least quiet and doesn't interfere with our Government.
I have the horrible feeling that the Monarchy is the lesser of the two evils.

The main two options for a republic with a president are:
    1. Popular elected by the people. -  As if we want another election with candidates backed by the political parties, turning it into a political appointment.   And can voters be just as bad as politicians for picking the correct person for the job - we have picked a few rippers lately haven't we!!!!      
    2. Person appointed by the parliament. (As the GG is now.)  -  well that has worked, sometimes!  Maybe let the state Governors (appointed by their parliaments) choose.

Option 1 will cost $millions of our money for someone who is in reality just a figurehead, appearing at openings and funerals and other important dates on our calendar.  
Option 2 should cost no more than the GG does now, except not having the cost of the GG going to London at the start of their time to visit the Queen/King.

In the end, what do we expect our President will do?   If it is nothing more than the GG, why not just leave it be for now.   The GG is Australian, and is our head of state (the Queen has no powers over him or our parliament).  

If we really want a republic, it would be easier to change the constitution to remove the references to the monarchy and leave the rest as is.   I can see more problems, arguments as various lobby groups jockey for supremacy and demonstrations in the streets over Option 1.

One of the main reasons the republican movement want a president is that s/he is Australian and anyone who is Australian can be our head of state.   Option 1 will eliminate 99.9% of Australians and leave the wealthy and/or politically motivated only.  So much for any Australian.   Option 2 leaves the person who probably deserves to be a head of state and worthy of representing the rest of us.   (Although there have been some shockers, I agree.)

The main two options for a republic with a president are:
    1. Popular elected by the people. -  As if we want another election with candidates backed by the political parties, turning it into a political appointment.   And can voters be just as bad as politicians for picking the correct person for the job - we have picked a few rippers lately haven't we!!!!      
    2. Person appointed by the parliament. (As the GG is now.)  -  well that has worked, sometimes!  Maybe let the state Governors (appointed by their parliaments) choose.

Option 1 will cost $millions of our money for someone who is in reality just a figurehead, appearing at openings and funerals and other important dates on our calendar.  
Option 2 should cost no more than the GG does now, except not having the cost of the GG going to London at the start of their time to visit the Queen/King.

In the end, what do we expect our President will do?   If it is nothing more than the GG, why not just leave it be for now.   The GG is Australian, and is our head of state (the Queen has no powers over him or our parliament).  

If we really want a republic, it would be easier to change the constitution to remove the references to the monarchy and leave the rest as is.   I can see more problems, arguments as various lobby groups jockey for supremacy and demonstrations in the streets over Option 1.

One of the main reasons the republican movement want a president is that s/he is Australian and anyone who is Australian can be our head of state.   Option 1 will eliminate 99.9% of Australians and leave the wealthy and/or politically motivated only.  So much for any Australian.   Option 2 leaves the person who probably deserves to be a head of state and worthy of representing the rest of us.   (Although there have been some shockers, I agree.)

Option 3 (now there's a blast from the past for those who remember the arguments about getting rid of branch lines in NSW, but I digress):

GG/President/Fete Opener-in-Chief is selected by lottery. This should appeal to gambling minded Australians, and probably raise enough money to pay for expenses at the same time. And anyone can enter and win!

GG/President/Fete Opener-in-Chief is selected by lottery. This should appeal to gambling minded Australians, and probably raise enough money to pay for expenses at the same time. And anyone can enter and win!

With my luck we'd get Molly Meldrum or Gina Rinehart.

The main two options for a republic with a president are:
    1. Popular elected by the people. -  As if we want another election with candidates backed by the political parties, turning it into a political appointment.   And can voters be just as bad as politicians for picking the correct person for the job - we have picked a few rippers lately haven't we!!!!      
    2. Person appointed by the parliament. (As the GG is now.)  -  well that has worked, sometimes!  Maybe let the state Governors (appointed by their parliaments) choose.

Option 1 will cost $millions of our money for someone who is in reality just a figurehead, appearing at openings and funerals and other important dates on our calendar.  
Option 2 should cost no more than the GG does now, except not having the cost of the GG going to London at the start of their time to visit the Queen/King.

In the end, what do we expect our President will do?   If it is nothing more than the GG, why not just leave it be for now.   The GG is Australian, and is our head of state (the Queen has no powers over him or our parliament).  

If we really want a republic, it would be easier to change the constitution to remove the references to the monarchy and leave the rest as is.   I can see more problems, arguments as various lobby groups jockey for supremacy and demonstrations in the streets over Option 1.

One of the main reasons the republican movement want a president is that s/he is Australian and anyone who is Australian can be our head of state.   Option 1 will eliminate 99.9% of Australians and leave the wealthy and/or politically motivated only.  So much for any Australian.   Option 2 leaves the person who probably deserves to be a head of state and worthy of representing the rest of us.   (Although there have been some shockers, I agree.)

No. 2 worked when it had to in 1975, the question is would it work again? and I think many feel not and personally I feel highly unlikely. The GG is appointed by the PM and I think hence the likelyhood of a GG ever sacking a govt again is unlikely although its a very rare requirement and it might take another 50 years before we are in a similar situation.

The last vote on a republic was 45:55 or 9 in 20 voting Yes and hence this is not a simple case of No we are not interested, many an election has been won on greater variance and hence cannot be easily dismissed. I think the Queen's death will potentially change things more, although Prince Will and his popular hottie are changing things.

The Monarchists need to understand that in some countries enough people so strongly about the right to have a citizen as Head of State they went to war/Military Revolution. Fortunately this is not going to happen in Aus any time soon.

What the actual republic model looks like to me is pointless at this time. Simple question around 2020 should be again, do you support a Republic, Yes or No. If No it ends there and the republic movement needs to back off for another 20 years. If Yes then ok lets work out what we want.

step 2 is vote on a Republican model

step 3 is vote for that model against the current system.

Personally I hate the American Duopoly model and I don't believe the President should have executive powers to make laws in day to day spending, health etc and effectively have a non elected committee of people in high profile roles like the secretary of state etc.

Could the average Aussie be Head of state or someone without significant financial backing? Very unlikely and really do we want someone who has the capacity to sack the govt, be head of the military and be the final sign off of all laws who not achieved something substantial enough that either they have the funds to campaign themselves or supported by others. Take Major Gen Cosgrove, not overly wealthy but done ok but obviously someone who got things done when asked.

One of the main reasons the republican movement want a president is that s/he is Australian and anyone who is Australian can be our head of state.

The last vote on a republic was 45:55 or 9 in 20 voting Yes and hence this is not a simple case of No we are not interested, many an election has been won on greater variance and hence cannot be easily dismissed. I think the Queen's death will potentially change things more, although Prince Will and his popular hottie are changing things.

Quite interestingly our current openly-republican Prime Minister has poo-poohed the idea of having another republican referendum any time soon; he knows that regardless of how the referendum is handled that it's very likely to fail. Constitutionally it's going to be extremely difficult to enact such a huge change without consulting the public and it seems (as Shane says) the only opportunity might be with QEII's passing - although I wouldn't hold my breath for that given her own mother exceeded 100 years!

I like Charlie anyway, he's spearheaded lots of causes that I'm in favour of (conservation, heritage architecture) and I think we could do much worse than having those foreigners as our nominal heads of state. I think we've all forgiven him for ruining Diana Spencer's life!

Simple question around 2020 should be again, do you support a Republic, Yes or No. If No it ends there and the republic movement needs to back off for another 20 years. If Yes then ok lets work out what we want.

step 2 is vote on a Republican model

step 3 is vote for that model against the current system.

Quite interestingly our current openly-republican Prime Minister has poo-poohed the idea of having another republican referendum any time soon; he knows that regardless of how the referendum is handled that it's very likely to fail.

Two excellent pieces of advice which should be passed on to the SNP in Scotland.

They also lost their referendum (technically a plebiscite, it wasn't legally binding like an Australian Constitutional Referendum) on seceding from the UK by roughly 55-45, a margin of 10 percentage points. That's roughly five opposed (or at least opposed to the proposal as put to the vote) for every four people for secession. In a jurisdiction with voluntary voting, that's an absolute shellacking and Alex Salmond was quite right to resign as his campaign was a complete failure.

To compare it to the normal elections, a victory with 55% is regarded as a comfortably safe seat in Australia.

The reconstituted ARM needs to smarten up though, and get a smarter mouthpiece than Peter Fitzsimons. If they don't, they'll never move closer to the point that they can push for a referendum with confidence in a positive result.

No. 2 worked when it had to in 1975, the question is would it work again? and I think many feel not and personally I feel highly unlikely. The GG is appointed by the PM and I think hence the likelyhood of a GG ever sacking a govt again is unlikely although its a very rare requirement and it might take another 50 years before we are in a similar situation.

I believe it is very unlikely for a completely different reason - so long as 1975 is in living memory, neither a PM or Opposition Leader will want to get anywhere near that sort of breakdown again. Losing a double dissolution election would have less of an impact on either major party than getting into a situation where the GG might need to start brushing off the 40 years of cobwebs covering the big red button.

How that translates with the increasing number of minority governments and volatile Senates that we can expect to see in coming years will be interesting to track. We could even see the two majors joining together to push through a budget that might otherwise be held hostage by a coalition of other parties.

The Monarchists need to understand that in some countries enough people so strongly about the right to have a citizen as Head of State they went to war/Military Revolution. Fortunately this is not going to happen in Aus any time soon.

Largely because we elect an Australian as our head of government every three years.

Personally I hate the American Duopoly model and I don't believe the President should have executive powers to make laws in day to day spending, health etc and effectively have a non elected committee of people in high profile roles like the secretary of state etc.

Could the average Aussie be Head of state or someone without significant financial backing? Very unlikely and really do we want someone who has the capacity to sack the govt, be head of the military and be the final sign off of all laws who not achieved something substantial enough that either they have the funds to campaign themselves or supported by others. Take Major Gen Cosgrove, not overly wealthy but done ok but obviously someone who got things done when asked.

I am also completely against either merging the head of state and head of government, or politicising the selection of the head of state.

Were we to go down the republican route, I would prefer the new head of state have some title other than 'president' purely to avoid things starting to creep towards the US approach to presidential elections. No matter how well the public are educated, 'president' will certainly equate to 'our version of POTUS' in the minds of way too many Australians. Even retaining the Governor-General's present title would be preferable.

Whatever the head of state would be titled, there would have to be some sort of reform to the process for selecting them so that it is neither a PM's pick, a political election, or a national popularity contest merging all the worst aspects of Australian of the Year, the Hottest 100, a US presidential election and the Gold Logie. Some sort of non-political committee - maybe a committee of the state Governors - selecting a nominee and putting an approval vote to the people might be an option.

I like Charlie anyway, he's spearheaded lots of causes that I'm in favour of (conservation, heritage architecture) and I think we could do much worse than having those foreigners as our nominal heads of state. I think we've all forgiven him for ruining Diana Spencer's life!

There are fears in the UK that he might be too politically active and interfere a little too much, fears that absolutely do not apply with either Liz or Will. We don't know for sure though, not until he ascends to the throne.

What that would mean for the other Commonwealth Realms (including Australia) is up for grabs, probably not too much except for some increased dissatisfaction with the monarchy.

Maybe thats it, the state Governors are the ones to elect a GG from their own for a fixed one off 5 year term.

To date the GG's mostly are rarely known to the community prior to being nominated so an election based system to choose and try and retain some commonality with the individuals of today will fail.

No issue with retaining the title GG as yes it prevents any link with that of other nations where the Head of State has a more powerful role. The Australian Head of state should only have the power to swear in the govt, sign off legislation, be head of the military (otherwise they have no real power) and dismiss the govt.

Regards
Shane

Maybe thats it, the state Governors are the ones to elect a GG from their own for a fixed one off 5 year term.

I wasn't thinking that they would pick from among themselves, but more that they would nominate some other person within the parameters of the law governing the process.

Even a 'rotating chairmanship' among the states could be an option, with the incumbent Governor getting an upgrade whenever that state's turn pops up.

To date the GG's mostly are rarely known to the community prior to being nominated so an election based system to choose and try and retain some commonality with the individuals of today will fail.

General Pete is the first one in a fair while, at least as far back as Abp Hollingworth. To date, I still don't know who Quentin Bryce is/was other than that she got the job for being an ALP frontbencher's mother-in-law.

I agree that an electoral system will fail. If you're going to eliminate the 99.99% who don't have the finances and insider clout to win a national publicity contest, you may as well also eliminate the remaining 0.01% and just have a monarch.

The Australian Head of state should only have the power to swear in the govt, sign off legislation, be head of the military (otherwise they have no real power) and dismiss the govt.

ONLY ? ? ? He could lead us into a war and dismiss the Government if it disagrees with him. That's a pretty big amount of power.

The military should still be under the control of Parliament being accountable to them through a ministry.
No president/GG should be able to dismiss the government & declare war on someone.  If that was the case, I might apply for the job!!

There are fears in the UK that he might be too politically active and interfere a little too much, fears that absolutely do not apply with either Liz or Will. We don't know for sure though, not until he ascends to the throne.

One thing that we can be certain of is that Charles will definitely not be the reigning monarch for as long as his mum!

The Australian Head of state should only have the power to swear in the govt, sign off legislation, be head of the military (otherwise they have no real power) and dismiss the govt.

ONLY ? ? ? He could lead us into a war and dismiss the Government if it disagrees with him. That's a pretty big amount of power.

Please look up the Australian constitution and the powers of the GG.

- Aus GG is the Commander-in-Chief of the ADF
- Aus GG has the power to dismiss the govt, install a care taker and call for an early election, he/she does not have the power to run the country and cannot lead Australia into an external conflict.

So my context previously was to replicate the same and its also very standard practice world wide for the military to report to the Head of State, not the Head of the Government in democratically elected govts as this gives the Head of State the power to sack the govt. With the Military reporting to them they have no formal power as if the govt needs to be dimissed it may need to be done by force. For example what if Goff Whitlam simply said No?

Another good book to read is the QF32 (QF A380 engine blew up), The Pilot Robert De-Crepany was the Australian Air Force Representative (proper name escapes me) on the day of the dismissal and gives an interesting insight to the goings on in the GG's house that day as part of his bio-graphy in the first part of the book.

There are fears in the UK that he might be too politically active and interfere a little too much, fears that absolutely do not apply with either Liz or Will. We don't know for sure though, not until he ascends to the throne.

One thing that we can be certain of is that Charles will definitely not be the reigning monarch for as long as his mum!

I give him 15 years tops. Another issue with any sort of hereditary succession in 21st century, if you were born within a few decades of your parent who is the Monarch, its quite possible you won't ascend to the throne until your 70's, at which point is this the right age to be taking on the role as Head of State. If its just a figure head role with no real power as is the current HoS for Australia, then its a pointless exercise and why to we continue this charade?

In days of old, it was rare for a Reigning monarch to go past 40's. There was a time monarch would lead armies into battle and  between the war and/or a good case of syphilis from shagging the local conquests sorted some out on the battle fields, pneumonia and other diseases got most of the rest with the odd rival sibling/off-spring rounding the rest off.

Maybe thats it, the state Governors are the ones to elect a GG from their own for a fixed one off 5 year term.

I wasn't thinking that they would pick from among themselves, but more that they would nominate some other person within the parameters of the law governing the process.

Even a 'rotating chairmanship' among the states could be an option, with the incumbent Governor getting an upgrade whenever that state's turn pops up.

To date the GG's mostly are rarely known to the community prior to being nominated so an election based system to choose and try and retain some commonality with the individuals of today will fail.

General Pete is the first one in a fair while, at least as far back as Abp Hollingworth. To date, I still don't know who Quentin Bryce is/was other than that she got the job for being an ALP frontbencher's mother-in-law.

I agree that an electoral system will fail. If you're going to eliminate the 99.99% who don't have the finances and insider clout to win a national publicity contest, you may as well also eliminate the remaining 0.01% and just have a monarch.

I was thinking nominating from the state Governors after all surely this lot should be natural finalists and if not why are they there?

Glad you brought up that link with Bryce and the Front Bench as I know some feel this conflict of interest would potentially interfere with a repeat of 1975 or had it existed then could it have prevented 1975 from happening?

Final point is no, because then it gets back to a birth right which is the argument against a Monarchy. Why should the Head of the country be defined by their DNA and is this alone suitable qualification, unlikely. We all know QE2 doesn't and has never made the calls, its her team of advisers and lawyers telling her what to say in well prepared scripts. By UKlaw she is not allowed to speak publicly against the govt.  

Anyway while that team of advisors will exist regardless if you make the role only open to Australians even those most will never have the qualifications, just like most will never have the qualifications to be PM, at birth they are just as equal as the rest of us. Is also far likely for someone to have the right clout and finances and connections to be far more qualified than those whose only entitlement to the role is their DNA and in the case of one red head Royal, even this is questionable.

Compare the UK Royal Family to the Dubai Royal Family, the Crown Prince is nominated by the Ruling Emir and not automatically the brother or first born male. The current Dubai Crown Prince is Son No.2 because the oldest son exhibited questionable traits that his father the Emir clearly thought unsuitable and con-incidentally died young last year likely due to lifestyle choices. The Crown Prince however is very mature, well educated, obviously paying attention to his groomers and demonstrates clear ruling capabilities. What checks are there in UK system should something similar occur?

For example what if Goff Whitlam simply said No?

Perhaps you meant "Gough Whitlam"!