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?He is probably thinking his party will "see the light" and re-elect him as party leader.
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?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.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-24/former-prime-minister-tony-abbott-to-recontest-warringah/7110786
Yes and as he is not a fan of rail, what sort of transport is he talking about?Is he going to make a comback?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.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-24/former-prime-minister-tony-abbott-to-recontest-warringah/7110786
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?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.
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...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.
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.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.
The definition of broke is entirely relative and dependent on your position.
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 main two options for a republic with a president are: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):
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: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.
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.)
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!
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.
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.
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.I am also completely against either merging the head of state and head of government, or politicising the selection of the head of state.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Please look up the Australian constitution and the powers of the GG.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.
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?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!![]()
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.
Subscribers: bevans, Big J, CraigW, Draffa, Greensleeves, JoppaJunction, kenify, Pressman, RTT_Rules, wurx
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.