Vice-Regal Saint: Labor Voters, not Labor Party, might be the key
By David Byers (Convenor of ACM in Country, New South Wales)
One of the great mistakes many monarchists in Australia make is believing that Labor voters think like the Labor Party, with regards to the republic issue. This is simply not true as the results of the 1999 referendum have shown. When the results were finally in, it showed that only 25 Labor sets voted yes, whilst 42 Labor sets voted NO! Working in ACM, as I do, I find we have many traditional Labor voters in our ranks who are disappointed with the Labor Party’s stand. Sadly, the Labor Party expects its party members (as opposed to those who vote Labor) to push the republican line regardless of what they might personally think. As it is never a big issue at any election, people don't think about it when voting.
Monarchists in this country cannot rely upon just having conservative governments, that is just not how things work in the real world. We must engage our left wing brothers who also support the Crown.
Posts
1915.jpg){kind=small}
.gif)
.gif)
7 comments:
Interesting analysis David. As you know I'm all for the big tent. It be important that monarchists (like republicans) come from, and represent, different strands of public thought and opinion. Here in the United Kingdom even members of the Scottish National Party and that Plaid Cymru are welcome to join us. Mind you, I've yet to meet one. :-)
Egad, David, watch the spelling please!
Yes, because the Crown is not political, it naturally cuts across party lines and the political spectrum. The concern for us, however, is that the leader of both main parties in Australia will most likely soon be staunch republicans, Rudd of Labor and Costello of the Libs, though I pray Howard can deliver a Trumanesque upset in his final hour. Fingers crossed.
Naturally there must be bipartisan support for the monarchy, support which transcends political-party loyalties, for the monarchy if it is to survive. It is worth noting, too, that in the 1999 referendum a significant number of pro-republic electorates were those that have the highest proportion of British-descended Protestant Australians. It can, and does, cut both ways.
Personally, I think that Australian monarchists should welcome the opportunity of another referendum victory in 2010. In addition to already convinced and committed monarchists who can be relied on to vote against any republic proposal, organised monarchists should sally forth with a revised, revitalised strategy to woo and win Labor-voting monarchists and to positively influence the considerable number of Australian electors who are quite indifferent to the monarchy-republic debate, to split republican lobby and vote between minimalist and elected-president republic models, and to force greater opprobrium on the ALP that will be attached to Labor for calling for referenda on an Australian republic every time they are elected to government, and it should bury the republican issue in this country for at least another 20 years or more. The referendum should go ahead with the stipulation that if the republic is defeated in 2010, that is for a second time within the 10 or 11 years since the last referendum, the issue should not be raised for at least another 20 to 30 years.
No political party can go on calling referenda on one issue every 10 or so years with impunity and not expect to electorally suffer for it. If Rudd does win the election, the whole republican referendum issue could and should blow up in his face if it is handled right.
Not to mention the utter gutlessness of the bespectacled little worm in stating that a referendum would be held in 2010 while he was out of the country and after he had said that any referendum on the republic proposal was not high on the list of priorities for a Labor government, leading everyone to think that it was a non-starter. You can't trust so many of the bastards in the ALP. At least Howard was and is honest.
"At least Howard was and is honest."
Sorry to say this, but I'd like to know what you've been smoking to make you that delusional. Howard was and is a dishonest, incompetant, radical little toerag who is about as conservative as Marx.
The plebiscite to decide whether there should be another referendum seems to be almost rigged in favour of the Royalists from what i've heard, even more vague on the actual details of a republic than the 1999 referendum. If that fails Rudd can drop the whole potentially divisive issue for a good long time.
'Howard was and is a dishonest, incompetant [sic], radical little toerag who is about as conservative as Marx.'
I did not say that Howard was conservative, no politician is truly conservative in Australian politics anymore. Political conservatism now is quite clearly very to the political conservatism of 40 or 50 years ago, when the term had far more substance to it. However, Howard is relatively conservative when compared to his political opponents, who are most certainly not conservative in any true sense of the word. And as for Howard's honesy, I will say that Howard has made errors in speech, but honest errors, and all politicians make such errors at some stage of their political careers. If you think otherwise, perhaps you're the one on hallucinogens.
As far as 'plebiscites' are concerned to decide if a referendum on the republican proposal is to go ahead, that is news to me. Rudd, as far as I know from reports, publicly proposed in London in September this year a referendum on the republican issue for 2010. As for it being 'riggged' in favour of the Royalists, as you call them, I say that any vote in Australia on the future of the constitutional monarchy is inherently more favourable to the monarchists as their position is far more definite and less open to endless changes and modifications than the republican position. Republicanism is an inherently vague term in Australian parlance and an inherently vague form of constitutional system in Australia: this is because republicans cannot decide among themselves on which republican model they would like to see installed as the system of any republican constitutional government. And this is reflected in their internal division and the questions asked on referenda ballots. Monarchists, on the other hand, do not have this problem. They are clearly and unequivocally for the retention of the constitutional monarchy and the present constitutional arrangements. Nothing proposed by republicans could be simpler, clearer, or, indeed, better.
'Howard was and is a dishonest, incompetant [sic], radical little toerag who is about as conservative as Marx.'
I did not say that Howard was conservative, no politician is truly conservative in Australian politics anymore. Political conservatism now is quite clearly very to the political conservatism of 40 or 50 years ago, when the term had far more substance to it. However, Howard is relatively conservative when compared to his political opponents, who are most certainly not conservative in any true sense of the word. And as for Howard's honesty, I will say that Howard has made errors in speech, but honest errors, and perhaps made a few rash promises at times, but all politicians make such errors at some stage of their political careers. If you think otherwise, perhaps you're the one on hallucinogens.
As far as 'plebiscites' are concerned to decide if a referendum on the republican proposal is to go ahead, that is news to me. Rudd, as far as I know from reports, publicly proposed in London in September this year a referendum on the republican issue for 2010. As for it being 'riggged' in favour of the Royalists, as you call them, I say that any vote in Australia on the future of the constitutional monarchy is inherently more favourable to the monarchists as their position is far more definite and less open to endless changes and modifications than the republican position. Republicanism is an inherently vague term in Australian parlance and an inherently vague form of constitutional system in Australia: this is because republicans cannot decide among themselves on which republican model they would like to see installed as the system of any republican constitutional government. And this is reflected in their internal division and the questions asked on referenda ballots. Monarchists, on the other hand, do not have this problem. They are clearly and unequivocally for the retention of the constitutional monarchy and the present constitutional arrangements. Nothing proposed by republicans could be simpler, clearer, or, indeed, better.
Post a Comment