Vice-Regal Saint: Tony Abbott for Leader
Paul Keating calls him the "young fogey". "Howard was the old fogey. He's the young fogey." That to Mr. Keating's mind, naturally disqualifies him as promising young leader of a future Australia led by the "Liberal" Party, because anything that smacks of old values is of course repugnant to any modern leftish republican (how's that "big picture" national Asian identity coming, Paul).
We can therefore take this as proof that the Honourable Tony Abbott is emminently employable. To top it all off he wants the job, and will be quite determined, I'm sure, to educate the Australian public, many of whom are "suffering self-imposed historical and cultural amnesia" in relation to Australia's British heritage and acting like "teenagers blowing raspberries at their parents". To quote Mr. Abbott.
If memory serves me correctly: When did Paul Keating decide it was time for Australia to become a republic? Answer: During a voyage with Her Majesty on the Royal Yacht Britannia. I take it, he was somewhat underwhelmed.
Posts
1915.jpg){kind=small}
.gif)
.gif)
29 comments:
I like Abbott - he's a strong debater for the conservative side. However, I think his monarchist views may be a god-send to Labor-leaning republicans: Having a monarchist leader of the opposition will give Rudd a strong point of difference, as Keating had against Hewson and then Howard. A republican leading the opposition would probably defer the issue.
Opps... "leading" should be "leaning" in the last sentence.
Lewis make a good point. I believe Mr Turnbull would not push the republic idea as leader as he NEEDS to bring the party together. However, as a Monarchist, I must say that I like Mr Abbott. Dr Nelson is also a monarchist so he would be good too and is not as well know for being one.
I'm an Alex Downer fan... but I fear that he has too much historical baggage to win the Liberal leadership.
Cato
Abbot is an idiot, in spite of his Monarchist views. I have many Catholic friends and he scares even them with his extreme views.
Regardless of who leads the Liberal party the Republic will not be an issue, though I'd rather see a Republican leader, with any luck the implosion of the Liberal party might take some more Republican sentiment with it.
"Having a monarchist leader of the opposition will give Rudd a strong point of difference, as Keating had against...Howard."
Keating versus Howard - now, who won that contest?
Abbott and Costello.
Whatever next?
Groucho Marx.
Actually Neil, Howard neutralized the issue by doing a "me too" to Keating: he promised to hold a constitutional convention (which happened in 1998); and a referendum (which happened in 1999). The 1996 election was more about the state of Australia's economy than the republic.
A referendum which was then lost. :-)
Now, remind me.
Which side was Howard on?
Hopefully the issue will be off the agenda for some time: Rudd too busy implementing his election promises and the Liberals not wanting to be divided. However Monarchist must always be on guard, remember we are dealing with politicians.
Howard and Abbott are not "idiots", My Lord Best. Or if they are, I suppose that makes me an idiot for agreeing with them :-)
I wouldn't rule that out Beavers - given your views on Ian Smith and "the T". :-)
I agree with Abbott on one or two things, that doesn't mean he is not a fanatical lunatic, and an idiot. See his spectacular gaffes during the election campaign and his lacklustre performance in every ministry he has touched.
As to Howard, cunning is not the same thing as intelligence.
Nor are good intentions.
No indeed, but in Rudds case a glowing record in the public service under Goss, cleaning out the crud of 30 years of cincompetent and parochial government, certainly gives him credibility at this point. He will of course be judged on performance, as any government is. As Howard was, and found wanting.
I disagree.
Good intentions are a sign of intelligence.
A lack of good intentions signals there is something lacking - as in the children who are cruel to animals.
I expect that's why Rudd won.
People always prefer positive life enhancing types.
Good intentions are good, so long as they are acted on. I can tolerate a failed policy in some respects if it was meant well and all that could be done to make it work was done.
I just watched an interview with Abbot conducted this afternoon on Lateline, I have to say he is far more impressive in opposition than he was in government. I'm interested to see how he behaves in future.
What exactly is "extreme" about Abbott's views?
The fact you're likely to agree with them. :-)
On what basis do you give that answer? I've always admired your work for Monarchy Wales and certainly would not want to come across to you as "extreme," except perhaps in defense of the Monarchy.
Oh, come on Theodore.
It was supposed to be a joke.
A poor one at that.
Thanks for the feedback.
Appreciated.
I should have paid more attention to the smiley face. But I was curious rather than offended. :)
Hello Theodore.
I understand you're a Catholic.
Just like Abbott.
In our modern society Catholic views, indeed any Christian views, can be regarded as "extreme".
Hence my rather lame gag.
'...many of whom are "suffering self-imposed historical and cultural amnesia" in relation to Australia's British heritage and acting like "teenagers blowing raspberries at their parents". To quote Mr. Abbott.'
This is the kind of the generalised childishly disdainful gibberish that has issued from the mouths and pens of far too many monarchists. The number of republicans that act out of pure antipathy, spite, hate or whatever towards the British or to use Abbott's words, acting like '"teenagers blowing raspberries at their parents"' are miniscule. Most Australian republicans, believe it or not, are Anglo-Saxon-Celtic, and usually Protestant. The republican cause could not have a polled approval rating of 45% if it were otherwise. Less silly arrogant comments and more arguing of the facts, thanks Tony. Anti-British sentiment is NOT what motivates Australian republicans. Republican supporters such as pre-Whitlam conservative Liberal/Country Party politicians such as Ian Sinclair, Malcolm Fraser, and Doug Anthony were or are hardly noted for being anti-British in outlook or attitude; nor could this be said of Major-General Michael Keating the current acting head of the ARM. When an Australian soldier of general rank is an avowed and active republican, it is clear that republicanism has widespread, nonpartisan support.
Lord Best said...
'Abbot is an idiot, in spite of his Monarchist views. I have many Catholic friends and he scares even them with his extreme views.'
I hate to say it, but even I have to agree with Lord B. on this one.
I would certainly agree that most Australian republicans are not anti-British, though many no doubt are. But the leap you want to make would be the greatest undoing of your British, and therefore Australian, heritage, and you know it. It's not just the Queen or her successor, it's everything that's connected to the crown. Say goodbye to the Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force and Royal Australian Mint and royal everything. Next will be the flag, your coat of arms,... anything symbolically associated with the Crown - everything changes. Is this what you really want? And for what? A bloody elected politician or politically appointed president. How sad. How very very sad.
Actually, I'm not Catholic. (see my forum for details) But I don't want to hijack this comment box. Carry on, carry on...
Sorry - mixed you up with someone else.
That's twice this week.
First Kippers and Scottie.
Now Theodore and...
...answers on a postcard. :-)
Catholics?
A plurality of the Australian population is Catholic.
Post a Comment