Vice-Regal Saint: Australia deserves better than this
By David Byers (Convenor of ACM in Country, New South Wales)
Sadly the new Australian Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, has already proven to be a failure. Not only does he have the affront to tell the world “Australia will be a republic” (strange indeed as the people have already voted NO to the issue in 1999) but has the ego to hold a summit of “ideas” with a thousand self-inflated posers knowing that they will simply put forward ideas that Mr Rudd backs.
Unfortunately the pro-left media in Australia do nothing to question such a dishonest person but in fact go the other way and promote him! All loyal Australians must now do all they can to undermine and discredit this media tart. As Mr Turnbull told us, when he was pushing a republic in the ‘90’s he never had Mr Rudd wanting to help. In short this Mr Rudd is void of any loyalty, other than to himself. He has the potential to damage the Crown very badly in Australia. WAKE UP AUSTRALIA!
Posts
1915.jpg){kind=small}
.gif)
.gif)
10 comments:
I don't think I agree with all this personal attack stuff.
Why don't you try a positive and upbeat campaigning style that attempts to win people over with positive messages, jokes and reasons to support the Monarchy?
I don't think abuse and trying to frighten people works.
In Wales monarchists have a 50% opinion poll lead.
If I was a monarchist in Australia now, I'd be really, really worried. If this is the negative and defensive approach that you are going to adopt for any future campaign then it's "goodbye Monarchy" I'm afraid. I believe that you can win that referendum in Australia. Yet you will need to "change the record" first. David, I really think you need to think again about your own method, approach and tactics - especially online.
They certainly turn me off.
And I am a monarchist.
My God Neil, I was about to say how your approach would put people off! Here in Australia if we talked the way you do in your post we would be simply laugh at and in some instances despised. Using silly archaic language and telling people they are not equal to others or using phrases like “mere subjects” would destroy the Monarchy in Australia faster than anything I might say.
Trying to compare Wales to Australia is just plain wrong. Wales is part of the UK, the Queen’s chief Kingdom and where she lives. The Queen does not live in Australia so is vulnerable to claims of being foreign and very distant. High support for the Crown in Wales has more to do with habit and history than anything people like you do.
ACM is set up to defend the Crown, of course we are defensive the Crown is under attack.
As much as I like MR Rudd, I have to say that I am dissapointed and the summit was a farce. Thankfully the republic issue was so farcical even the media picked up on it. The commntary in most newspapers has been relatively unbiased, and the public comments and letters have shown far more balance than I would have thought, with nearly as many supporting the Monarchy, or at least, the status quo as supported the republic.
In terms of attacking the republic, I have a couple of good ideas formulated through experience in arguing with republicans.
When I have said that the republic debate hinged on two things, the first, asking the Australian people for a lot of money to rename the GG. The second asking the Australian people a vast amount of money to give the Australian people more politicians and more election campaigns. Australians do not like politicians, and do not like spending money on them, and when I have used this argument the republicans have not been able to come up with any kind of counter argument.
Also, we need to avoid the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' argument. Of course it is true, but we need to explain WHY the republican changes could break it, and why the system works so well now, rather than using this glib little rejoinder.
Sadly, it may be best to underplay the loyal monarchist element too. I describe myself as a constitutionalist as much as a monarchist. Having said that I have seen some pretty odd reactions when people find out that I am a young Monarchist, not some old chap who came out from England in the 70s. Stupid stereotypes.
I do believe we should avoid personal attacks on Rudd or Labor that are not related to the republic issue. Attacking a republican government in the republic debate is one thing, but attacking them on other issues makes the monarchist movement seem automatically incompatible with Labor, which is simply not true, As Professor Flint has said repeatedly, there are many Monarchist Labor voters and members out there.
Lord Best, I agree our arguments must be modern and forward looking, remember it is the republicans that retreat back onto tribal nationalism and jingoisms. The cost is one good argument that and the power and authority politicians would gain but also the argument that Mr Thomas Flynn puts forward, that being that we have already voted on the issue in 1999! Remember to always ask “if the vote had gone the other way in 1999 would monarchist be allowed to re-open it?” “No way the politicians and media would never allow it, so why should republicans be allowed to re-open it?”
That is one of the ironies of the debate, the republicans claim to speak for a modern, rational era, buy their arguments against the supposedly anchronistic monarchy are all based on emotion and petty nationalism.
I'm quite hopeful about the debate to be honest, more voices are speaking out for the monarchy than I remember in previous times, and the republican movement is just as divided as ever. If they go with the minimalist GG model (whih failed last time) they will annoy the republicans that want direct election, if they go with direct election they alienate their political support who fear a presidential power structure with a greater number of votes, and thus, mandate.
Lord Best, could you explain what the minimalist GG model is? Is that election through Parliament?
If so, then I would find the example of Sweden's PM appointment system to be a good way to dismantle it - it causes the position to become yet another political plum.
Best to say, we had this debate in the 1990's and voted on the best republic the republicans could come up with and the people rejected it - END OF DEBATE, its over!
This way the republicans must push just to get it open! We must not let them.
The minimalist GG model is basically renaming the GG President, and removing all mention of the Crown. That is about the depth of detail that republicans have come up with.
So Parliament will select the President, who will have no other duties and powers than those the GG has now.
The minimalist republic is stupid because once the Queen is gone the GG of President will no longer represent an institution above politics.
By being selected by parliament the President will have his/her own mandate.
Post a Comment