Is it time for Australia to become a Republic?

[Jerry_Atrick]

Altough in theory, the monarch is the "fount of law" and has absolute power, the reality is the monarch palys little more political role than the GG. The one difference is that there is a weekly Tuesday meeting between the PM and the monarch, where the PM seeks the monarch's counsel. I am sure in reality, there are such meetings between the GG and the PM, too.

 

The monarch, like the GG is largley ceremonial and under convention will approve what teh PM asks with respect to government/constitutional affairs. So, in effect, the peers are appointed by the PM. Nornally, all peerage nominations go to an "independent" committee to vet them, and they have in the past knocked some back. Nadine Dorries was the higher profile one recently.. But the ones that ar emost knocked back are from recent ex-PMs who have a right to nominate a certain number of peers as they shut the door on the way out. TYo be honest, I am not sure about a sitting PM, but this is the first time I have heard of a sitting PM nominate a peer for the express purpose of a ministerial position. They do get them, but usually after a period of time.

 

Ministers here are not the same as Australia. A minister here is generally a mid-level minister, and the secretatry of state is the cabinet minister or senior minister of outside the cabinet.

 

What is really weird is a peer being nominated for a secretary of state role as they are key players in PM Questions, and as he will not be able to address the house or commons, the speaker made some commotion about how ihe is to be held to account. I haven't read the news on it lately, but he (who is a quite weak speaker) has been satisfied the house can, as far as I know. It is rare a peer is ever made secretary of state, but it has happened as I recall. Previoulsy, the Lord Chancellor, who header up the Lord CHancellor's department, which was effectively the ministry of justice, was a peer, as this was considered a specialist legal role that should be at arms length to the government. But, there is now a separate ministry of justice to the Lord Chancellor's department, and the secretary of state is a commoner (house of commons). The Lord Cheif Justice and the LC department are more abot appointing jusdges, and consulting to other departments on legal matters. I am not sure what else they do.

 

Yes, the House of Lords is a second check and balance chamber, and the big criticism is that it is not democratically elected. It is a valid criticism, but generally (and I say generally, although with the way nutters are getting in everywhere, that may change), it does a not bad job. Because once appointed, they are there for life; they don't get paid unless they are ministers (but get expenses), even stooge picks for the party they were picked for tend to become more rebellious and vote on principles than party lines. There have been many times when the House of Lords have voted down government poroposed legisalation when there was a clear majority og that party's peers in the house. So, it a strange way it tends (or tended) to work. Yes, there are no doubt examples where it didn't and this is one, but generally speaking....

 

The times it does tend not to work or get manipulated is when a government, like this one, is in trouble. These fellas are on the nose big time - Labour currently has a 20 point lead, though that may be eroding because Labour are very pro-Palestine and the leader, Keer Starmer, just had 8 front benh opposition cabinet members resign because he is not actively calling for a ceasefire. So, division in the ranks is only going to help Sunack. I digress.. People see though the ship that Sunak has just done, and Cameron is probably more on the nose with the whole electorate a) for the remainers because he established the Brexit referendum to save his political skin, and with the Brexiteers, because when he campaigned to remain in the EU and when it was loisthe immediately resigned - not wanting to implement the will of the people.

 

I honestly don't know where they get their ideas. The extreme right of the Conservatives are getting nuttuier, and Sunack needed a small C conservative to balance the ship. He has just tilted it further to the right.

[onetrack]

The way I see it, the British political system is in dire straights with a constant struggle to find anyone who has the desirable leadership and initiative and speaking skills.

I have little doubt that a big part of the problem is the corporate and financial influence on the British political system, which has gradually and constantly degraded the quality of the politicians.

It never ceases to amaze me that bankers and financial whizz kids end up in charge of the political system in Britain, and this is all about protecting their sheltered and outrageously profitable industry.

[Bruce Tuncks]

A non-elected position of political power seems fishy to me....  but using power to enrich yourself is clear evidence of corruption to me....  Here's a test: Is banking and financing more profitable in the UK than in comparable countries?   If the answer to this is "yes" then we really have a smoking gun on corruption counts.

[facthunter]

Money gives people Power. Banks are a big part of what London Does   Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

I always reckon that the pommy monarchs have LESS autonomy than the Aust GG. As an example, that awful Kerr guy eventually had to leave Australia because wherever he went, there would be a demo against him.

[Jerry_Atrick]

The monarchy here are more interested in making money, and only interested in the politics side where it makes them money.. Not entirely true, as charles has been a proponent of organis, sustainable agriculture, properly resourced communities, and the environment. But, he is the exception, and now becoming the monarch, by convention, he has to remain shtum on political matters.

[old man emu]

8 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

charles has been a proponent of organis,

You skipped the "m".

[Bruce Tuncks]

The M????

I tried ( but failed) to get orgies, I think he meant " organics" , which I reckon are loony-tunes stuff. Except for this titbit....   vegetable growers usually have a row they use for themselves and they DON'T use sprays on this row.

[old man emu]

13 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

charles has been a proponent of organis

5 hours ago, old man emu said:

You skipped the "m".

Damn and Bugger!

I was thinking a couple of steps ahead and didn't read the work properly, missing the "ni". The attempted joke related to a missing "m" in orgasm. 

 

Look out! There goes another lead Zeppelin.

 

[nomadpete]

4 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

The M????

I tried ( but failed) to get orgies, I think he meant " organics" , which I reckon are loony-tunes stuff. Except for this titbit....   vegetable growers usually have a row they use for themselves and they DON'T use sprays on this row.

Would a Republic ban glyphosphate? Or government  sanctioned obscene bankers profits?

 

This thread has drifted into a walk around our cluttered minds.

[facthunter]

Yes then. Kings and Queens are the subject of fairy tales and likely to be inbred eventually if they are not already.  What's better than a group CHOOSING their leader and dismissing them if they don't shape up?  Nev

[spacesailor]

King Henry the eighth. 

Couldn't get his way with the pope. So became ( like the pope ) ' head of the church ' .

Didn't need that Republic to get what he needed .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

I've tried but can't get the significance of that' Kings and Popes have nothing to  do with  not having any of them.  Nev

[spacesailor]

The last sentence of the last post .

( getting their own way & dismissing our prime minister) ..

spacesailor

[Bruce Tuncks]

Back in school in the 1950's, the C of E kids were told that Henry started his own church because the old one was financing the Spanish Armada, which meant that the poms were planned ( by the Catholic Church ) to pay for their own enslavement.

Next door, the Catholic kids were being told that Henry wanted to murder yet another wife, but the Pope said " enough".

Who was right Spacy? ( Hint:  we kids thought they were both wrong and furthermore we thought they were stupid not realizing that the kids would talk later.)

 

[nomadpete]

58 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Back in school in the 1950's, the C of E kids were told that Henry started his own church because the old one was financing the Spanish Armada, which meant that the poms were planned ( by the Catholic Church ) to pay for their own enslavement.

Next door, the Catholic kids were being told that Henry wanted to murder yet another wife, but the Pope said " enough".

Who was right Spacy? ( Hint:  we kids thought they were both wrong and furthermore we thought they were stupid not realizing that the kids would talk later.)

 

Wow your RE persons were way more interesting than mine. I don't  remember any of the stories except they were all lame. And that goes for the C of E, The Baptist, the Methodist and the Catholic. I'm guessing I wasn't the only one who went to whatever room had my newest friends.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I never thought about changing rooms, nomad, except for the time the metho minister's son drew a picture of a copulating couple. The minister up front (not his dad) DEMANDED to see the picture. Apparently it was quite good. I never got to see it.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I don't think the minister up the front knew what was in the picture he demanded to see.

[facthunter]

Someone would Cop it later no doubt..  Nev