Don't get me wrong here, But I LIKE Donald Trump.

[willedoo]

Quite right. Sorting out the mess we now have is a higher priority.

 

 

[hihosland]

Currently the business of politicians is getting elected

 

they have no other role and all policy, respect, and ethics

 

are subsumed to the need to be re elected.

 

There is no respect nor consideration of any policy presented

 

by the other side,

 

if the other proposed it, then it must be bad

 

if its bad then the other side is responsible.

 

Scomo's fair go is honoured by avoiding the ball completely

 

and playing the man as hard as one can

 

That US politics are worse than hours

 

does not make ours attractive or honourable

 

 

[old man emu]

The first thing that would need to be done regarding the Head of State (HoS) of a republic is to clearly define the authority and responsibilities of the HoS and set their boundaries. We pretty much have that now. It would not take much more than the alteration of a few words in our Constitution.

 

Australia is a constitutional monarchy and our head of state is a monarch, the King or Queen of Australia. However, the monarch does not have a role in the day-to-day running of Australia. On the advice of the Prime Minister, the monarch appoints the Governor-General, who is the monarch’s representative in Australia. The Australian Constitution delegates (gives) certain powers to the Governor-General to act on behalf of the monarch. These include giving Royal Assent to laws passed by the Australian Parliament and starting the process for a federal election. While these powers are exercised by the Governor-General, in reality this is normally done on the advice of the Prime Minister and ministers. The Governor-General performs the ceremonial functions of head of state on behalf of the Queen. While Executive Government powers are exercised by the Governor-General or in the Governor-General’s name, such actions are carried out as advised by the Prime Minister and Ministers.

 

Parliamentary government means that the Executive Government comes from within the Parliament; responsible government means that the Executive Government is responsible to the Parliament. This is the central feature of a Westminster-style government following the United Kingdom model—in contrast to other systems of government where the Executive is quite separate and not directly answerable to the Legislature—for example, in the United States of America. We have been lucky that over the past 45 years, the people who have occupied the position of G-G  have carried out their functions apparently without swimming in the cesspit of Parliament. 

 

As for hereditary monarchs, their record up to the 19th Century was a mixture of good and woeful. However, starting with Victoria, the role of monarch has become more and more ceremonial. The House of Windsor since George V has shown that the monarchy can play an important part in unifying both a nation and an Empire/Commonwealth. In all practical senses, Australia functions as a republic which has selected as its overall HoS a person who also monarch of sixteen sovereign states. 

 

The monarch's correct title in Australia is:

 

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. 

 

The title comes from the  Royal Style and Titles Act 1973.  This document makes Queen Elizabeth II 'Queen of Australia', as the Assent to the Act changing the title set by the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953. It also eliminated both the reference to the United Kingdom, and the title 'Defender of the Faith'. The Labor Government led by Gough Whitlam proposed this change to the Australian form of the Royal style and titles to denote the precedence of Australia, the equality of the United Kingdom and each other sovereign nation under the Crown, and the separation of Church and State. The comparison of the new wording of the Royal title with that chosen by Robert Menzies' Government in the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 reflects the contrasting outlook not only of the two men and of the governments they led, but also of wider groups of Australians in the 1950s and the 1970s.

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't know how bad or good monarchies are, but what we have here works. When the Queen dies it will be Charles who becomes king and as far as I can see he will do just the same sort of job that Elizabeth has done for so long. The queen has done a fantastic job in my opinion, and I was a republican way back when she ascended to the throne.

 

The governors general have been put in place on the PM's say so and at least a couple have been poor choices. The only thing I don't like about the present system is that I cannot trust the PMs to make good choices of Governors General.

 

 

[old man emu]

The only thing I don't like about the present system is that I cannot trust the PMs to make good choices of Governors General.

 

That's definitely the difficulty that the constitution of a republic needs to solve. Do we make it so that Parliament decides from a list of potential persons, or does the choice go to a vote of the people? I'd like to see a panel composed of the senior members of parliament from all Parties acting without political favoritism select the nominees.

 

Given the duties of a HoS under a constitution, I believe that those in the political sphere would be better equipped to decide if a person had the knowledge and ability to carry out the task. You can't simply decide on popularity. The HoS is not like the King of Moomba. 

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I honestly can't see what the issue is..

 

Pesonally, I am happy with a constitutional monarchy - its works in a political system that largely works but it has its problems but not to the extent of say a beligerent dictatorship, etc. So, if it aint broke, why fix it.. Wil the world see us diffferently? Nope - most don't even know about our constitutional arrangements (I am not even sure the queen does). Will all Aussies walk around with a smile on their face because our monarch no longer lives in a foreign land? Doubt it.. Can't think of too many Aussies I know that even think about it.

 

But, if Aus has to become a republic, the so be it.. Simply say the GG is the head of state and the PM's recommendation is now an appointment. The GG will have no more powers than they have now, can call that position something like, let's be creative.. "Symbolic Head of State that does everything the PM says except when the house/s block supply or revolt - oh hyeah and head honcho entertainer of world miscreants"... And voilla.. Aus is a republic.

 

Personally, it is the political and media system that needs a little reform to be more representative and open; the GG and Queen are of no real conseuence.. WHen Charlie comes along, not a thing will change.

 

 

[old man emu]

Monarchy, Republic, Dictatorship, whatever. Those of us on the bottom of the heap will still be shat upon by those higher in the heap. Always has been. Always will.

 

 

[Marty_d]

So to sum up, if we went down the American route where the Executive is an equal third in power with lower house and Senate, we run the risk of having the sort of clown they've ended up with.

 

If we have a purely symbolic head of state, we replace the Queen with an Australian who has equally little effect on political decisions.

 

So why not just stick with what we have now?

 

 

[spacesailor]

Why not give the Australian Natives the job.

 

It will give them an incentive to better their own education,  so any pure blood can rein over us Invader,s.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Bruce]

I reckon I've lived in Australia for longer than a younger aborigine so why should I be subject to them? Because their ancestors were here longer than mine? What a nonsense argument. If that were true, then those with the most australopithecine genes would be in charge.

 

As for taking their land, well that sure was not me or my ancestors. They all worked hard and paid the going rate for any land they owned.

 

 

[Bruce]

And space, if you read about the arrival of the first fleet into Sydney harbour, you will read that the local aborigines didn't even look up from their oyster-gathering while the boats went past. Compared to D-day, not much of an invasion huh.

 

 

[old man emu]

So why not just stick with what we have now?

 

Perhaps those wanting a republic think that the "fake news" history we have been given is a stigma. The "fake news" is that the sole reason for the British colonisation was to create a dumping ground for their poor Petty criminals. Recent research, which we have discussed in other threads here, has shown that the colony was established for both territorial expansion (Britain -v- France and Russia) and for "military-industrial complex" reasons (hemp production for rope and timber for shipbuilding). The initial stage was to establish a presence in a place with "expendables". Not long after the colony got a foothold, the selection process for transportation gave precedence to those with higher skill levels.

 

The republicans have been selective in the information they give out. How many of you knew of the effect of the amendment to the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 which removes references to the monarch's British title mentioning "Great Britain and Ireland", as well as "Defender of the Faith"? Now we have the Monarch of Australia, who is also the Monarch of other Nations. 

 

The monarch is also the locus of oaths of allegiance; many employees of the Crown are required by law to recite this oath before taking their posts, such as all members of the Commonwealth parliament, all members of the state and territorial parliaments, as well as all magistrates, judges, police officers and justices of the peace. This is in reciprocation to the sovereign's Coronation Oath, wherein he or she promises "to govern the Peoples of... Australia... according to their respective laws and customs". Who would be the locus in a republic?

 

Another bugbear of the republicans is the use of the titles Governor-General and Governor, which harken back to pre-Federation times.  What would the head of a the Republic of Australia be called?

 

The possibility of our becoming a republic is pretty low, mainly because those who could bring it about (politicians) have made themselves a class of people which the populous believes are totally untrustworthy, self-aggrandizing scoundrels. 

 

 

[willedoo]

On the Trump subject, reading this morning's news it looks like Bernie is still on a roll. Polls in Texas and Nevada have both placed him well above other contenders. Nevada primaries are in a week's time and Texas a little over two weeks, so the polls have some significance. Makes one wonder how Bernie would go against Trump if he does pull off the Democrat nomination.

 

 

[old man emu]

This Primary Election business is a bit weird,but I suppose it's a way of letting the rank and file have a say in who their Presidential candidate should be.

 

The presidential primary elections and caucuses held in the various states, the District of Columbia, and territories of the United States form part of the nominating process of candidates for United States presidential elections. The United States Constitution has never specified the process; political parties have developed their own procedures over time. Some states hold only primary elections, some hold only caucuses, and others use a combination of both. 

 

It still seem that it's the person with the most to spend on advertising who is likely to get the nomination. The candidates don't seem to have any need to follow a party policy.

 

 

[Bruce]

Yep,OME, we see the power of advertising a lot.

 

You can actually get people to vote against their own interests if you advertise enough. Look at Trump: a rich guy who presented himself as anti-establishment and lots of poor people voted for him.

 

I read today how the US is so unequal that the richest 1% have 39% of the wealth, while the poorest 50% have minus 1.8%.

 

Yet with advertising, a lot of the poorest 50% voted for less taxes on the rich.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The queen has done a fantastic job in my opinion, and I was a republican way back when she ascended to the throne.

 

I hadn't decided whether I was a republican at that time, though I remember shaking the side of the cot and demanding to be let out.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...As for taking their land, well that sure was not me or my ancestors. They all worked hard and paid the going rate for any land they owned.

 

Bruce my ancestors also worked hard for their land, but "the going rate" they paid was ridiculously low because the previous custodians were not paid a cent for it.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

And space, if you read about the arrival of the first fleet into Sydney harbour, you will read that the local aborigines didn't even look up from their oyster-gathering while the boats went past. Compared to D-day, not much of an invasion huh.

 

Who wrote that account, Bruce? Remember that history is always written by the victors. 

 

Many of the more embarrassing aspect of the "settlement" of this great land were covered up.

 

Many thousands were killed while resisting the invasion. 

 

 

[Litespeed]

Cook was not perfect guy, he actually shoot some men to get their ceremonial shield and hunting tools. 

 

Straight out murder, but the victor takes the spoils.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Yep,OME, we see the power of advertising a lot.

 

You can actually get people to vote against their own interests if you advertise enough. Look at Trump: a rich guy who presented himself as anti-establishment and lots of poor people voted for him.

 

I read today how the US is so unequal that the richest 1% have 39% of the wealth, while the poorest 50% have minus 1.8%.

 

Yet with advertising, a lot of the poorest 50% voted for less taxes on the rich.

 

Not much different from here then.  Plenty of poor and struggling "quiet Australians" voted against their own interests and put the LNP, the party of the rich, in power.

 

 

It still seem that it's the person with the most to spend on advertising who is likely to get the nomination. The candidates don't seem to have any need to follow a party policy.

 

Then Bloomberg is sure to win the nomination as he's already said he'll spend $1billion to keep Sanders from getting it.  Bernie Sanders looks like the best man for the country but, again, I don't think he's going to get the chance.

 

 

[red750]

Donald loves putting his name on other people's property. He promised to "drain the swamp" but has only made it murkier.

 

I saw an interview with Bernie the other day on an American news program on SBS. He had some good policies, although maybe a bit optimistic, like paying off everyone's college debts, and expecting those who could afford it to pay their correct tax to pay for it. Those who can afford it will find ways of avoiding their tax obligations. He's going to have a struggle, taking on the pharmaceutical giants who are one of his prime targets.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's pretty amazing  Bernie's popularity especially with the younger voters. He's genuine in his approach  but I can't see the US going for anything but RAW Capitalism. They get that fed to them constantly. Nev

 

 

[willedoo]

Bernie's message must resonate with the young. Maybe they feel that successive governments have screwed the little guy over and Bernie offers some hope of the by the people, for the people thing.

 

He would have a huge task trying to beat Trump. Some of his policies are ambitious, but very inflexible and most likely unfunded without big tax hikes, pulling out of wars and reducing the defence budget. All Trump would have to do is follow Scotty from Marketing's election plan and go for the hip pocket. Polls show over 60% of respondents saying they are financially better off since Trump was elected. Bernie's big achilles heel is his health care plan. Other potential nominees have graduated plans where those on private health insurance can remain on that, much like Australia's system. Under Bernie's plan, all private health insurance stops and everyone goes on the government plan. About 160 million Americans will lose their private health insurance. That's all the ammunition Trump needs - Bernie's coming to take your money away.

 

Here's a fantasy - Bernie wins the nomination and uses his head and chooses Tulsi Gabbard as a running mate for VP. As a team, they go on to beat Trump. Bernie, because of his age, does one term and resigns leaving Tulsi Gabbard to win the Democrat nomination in 2024. She goes on to win two terms of the Presidency, through to 2032. Good for America and good for the world. A better option would be Gabbard as President and Sanders as VP, but she's got a mountain to climb before that could happen.

 

 

[Yenn]

Why did Trump win in the first place. I believe it was because the electorate was fed up with the same old hack politicians. Now we just have to wonder, have they had enough of the new super polly? Or do they need another 4 years to make up their minds.

 

Of course history was made by the stupidity of the Democrats wanting to go with Hillary Clinton. Rather the same as our Libs hanging on to John Howard, when even blind Freddy could see that he had passed his use by date.

 

 

[willedoo]

Yenn, you hit the nail right on the head.