Blog

The thoughts, opinions, happenings, and just plain ramblings of a seemingly boring person.

Back to normal……(?)

Well it looks like everything has finally settled down after the server move (hopefully). If anyone posted anything that didn't show up, just let me know.

Well today is Australia Day, and today i would like to renew my opinion that Australia should become a Republic, and have our own head of state. I mean, really, other than then, lets say those passionately British, and the older people in our community that still have an affection and alleigence to Britain and the Queen, what have we got to lose? I recognise that it would change absolutely jack in the way we live our lives, but we deserve to be our own country and be seperated from a monarchy that is increasingly becoming a joke and that really means nothing to most Australians other than a face on a coin. Okay i think i'll stop myself here.

On a less political note, tonight i watched a movie from a few years back: The New Guy. I love the scene where he arrives at his new school in the prison truck all dressed in the Hannibal Lecter restraints and all. Didnt make much of an impact when it came out in the movies here, but i liked it.

6 thoughts on “Back to normal……(?)

  1. i, too, support your opinion that australia should have its own head of state. which model do you recommend? i have a few...
    the howard model - politicians elect a president on 2/3 majority
    the american model - prime minister become president, we dispense with gov.general job.
    the andrew model - we directly elect the president (ie no seats - all australia is the seat, so to speak). anyone may run for it, optional voting. party affiliation banned on the election form.

    well, hey, i did first year in politics, whaddya expect?
    a/s

  2. ooo, i think i've opened a box here, might even be a pandorian model! (those bears are so cute)

    Anyway, i think the model that was proposed at the referrendum was adequate. It was rejected becuase of a lack of proper understanding by the wider public.

    That was the model where the politicians elected a politically neutral President based on a majority. Sounds bad, yes, but the current head of state IN Australia (the gov gen) is chosen by ONE person: the Prime minister. The the President under this system is basically a glorified gov-general, neutral to any political party, and nothing more.

    Why can't we, the public elect a president? Because the election would be turned into a (american style) political party fight by which the only people rich enough (millionaires), or the political parties, have enough money in order to fund a large campaign.

    The proposed system would be fairer than the current system (by which the head of state is chosen by lineage, and his/her representative here chosen by one person), but still preserves the gov-generals eminent role but, renamed pres.

    (my two cents)

  3. the fundamental problem, however, with the howard model is that either way, we elect a figurehead. this leads to, well, a bunch of money spent on a useless institution. i'm not surprised that australians didn't buy it.

    there would be no risk of an american presidential system. it would be very similar to the current qld state election - we have no upper-class; hence, no huge-budgeted elections. knowing australians, we'd prolly vote against them anyway.

    the purpose of a governor-general is to rubber-stamp; hence, no purpose. only once has a gov.gen. ever had the proverbials to sack a prime minister, and that's only because within 30 mins, whitlam would have sacked the gov.gen. (ah, the things you learn in lectures).

    a renaming of the prime minister to president, and a dispensing of the governor-general - title and role - is, out of these options, the only way to fly. a non-political politician makes no sense.

    a/s

  4. I can see the merits of that. But I also think that it would be nice to have a head of state mostly removed from politics that can respectfully act in the best interests of the country rather than personal gain, power, or party glory. So he/she wouldn't be a politician (as the gov-general really isn't), but a well chosen Australian to represent the country.

    In my opinion Australians didn't buy the 'howard model' (i don't like calling it that since Howard is a staunch monarchist, and played the referrendum so it would go down), because they didn't like the idea of politicians electing the head of state, and weren't educated enough about the merits of such a system.

  5. how could you ensure that a head of state would respectfully act in the best interests of the country, without having direct accountability to said nation of people?

    more importantly, how could this head of state, well, act? leaving respect and the country's best interests behind, they wouldn't have the power to act, because there is no place for it. the h of r proposes, the senate veto's...there's really no place for another layer of government. what would be unique about the head of state?

    i use 'howard model' because it sounds better than 'politicians republic', and it was kinda made by howard anyway.

    (btw, i wouldn't be this vicious if you weren't majoring in a related area :P)

    a/s
    EDIT: (andrew's last post)I shall, nonetheless, ignore the END - but only to make one point.
    the head of state being australian simply makes for an $300,000/yr hole in the budget.
    said head of state is useless - we may as well just rename the prime minister.
    peace and conflict studies is kinda related, though distantly. my majors are cultural sociology and Biblical studies - how related are they? *ignores my first year* πŸ˜›
    (btw, imho, a happier way to make an end is to say 'ok, one last post each'...that would be nicer πŸ™‚ )
    thank you in advance for allowing my last post, oh grand chief poobah πŸ˜€
    a/s

  6. Well my major is in peace and conflict studies, not Australian politics...

    The head of state would be an Australian not a Bristain. That really is my main point. He/She would be as useless as the Queen or really any other democatic nation with a (basically useless) head of state: Britain, Netherlands, Japan, etc., but as useful as the gov-gen. But an Australian nontheless. He/she is accountable to the people through their representatives in parliament.

    righteo i think this thread is long enough! I am officially ending it! Any other (serious) posts on the subject will be deleted by me. (i get to gave the final word on my own blog; THERE'S a democracy for you) bwahahahahaha!!!
    EDIT: too bad! i get the last say! although i will leave your post up, albeit still before mine!

Leave a comment