Happy Queen's Birthday Holiday

Like in all previous years The Age has printed its usual anti-monarchist editorial for Queen’s Birthday holiday. “As The Age has asked before, why do we continue to mark an occasion that is an unnecessary link to Australia's colonial past?” Yes, they have asked the question many times, but they keep refusing to acknowledge the answer: Because the Australians – in their overall majority – want the Monarchy.

Interestingly enough the result of the most recent opinion poll on this question, published two days ago, never appeared in The Age, neither in the printed version nor online:

According to the Roy Morgan Research “an increased majority of Australians (58%, up 6% - the highest since July 1988) believe Australia should remain a Monarchy while a decreasing number of Australians 35% (down 2% since October 2011) believe Australia should become a republic with an elected president and 7% (down 4%) are undecided — according to a special Morgan Poll of Australians taken over two nights (June 5/6, 2012).

"Now more Australians (48%, up 5% since October 2011) also support Australia remaining as a Monarchy if Prince Charles were to be crowned King than not with 43% (down 5%) of Australians wanting a Republic with an elected President, and 9% of Australians can’t say.

"But, if Prince William were to be crowned King, a clear majority of 58%, (up 5% since October 2011) would want to continue with the Monarchy while only 34% (down 5%) of Australians would want a republic with an elected president and 8% (unchanged) of Australians can’t say.

"Analysis by voting intention shows more ALP supporters (48%) want a Republic with an elected President compared to 47% who would prefer to continue with the Monarchy. However L-NP supporters clearly favour continuing with the Monarchy (72%) and only 23% want a republic with an elected president."

The Age should start asking questions about why this has occurred instead of pushing their old and rather tired editorial policy on a disinterested Australian people. The circulation culd only benefit.

Read More

Who deserves a chance?

The Sunday Age has urged its audience to vote for the ALP: “With no great enthusiasm, we say the ALP should be returned on Saturday.” Why? “Gillard deserves her chance”. That really sums it up.

Interestingly enough, the editorial did not mention one reason for a Gillard vote that is usually so dear to the Fairfax media: A republic. Not one hint to vote for Labor because of the party’s republican agenda. What does this tell us? No hope for “a” republic under Gillard? In order not to embarrass her, better don’t mention “a” republic. Or should Monarchists not be driven into the Coalition’s arms? After all, a third of the Labor voters said No to a republic in the 1999 referendum. In this close electoral race every vote counts and could decide who shall form the next Australian government.

During the election campaign Julia Gillard has kept quiet on the republic issue. At the National Press Club in Canberra mid-July “Ms Gillard has said that she does not sense that the republic debate is a burning issue for Australians and has refused to promise that she will hold a referendum if elected.”

"Where the republic debate went wrong was that it became too much about what people like me think and not enough about what Australian community thinks. This has to be about a community consensus and I don't believe we are there yet."

What if she never gets there?

Read More

Sexist

Why is it right for the Australian Labor Party (ALP) to try and flock women around the female contender to the office of prime minister (The Age: Women rally to Gillard as ALP leads poll)? And why would it be considered sexist, should Tony Abbott try to do the same with his fellow males?

Our Lady of Altona aka Saint Julia, has already been beatified by the media, she can do no wrong.

The media have already made up their mind about “The Mad Monk”, and his admiration for women (The Age: Abbott praises the women in his life) has been ridiculed.

Who is the most sexist in this country?

Read More

The Victorian Labor Party plays games with the Australian Monarchy

You know a party is in trouble, when it attacks the country's institutions. Victoria will go to the polls in November this year and Premier John Brumby will try to get a mandate. He did not win office, but inherited the Premier's chair from Steve Bracks, who to everybody’s surprise at 52 retired as Premier of Victoria on 27 July 2007.

Labor's new 176-page draft policy platform contains threats like pushing for Australia to become a republic or trying to rewrite Victoria's constitution. Victoria's constitution, written in 1855 and repeatedly amended since, is now unnecessarily complicated Labor says, and it will seek cross-party support to rewrite the constitution to make it "a readable and accessible document for all Victorians". Well, tell that the US citizens, whose constitution was written in 1787!

Today’s Age published some other key elements of the Victorian ALP’s manifesto:

■ Funding new hospitals and health services to cope with an ageing population (about 1000 Victorians a week turn 65).
■ Boosting early childhood services and building more kindergartens to cater for the population boom (about 200 babies are born every day).
■ "Greening" Victoria through policies designed to tackle climate change and move the state away from its overwhelming reliance on ''dirty'' energies, such as brown coal.
■ Confronting Victoria's booze culture by launching new education campaigns on the dangers of binge drinking.

Would anybody guess that the same party that puts these points into its election platform has been in power for nearly eleven years and is responsible for all the failures it is promising to fix?

What about this hypocritical slogan of “greening Victoria and tackling climate change”? In 2008, brown coal fueled 96 percent of the electricity generated in Victoria, making it a huge contributor to our total greenhouse gas emissions. Over the last 10 years, Victoria’s reliance on coal has increased. Hazelwood power station produces 19 million tonnes of greenhouse pollution every year. This is the same amount produced by all of Melbourne’s 1.4 million households. It was due to be decommissioned in 2009 until the state Labor government extended its licence to pollute until 2031. Why would anybody believe that the ALP, so highly dependent on donations from both the unions and the coal industry, could tackle the climate change issue?

And how would a re-elected Labor government be able to “fund new hospitals and health services” after John Brumby agreed to hand over responsibility (and 30 percent of the state’s GST) to Canberra? Put up more speeding cameras to generate income? Or allow even more gambling machines? Mr Packer will certainly put up new casinos should Labor give him more licences (after he donated something to the party's war fund, of course).How will Mr Brumby finance programmes to rehabilitate pocker machine addicts?

Where does this obsession with “binge drinking” come from? “Launching new education campaigns”. Why do schools fail to explain the dangers of legal and illegal drugs? Instead of new “education campaigns” schools should be able to fulfil this task, they can do this at lower costs and in a more comfortable environment for the pupils.

And of course Labor does not go to the heart of the problem. If there are issues in Melbourne’s city centre, then it is to a great part due to the fact that there is no public transport at night worth that term. Come midnight and everybody who is in the centre, will not find a train or tram to return home safely. “Livable Melbourne” is not a 24-hour-city, but a six a.m. to ten p.m. city.

Will we see an ALP policy for the miserable public transport situation in Melbourne? The ever expanding city boundaries make Labor proud, but that these “working families” are left out in the boon docks without a proper train or even a decent bus service. For more than 40 years Melbourne has not seen any expansion of its rail network. When a new 500 metre tram line was inaugurated two years ago, the whole media staff of the minister was over excited and lobbied the servile TV stations dutifully reported on this great achievement of the state government.

And this is how the metropolitan rail network looks like:Should anybody believe, a returned Labor government would be willing and able to start the necessary major work?

Republicanism a vote puller?
But instead of dealing with the necessary basic duties of the state’s administration, Labor gives the impression of living in an ivory tower and preferring to attack our Constitutional Monarchy, the only institution neither Labor nor John Brumby have full control of. The platform says Labor will conduct plebiscites to demonstrate support for an Australian head of state, and will then "initiate an appropriate referendum" on a republic. What a rubbish! Does the ALP intend to hold plebiscites in Victoria? Every voter can see through this cheap stunt.

The Victorian ALP has been renowned for its dirty tricks in election campaign, but the attack on our Monarchy puts the crown on all the previous experiences.
Nothing of this policy platform is promising an honourable policy after the November elections. This government has passed its use-by-date.Victoria was the fist colony to show Queen Victoria on its stamps, the "half lengths" (1850-56) showing the Queen with her sceptre and orb in a half-length portrait.

Read More

Moral Outrage - there and here

The British weekly “The New Statesman” is not known for its love of the Monarchy. Publishing an article In defence of Sarah Ferguson therefore comes as a surprise and as a double edged sword:

“So, the tabloid press run by the passionate anti-Monarchist Rupert Murdoch has returned to doing what it does best today, other than attacking Labour leaders, and exposed a pre-planned sting operation on a leading Royal, Sarah Ferguson, who apparently offered access to her husband Prince Andrew in exchange for cash.

"Friends of ‘Andrew’ are lining up to condemn her in a rather ugly fashion, with Digby Jones today branding her 'delusional'. And once more this rather insecure woman is under fire. Certainly, it doesn't look good. She will, it appears, to anything to dent her vast overdraft, and is clearly not uninterested in making money (the picture in the News of the World of her with ‘eyes lit up’ at a pile of cash is, indeed, troubling, though this does seem to be a case, given the unethical practices that made this story work, of ‘He who is without sin cast the first stone’). “

Prince Andrew's role
Prince Andrew, of course, works as an unpaid special representative for a British government trade and investment agency. As The Independent wrote:

“And when it comes to opening doors for UK business, it doesn't hurt that his mother is the Queen. When he is abroad, meeting ministers and officials, he drops that fact into conversations and his audience laps it up.

"He says that countries such as China, which used to be ruled by a royal family, respond to this particularly well. 'They haven't lost their historical perspective on how things are done, I suspect. They have an understanding.'

"Clearly, though, being the son of the Queen gets him access to foreign ministers and officials, particularly in countries in the Middle East and Asia where the Royal Family has a high standing. He can cajole, coax and charm. In October, Lord Levene, chairman of Lloyd's of London, wrote personally to the Duke to thank him for helping the reinsurance market in obtaining a licence to operate in China. The Duke had met the vice-mayor of Shanghai and raised the issue.

"The Doncaster-based furniture maker BLP also credits him with having helped in the lifting of unexpected tax duties on the new £35m factory it had built in China. Without his assistance, the firm could have gone bust.

"His efforts don't always work. But when they do, the Duke is anxious not to claim any credit for himself: 'I'm not the person delivering; a company delivers.' Taking the plaudits, where due, might spare him some flak - but then he doesn't seem too bothered what some people think."

Meanwhile in Victoria
To return to the moral outrage that the worldwide broadcasting of the videos taken secretly of the Duchess of York, it is not a bad idea to return to Australia, because here one letter to the editor of The Age put the perspectives right:

YOU can imagine John Brumby's eyes lighting up when he hears the going rate that Fergie charges for meeting someone influential.

After all, for a fee of $5,000 companies can buy exclusive, one-on-one sessions with Victoria’s Premier John Brumby and or some ministers. The Australian Labor Party’s fund-raising branch Progressive Business is organising these get-togethers for which Murdoch’s News of the World offered the Duchess money. While everybody pretends to be appalled by this act of encashment, hardly anyone in Victoria seems to be upset that access to the premier and his cabinet can be bought.

Progressive Business aims for gross receipts of $2,000,000 this year. The Age reported that "a $10,000 gold sponsorship of a table at a last year’s dinner earned coal industry executive Alan Bond a seat next to – and the chance to bend the ear of – Mr. Brumby." Anyone wondering why the dirtiest coal power stations in this country are operating in Victoria and why the environmentalists have no chance to see them shut down?

THAT’S the real scandal and not the fact that a broke former member of the Royal Family fell into a trap. But following up this scandal infers that the media would actually target the real culprits and not aim at the soft spot. It is not easy to name and shame political corruption, when the money that changes hands also finances newspaper and TV ads.

Of course the Duchess of York was wrong in allegedly accepting money and she did apologised unlike the Australian politicians who still refuse to recognise that they are doing anything wrong in accepting money to grant access. Selling access to the premier and cabinet ministers will go on – and in an election year probably accelerate.

Read More

Nelson quits politics

Yesterday Brendan Nelson announced he will quit politics at the end of the month. And with his departure from Parliament, the former leader of the opposition receives the nice media comments that were denied him, when he was doing a fine job: The Age: “Nelson too good a bloke for hard truths of politics”:

“Dr Nelson, defence minister at the time, was to those soldiers and just about everyone who got to meet him in his numerous public roles, a good bloke.
"He was personable, intelligent and worked hard at getting on top of the detail required in a high-profile career.”

He never received such positive comments after he was elected against all odds in November 2007 as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Australian Opposition. The media would have preferred the republican Malcolm Turnbull over the Monarchist Brendan Nelson and they were very upset that their forecast was proven wrong.

Nelson as the “darling of the [Liberal] party’s left” (The Age, 26th August 2009) was vehemently despised by the republican and Liberal politician (and "wannabe" MP) Greg Barns:

“Brendan Nelson on the other hand is shallow, has swung to the Right simply because it is opportune to do so, and is a leader of whom Minchin and Abbott approve. Nelson believes in only one thing – himself. His career is a testament to that fact. He is a Faustian character.”

The leader of the opposition
When Nelson was elected leader of the opposition, the The Sydney Morning Herald wrote: "Dr Nelson defeated Mr Turnbull, the former environment minister, by 45 votes to 42 in the ballot.
"But the closeness of the result immediately raised speculation both inside and outside the party that the matter was far from settled and Mr Turnbull would bide his time before making another attempt."

Nelson was doomed when he announced on 1st December 2007 as a newspaper headline put it: I won't support republic: Nelson

“Dr Nelson said today that like his predecessor as Liberal leader, John Howard, he did not support moving to a republic.

"’I think the current arrangements in Australia, as we've seen over the last week or so, serve our nation very well,’ he told ABC television.”

From then on he had no chance to win over the media, but I won’t bother you with too many quotations.

They had their field day in September 2008, when their republican darling Malcolm Turnbull finally managed to get Nelson's job.

The Daily Telegraph: "Mr Turnbull becomes the first republican to lead the Liberal Party but the appointment could create a split amongst conservatives.

"He said, after defeating incumbent Brendan Nelson by a vote of 45 to 41, that he would not push the republican issue until the Queen, who is more popular in Australia than the monarchy itself, was gone from the throne.

"Mr Turnbull chaired the Australian Republican Movement from 1993 to 2000 and led the failed 1999 campaign to make Australia a republic in a referendum."

And as we now know, Turnbull tried to join the Australian Labor Party, after the failed attempt to bring down the Monarchy. A logical step, considering that the ALP has a fiercely republican platform. What a pity he didn’t make it into the ALP’s rank and file, because whatever Turnbull gets involved with is bound to fail. His republican stunt was rebutted by the Australian people and the cursed Liberal Party will be crushed with Malcolm as their candidate for prime ministership.

And there goes Brendan Nelson, a really nice chap, as everybody says today, oh well, may be excluding Greg Barns who seems to hate him with a passion.

Read More

No Comment

Yesterday's front page of the Murdoch newspaper mX showing the republican politician and musician Peter Garrett presently in charge as the ALP's Federal Environment Minister to supervise the destruction of the environment in Australia.

Read More

Keep Labour Day!

Yesterday Victoria enjoyed a public holiday. No, it was not Moomba Day, even if the TV coverage seems to suggest this. It was Labour Day, a special holiday for the working people – or as Kevin Rudd would say: the working families.

I did not notice any celebrations of members of the working class. All streets were quiet, well, except for the noise from the Moomba parade, which you could not avoid. One TV station briefly interviewed a worker, who is about to lose her job due to Pacific Brands closing all production plants in Australia. But even she was not in the mood to go out into the street and let the Victorians know about her anger and frustration. Could anyone spot an ALP march for the worker's rights?

Unlike our republicans friends I don’t propagate the abolition of Labour Day for lack of interest. The media did not even lead an attack against Labour Day, unlike their well-prepared though ill-written articles against Queen’s Birthday holiday or Australia Day. Last year The Canberra Times led the squadron: “The focus of the Queen’s Birthday long weekend was raised in Parliament in June 2000, where the relevance and significance were questioned by the Hon John Hatzistergos. An almost identical article to Ms Sherlock’s was run in today’s The Age. I’m not a die hard Monarchist, a Children’s Day (sorry I don’t raise goats) sounds plausible. I know this might sound kind of out there, but maybe we could incorporate ‘Children’s Day’ in the ‘Family Day’ we now celebrate in November?“

Emily Sherlock's article demanded: "Instead of honouring our monarch we could soon be honouring our children, with the minister calling for the Queen's Birthday break to be renamed the Kids' Day long weekend."

In The Age Michael Cooney favoured a “Kid’s Day” as well: "This year should be the last Queen's Birthday long weekend. It's time to replace a holiday based on the past with a holiday based on the future. So next year, the first Monday in June should be a new public holiday: Kids' Day." A reply to Sherlock's and Cooney's suggestions can be read here and here.

Of course we had a "Children's Day" in Victoria. It was part of the tradition of the Royal Show for over 120 years before it was abolished by the Kennett conservative government in the mid 1990s. The Age seems to have forgotten that.

The Age, of course, was more robust in its refusal of our Monarch’s birthday holiday: “Queen's birthday holiday gets to the heart of what it means to be Australian today, when only a minority of the population can relate to the redundant symbols and trappings of monarchy and colonialism … in 1958 Empire Day was renamed Commonwealth Day, and the official holiday was withdrawn due to lack of interest and relevance and has now rightly faded into obscurity”.

Who decided that Commonwealth Day was redundant or people did not care for a public holiday? Probably the same sort of politicians that decided we didn't want a Children's Day!

“Lack of interest and relevance” could be equally attributed to Labour Day. Should The Age’s criteria be used for the upholding of Labour Day, then it will might “rightly faded into obscurity”, as the editorialist had wished for Queen’s Birthday holiday. I could cite likeminded opinion pieces on Australia Day.

But contrary to the outspoken republicans I can assure the working class, that I fully support having Labour Day holiday here and elsewhere. I think that it serves honouring employees and those people who are self-employed, but depend on the goodwill of employers as well.

I don’t want it changed to a "work-relations day" or to the official Moomba Holiday. I want it as a reminder of the work of the people that is done quietly, but without which this country would not function. At the same time I claim Queen’s Birthday holiday not just for the Monarchists, but for our history and our future, because it reminds us of the overall good functioning democracy in Australia. Labour Day and Queen's Birthday holiday are two sides of the same coin.

Read More