Aussie republicans claim not to be afraid of Tony Abbott

If it weren’t for their adherence to an obscure ideology, one could feel sorry for the Australian republicans.
It was only on 26^th July 2013 that David Morris, national director of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) told AAP (published in The Australian):

 “... when we try and talk about Australia (and a republic) the media has no interest."

Morris said: "It's very depressing."

A month later he gave another interview to AAP published by Ninesmn on 26th August, Abbott 'won't set backrepublican cause' , this time to claim:

“The head of Australia's republican movement says the cause would not be hurt by Tony Abbott, a monarchist, becoming prime minister.

“If the polls are right, a man who once headed Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy is on track to become the next prime minister.

“But Australian Republican Movement national director David Morris says Mr Abbott's potential elevation to the top job would be unlikely to set back the cause of constitutional change."

By this claim Mr Morris contradicts the July article, where The Australian published these figures:

“In the early 1990s some 70 per cent of Australians wanted a republic while 30 per cent were monarchists.

“But since the failed 1999 referendum, support for a republic has dropped to about 40 per cent.”

In January 2013 The Age quoted Mr Morris with these remarks:

"The Australian Republican Movement's national director, David Morris, said republicanism had been off the agenda since the referendum because of a ''complete lack of political leadership''.

"Mr Morris said the movement was launching a new campaign, with the slogan ''Our identity: who do we want to be?'' and would focus on Australians ''growing up'' and gaining their independence."

Did anybody take notice of the ARM’s identity campaign? It left no impact here. The ARM launched the campaign in October 2012 in Hobart and went public with an ARM sponsored opinion poll that hardly showed their strength. The Age reported under the headline Republic? Young want to keep it in the (royal) family:

"They were the hope of the republican side - confident young Australians with weak emotional ties to Britain increasingly taking over from ageing monarchists and putting the next referendum on the issue beyond doubt. It hasn't quite worked out that way.

"Research commissioned by the Australian Republican Movement shows that 45 per cent of Australians under 30 want a republic - fewer than any other age group apart from those 70 or over. Strongest support, at 54 per cent, is among baby boomers, particularly men.

"Moreover, young people are much more positive towards the Queen. As one young participant in a focus group put it, she is ''like a mother figure''. If Australia became a republic, ''we'd feel as though we'd lost a family'', said another.

"Nevertheless, he concedes that the research is sobering. Or, in the words of UMR Research, which did the polling, ''the Australian Republican Movement's task is massive''.

The research shows that while 48 per cent of voters overall favour a republic, only 18 per cent are strong supporters. The same proportion rate the issue as very important, but they are more likely to be monarchists than republicans. As UMR put it, ''As passion grows, republican support declines.''

It is more likely, that David Flint’s remarks on Tony Abbott are closer to reality and the improbability of any republican progress under a possible Prime Minister Tony Abbott. He wrote:

"On Wednesday afternoon, instead of prepping for the debate, writes Mark Baker in The Age 24 August, 2013 (Tony) Abbott took himself to the northern outskirts of Brisbane to mingle with members of the Pine Rivers Memorial Bowls Club. He thoughtfully brought a framed portrait of the Queen to replace the one that went missing during renovations a couple of years ago.

''The monarch is a great symbol of unity. The Crown has served us well,'' said Tony Abbott, as the bowlers voted with applause."

But an election is only finished, when the last votes are counted. And referenda are not won by the assertion of either side, that they have a majority only because one of their numerous self-organised opinion polls claim they'd had a majority.

Read More

Today a republican - gone tomorrow

Yesterday the Australian federal Treasurer Wayne Swan stated his republican creed:

"The time may not indeed be right for an immediate referendum, but it is my belief that it is always the right time to argue for the merits of a republic and prepare the ground for future constitutional change. The road to an Australian republic is a long one, without a timetable, and so the journey must continue.

"The case for a republic is as simple as it is compelling, and one that I have been making since my maiden parliamentary speech in 1993."

Funny that he referred to his maiden speech, since yesterday's press conference might be the preface of his swan song, his last political statement. Today he is faced with a disastrous opinion poll "Swan likely to lose seat amid Queensland Labor despair" (The Age, 4th June 2013):

"Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan looks set to lose his Brisbane seat of Lilley for a second time, with internal polling suggesting Labor will struggle to retain any Queensland seats north of the Brisbane River at the September 14 federal election.
"The results are so dire for Labor that a ''worst case'' scenario suggests Kevin Rudd could become Labor's ''last man standing'' in Queensland, with the former prime minister the only Queensland MP who is seen as likely to retain his seat.

"The Queensland polling, taken in recent weeks in Mr Swan's electorate, is believed to show that his primary vote has collapsed to just 28 per cent, compared to 41 per cent at the last election.

"Mr Swan has held the seat since 1998, although at the last election his margin narrowed from 8 per cent to 3.2 per cent, with a 10 percentage point fall in his primary vote."

Let's hope for the best that could happen. Wayne Swan will lose his seat in September and have a lot of time afterwards to become a full time republican propagandist. Or should we say "itinerant preacher"? Even The Age's editorial admitted today: "The increasing likelihood is that a federal Coalition government led by Tony Abbott, an ardent monarchist, would consign a republic to the political deep freeze for at least a few more years. "

No need to feel sorry - neither for Mr. Swan nor for The Age. This letter to the editor says it all:

According to internal polling, Wayne Swan is about to receive a well-deserved and long overdue ''efficiency dividend'' from his electorate (4/6). Can't wait.
Lucien Zalcman, North Fitzroy

Seen at Federation Square in Melbourne.

It goes without saying, that The Age, like the ABC, has totally ignored The Queen's Diamond Coronation Jubilee. All they could publish was a re-print from The Sunday Telegraph last Wednesday, 29th May: Working overtime. No wonder, The Age no longer uses the PR sloag: "If it matters to you, it's in The Age." Such an obvious lie wouldn't work anymore.

Read More

Nicola Roxon quits - The Queen carries on

This morning Nicola Roxon resigned from Cabinet as Attorney-General and will not contest her seat in the election on 14th September. If she is known for something, then it is certainly for her fierce republicanism.

In 2006 she suggested, Queen's Birthday holiday should be replaced by something more to her liking.

"As a committed republican, I find it hard to justify the time off for the Queen's Birthday. Nevertheless, I am not sure that the republican cause can survive if the cost is one less long weekend.

"Perhaps Tax Return Day? Maybe we can make the Australian "Christmas in July" official?

"Or why not Socceroos' Day?

"I am only half-joking."

Australians for Constitutional Monarchists' National Convenor, David Flint, cites another quote of Nicola Roxon:

"We reported in this column on 13 March, 2006 the brutal words of the Hon. Nicola Roxon, the federal shadow attorney general in Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition: 'There are no new monarchists being born,' she said, only months after swearing or affirming her allegiance to the Sovereign. 'If we bide our time they will all die off…'"

Nothing could be more wrong. While she resigned from her job "to spend more time with my daughter", Her Majesty has been Queen of Australia for 61 years and shows no sign of retiring.

Read More

Australian republicanism at 16-year low

That must have cost The Sunday Age some tears: To admit that "more Australians [are] favouring retaining the monarchy" than to make Australia a republic.

Despite some re-emerging political momentum for the republican cause, voters appear increasingly apathetic about the idea of replacing the Queen and governor-general with an Australia head of state, although many are prepared to accept a republic after Queen Elizabeth's reign ends.

An Age/Nielsen poll taken earlier this month shows support for a republic is now running at 44 per cent. This is the lowest level since 1994, and well down from the peak of 57 per cent in 1999, the year the question was tested in a national referendum.

The national poll of 1400 people found almost half (48 per cent) are now against the idea. Such a level of hostility has not been recorded since the late 1970s, when about 61 per cent were against a republic.

Republicans put all their hope in the Queen of Australia's death - as if the people would rush out in a referendum and kick out King Charles. Can you think of anything more "un-Australian" than to deny a newcomer a fair chance to show his talents?


This idea shows that Australian republicanism is an inplausible concept.

Read More

Quick republican response after four years

One can’t help admiring the Australian republicans’ quick reaction force. On 28th July 2010 two of their leading men commented on a news item that was published on 14th June 2006. David Donovan, media director of the Australian Republican Movement and its Queensland branch convener and Major General Mike Keating AO retired from Her Majesty’s Australian service to commence another battle as the chair of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM), discussed on the ABC’s “The drum unleashed" the Republic Audit - Costs of Republicanism Paid or Payable by the Taxpayer by David Flint (National Convener of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy). By examining David Flint’s calculated costs of transforming Australia into “a” republic the ARM's bigwigs followed the rule: Minimise the republic’s cost and exaggerate the costs of the Monarchy.

By doing so they end up with a strange calculation. The two top republicans claimed “a five day tour by Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall in 2005” cost “almost $400,000“. They did not check their records because Prince Charles was in Australia in March 2005 – and got married in April 2005. He was not accompanied by Camilla Parker-Bowles as the Duchess of Cornwall was known before her marriage to the Prince of Wales.

It is equally wrong to attribute “$1.8 million for a visit by the Queen to Melbourne in 2006”. In March 2006 she opened the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne as Head of the Commonwealth. If the sum mentioned was correct, then it would had have to be paid even by a republican Australia – as long as the country stayed in the Commonwealth and wanted to host events related to this world organisation. By the way, according to Wikipedia and the ABC the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne cost “over 1 billion Australian dollars and a high likelihood the Victorian taxpayer would have to cover the expense”.

The republicans did not criticise the $1,000,000,000 cost of the Games, but a 0,18% faction for the Head of the Commonwealth, presuming the figure was correct.

Wrong is also this claim: “Not paying for royal tours in future will be an ongoing benefit for Australian taxpayers for the rest of the life of the Australian nation.” Unless an Australian republic pulls down the shutters, refuses to receive royal visitors and opens its gates only for republican heads of state, then there will always be costs which have to covered by the host. Or will republicans put up the sign ”BYO” and demand from official guests to this nation that they pay for their visit? What an extraordinary thought, which no nation has ever adopted.

When it comes to stays of members of our Royal Family, the republicans should be reminded, that unlike unwelcome relatives who turn up at the door mat and demand entrance, neither the Queen of Australia nor the heir to the throne or anyone else who belongs to the House of Windsor arrive on the Australian shores without being invited. They do not hand themselves an invitation.

However, they are welcome and we would like to see them more often down under. That would give the two republicans more material to complain about – and maybe they would even get the facts right next time.

Read More

Aussie Republicans cling to wishful thinking

Contrary to his convictions ARM chairman Major-General Michael Keating must have had one or two or more toasts in honour of Queen’s Birthday. How else is it possible, that he sees double figures? According to the traditional and tired pro-republican Queen’s Birthday article in today’s Sunday Age, he claimed: "Sixty to 80 per cent of people are republicans and half of them vote for the Coalition." These figures are about double of the usual republican paid opinion polls and have nothing to do with reality. But wishful thinking characterizes the Australian republican existence.

Of course Queen’s Birthday is always a day of hope for republicans. They cling to the idea that they can raise enough discomfort with Australia’s oldest holiday to fill their ranks with fighters for constitutional change. This year’s republican hope lies with the opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey, “who has taken over from Malcolm Turnbull as the torchbearer for republican sentiment within the Liberal Party” as The Sunday Age put it. However, Mr. Hockey poured water into the republican wine and said the Coalition was unlikely to adopt a party position on the republic but leave it as a matter for individuals.
No progress for republicanism in Australia. Happy Queen’s Birthday, folks!!

Read More

Bye, bye, Mr. Turnbull

Malcolm Turnbull’s departure from politics is good news for all Australians. Considering the media coverage he received after announcing he would not seek re-election in the forthcoming renewal of the federal parliament, you could have assumed one of the greatest leaders Australia has ever seen, had passed away. But Malcolm Turnbull has only political failures plastering his path – and personal success by become a multi-millionaire and the richest man in parliament.

The media will miss this fierce republican and The Age wrote in today's political obituary:

Mr Abbott offered another reminder this week that he is not the moderniser that Mr Turnbull could have been. On ABC television, he scoffed at questions about a republic, saying that "a republic is generations away and I don't expect to be in Parliament when I am 100". By contrast, Mr Turnbull identified where Australia's destiny and heart lay more than a decade ago. The 1999 referendum result does not alter his prescience in leading the Australian Republican Movement.

Mr Turnbull might have been the one to oversee the reformation of the Liberals as a 21st-century party. On defining issues such as climate change and a republic he stood firm on principle.

Obviously Tony Abbott’s Monarchist conviction is not acceptable for the newspaper’s journalist who is not willing to praise Tony Abbott for standing “firm on principle” since they despise the Monarchist principles. Only republican principles are good principles?The Age:

Mr Abbott has been central in Mr Turnbull's two major political setbacks. Not only did he knock him out of the leadership but he was a main player in defeating the republic referendum in 1999, for which Mr Turnbull had fought.

Thank you, Tony Abbott for the double knock-out. Let's hope, Malcolm Turnbull gave himself the final blow.
In June 2009 King Juan Carlos of Spain met the then Leader of the opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, who acknowledged His Majesty's role in the Spanish democracy.

Read More

Surprise, surprise

John Warhurst, senior deputy chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, came to the rescue of the Murdoch media’s failed attempt to cause a stir.

The Australian was his familiar platform to accuse “opponents and Buckingham Palace of ‘muddying the waters’. ‘The position is inherently complicated, and Australians will find it hard to believe that we don't actually have an Australian as head of state,’ Warhurst said.”

Well, as explained here, The Queen of Australia is of course Australian, just as she is Canadian, Barbadian or Jamaican.

We do need to remind republicans that the Queen is a symbol of multiculturalism and multi-nationalism. As it seems, republicans have great difficulties with that concept.

Read More

Echoes

The republican media had a hard week. They were obliged to report on Prince William’s unofficial visit to Australia – and its obvious success -, but then they had to find means to degrade and minimize it.

Today’s editorial of The Age is a good example. Under the headline Goodbye, sweet prince. Hello, republic debate it repeated its well-known phrases. “He left these shores yesterday morning, having earned a good amount of respect and, indeed, affection - qualities he obviously feels in return about Australia. … The Age has long believed that a crucial defining point in Australia's nationhood is the inevitable severing of vestigial ties with the British monarchy.”

The Age even dug up old Turnbull from his retirement mansion, from where he wrote an article for Murdoch’s London newspaper The Times, stating 'that Prince William, for all his charms, will make as much difference to the republic debate as a rapturous welcome in the United States 'would indicate that the Americans are having second thoughts about 1776'".

Well, I don’t want to disappoint the editorialist, but would he do some research s/he would find quite a lot of US Monarchists who do have second thoughts about 1776. After all, nearly a third of those who read the RadicalRoyalist's blog are based in the USA. Need some help in getting in contact with them, dear Age?

The Age's arch-republican writer Michelle Grattan also read Murdoch’s London Times and was obviously delighted to find recycled Malcolm Turnbull phrases, Prince 'no obstacle to republic': "Prince William might be as charming a King as he was a Prince but could never represent Australia in the way he would represent his own country, Malcolm Turnbull has told a British audience. … Mr Turnbull, who headed the Australian Republican Movement when the [from the republican point of view, RR] unsuccessful referendum was held in 1999, maintains his opposition to a directly elected president, favouring a president being chosen by a bipartisan parliamentary vote.”

The Age’s editorial on Prince William's departure day came across as a very grumpy piece of work. Well, could we really expect any graciousness? The Age admitted: “In personal and public relations terms, and in the eyes of many Australians whose lives he briefly touched, Prince William's whirlwind visit to Sydney and Melbourne this week has been a huge success. … He showed himself to be equally comfortable in a pub or on a military firing range as when talking with victims of disastrous bushfires. In another era, not so long ago, he would have generally been hailed by Australians as a Prince for all seasons, a thoroughly satisfactory future King.”

But this editorial points the finger at the republican kerfuffle: “More serious recent setbacks to republicanism have been the byproducts of federal politics. The latest was the overthrow of Malcolm Turnbull, former leader of the republican movement, as leader of the Opposition. His replacement, Tony Abbott, has been a monarchist.” So, it was an overthrow of a failed Leader of Her Majesty’s Australian Opposition. Did he not fall by his own mistakes? He was replaced in a democratic election and not in an overthrow.

And getting rather nostalgic, The Age states in the same editorial: “For a bloke who keeps talking about the need for 'revolutions', Rudd is remarkably coy about upsetting the status quo. But all is not lost. … A massed chorus of government spinners immediately sought to howl down such a possibility. We hope that [federal Attorney-General, Robert] McClelland, the point minister, is right and that a republic referendum is still very much a live option - and not too far down the track. It certainly should be.”

However, The Age, like all republicans, never admit, what they will do, should the Monarchists win the referendum again. They never contemplate defeat. That's not in their Weltanschauung. But if it should happen again, will they finally accept a democratic decision and live within the framework of a Constitutional Monarchy? Or will they continue to work on the overthrow of the Monarchy - no matter, what the people decided?

The Age’s other renowned arch-republican writer Michael Shmith searched the British media for their reaction of Prince William’s tour down under. “For all the efforts of myriad royal reporters, whose life's work is to serve as humble scribes to those with kind hearts and coronets, the fate of the William roadshow came down to the words on top of their peerless prose.” He was not impressed by The Daily Telegraph’s headline:

“'Prince William thanks Australians for their show of affection’. How nice and precise. The Sun: 'Wills has made Oz love Royals again'. This was accompanied by a short appreciation by that well-known constitutional authority, star of soap and pantomime, Jason Donovan, who says, 'What Prince William does bring is a clean slate … [he] can reinvigorate and re-invent the royal family for Australians.'” Certainly, Michael Shmith is a far greater well-known constitutional authority than Jason Donovan. But who is better known outside the republican circles? And this silly me thought everybody should have a say in the Monarchy vs. republic discussion. It seems, only republican artists are welcome to express their opinion.

Where are the letters to the editor?
In the letters to the editor section there was still no great rush to push the republican agenda. Today's Age has two meager two-sentence-statements that don't even appear online. The pro-Monarchy one was written by someone who lives in Victoria -, the other one opposing Prince William was - once again - sent in by a NSW resident, like the one and only letter on Prince William's visit that was published two days ago. Where are all the Victorian republicans?

The RadicalRoyalist is getting ready for The Sunday Age. Considering the paper's pushy republicanism, the poor subscribers will face the opinion of a well-known constitutional authority like, well, let's say, Guy Rundle, who can always be expected to promote "a" republic for Australia. How good of him. Since he has been living in the United Kingdom for some time, he really knows exactly, what is going on in Australia and what is good for us.
So, nobody is interested, huh?

Read More

$611.99

Call me naive, but I always thought writers cannot be bought. Journalists may come at a price. I consider it a possibility that you can ask a journalist to write a biased report, and you may get, what you wanted if the price was right. But I find it hard to believe, that you could demand from a writer to fabricate an essay with a fixed tendency. Well, obviously republicans can. And the pric(z)e is the extraordinary sum of $611.99.

In case you wanted to participate in the “Republican Short Story Competition” your entry was “required to portray an Australian republican future in a positive light”.

Brave new world, where criticism will only be allowed if you followed part two of the rules and “demonstrate the absurdity of a hereditary monarch as the Australian Head of State in twenty-first century Australian society”.

And to participate in this “republican fiction” you had to pay the entry fee of $11.99 (incl GST). “Entry fees are to be paid by money order or cheque to Australian Republican Movement.” Boy, they must be desperate for some dollars more.

Ohe iam satis!

Read More