My fellow bloggers of The Monarchist reflect on the Australian referendum's 10th anniversary.
The Monarchist is always worth reading, but this article has my special sympathy.
"... republicans know they don’t have a model that they know can win. They know that a president chosen by politicians is a vote loser. But they seem unwilling to commit to a president chosen by popular vote. Why? Because such a change would be even more radical than the 1999 proposal – and would probably go down to a substantial defeat after being subjected to the white heat of a referendum campaign. Direct election is apparently popular now – but other referenda proposals have had high levels of support that evaporated in the lead-up to a vote. This conundrum ties the republicans up in knots."
Posts
2 comments:
Of the ten most equal societies in the developed, identified in the ‘Spirit Level’ seven are constitutional monarchies, three are republics. Of the ten most un-equal societies seven are republics –three are constitutional monarchies(UK, Aus, NZ).
I don't believe in (forced) equality. However, how is "equality" defined? I would not mind expropriating the ten richest people in every country, and it would give me great pleasure to see the Rupert Murdoch empire socialised.
This is, what Boris Frankel had to say in The Age on 20th April 2009:
... try to imagine an Australia where it is the legally binding duty of every federal and state department as well as all other public authorities and local governments to conduct their activities according to one overarching principle: the elimination of social inequality. Now imagine that everything from existing taxation rules right through to the funding of education, health care and dozens of other policy areas has to be reformed to eliminate discrimination against the least powerful. All public services would now have to be reprioritised according to a scale of social need. There is no prize for guessing that a revolution in the funding and delivery of services would place indigenous people at the top of the list followed by millions of underprivileged low-income households.
Does it sound far-fetched? Well, this proposal to reform all public authorities is in the New Opportunities white paper launched by the deputy leader of the British Labour Party, Harriet Harman, in January. Despite 12 years of New Labour widening the gap between rich and poor, political demands on Gordon Brown's Government to deal with glaring social inequality have produced a flurry of activity. A new Social Mobility Commission will address education inequalities such as the dominance of the professions by former private school students.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/shattering-the-myth-of-equality-20090419-abei.html?page=-1
Post a Comment