Same old same old

It is really not worth mentioning, but The Age used today's arrival day of the Queen and Prince Philip to publish fiercely republican articles.

Of course they dug up the inevitable Barry Everingham "a veteran commentator on royalty" - as you would expect. He recycled his articles from previous royal occasions. No need to read that opinion piece. There's nothing new in it.

Another article was written by Glenn Patmore, "a senior lecturer in law at the Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne", who laments recent opinion polls showing that the Australians are overwhelmingly in favour of the Monarchy (55 : 34).

"Has Australia become a royalist nation? Politicians are apparently enamoured by the aura of monarchy. They are keen to be photographed with Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip and the younger royals. To much fanfare, Her Majesty will be opening Melbourne's brand new children's hospital and officiating at other national events this week during what will most likely be her last visit to Australia. The tenor of the Republican debate has slowly changed too."

Poor old republicans, they will never understand "the magic of Monarchy".

It is worrying, that "a senior lecturer in law" refers to the rightly forgotten "2020 Summit":

"And the 999 members of the Labor government's 2020 summit in 2007, declared the republic as a key issue for constitutional reform."

As mentioned before, their 99.9 per cent majority on the April summit was achieved, because the so-called delegates were not delegated by anyone, but handpicked by the organisers. A democratic convention would be something completely different and would not have seen anything else but a 99.9% soviet style result for "a" republic, of which Glenn Patmore seems to be so proud of.

No republic in Australia

So, the republic is off the agenda in Australia. Much to the chagrin of The Age, as could be expected. Michelle Grattan did not write a comment, which would have been the most likely column to express her regret about the government’s decision not to proceed with a legally meaningless and unconstitutional plebiscite on "a" republic. No, she used the style of a journalistic report, which in a journalist's credo should give an unbiased account of facts.

In today’s article Republic off Rudd radar one year on Grattan has managed to contact seven pro-republican politicians and outspoken republicans to get their reaction. How many Monarchists did she ask for their opinion? None. Zero. Not one. As if they did not exist, wiped off the Australian continent. May be they do not exist in the Ms. Grattan’s circles, which would not be a surprise. But a quick internet search would demonstrate how easy it is to find Australian Monarchists.

Don't journalistic ethics demand that she listen to the other side as well? She and her employer obviously do not like Monarchists and the Australian Monarchy, but every first year journalist would receive a dressing down if (s)he fails to present the two sides of the coin.

Not so The Age. 7 : 0, that’s even better than the “most enthusiastic endorsement at last year's 2020 Summit” for “a” republic, when handpicked summitteers acclaimed their own grandeur and wisdom. Hardly a democratic process if you exclude Monarchists from the discussion panels.

But don’t let democracy or facts get in your way when you promote the republic.

It's time to go, Mr. Turnbull!
Brendan Nelson is a Monarchist. That was one of the reasons, why he as Leader of the federal opposition was hunted by the media. The republican commentators wanted him replaced by the former Australian republican Movement’s leader Malcolm Turnbull, just for the future of the Liberal Party, for which they were so much concerned, of course. Last September, Malcolm Turnbull won the Liberal Party’s leadership contest with 45 to 41 votes. When Brendan Nelson was elected in November 2007 he beat Turnbull by 45 to 42 votes.

After Turnbull’s election the media were overjoyed and franticly welcoming the fellow republican at the liberal helm. Once again The Age on 17th September 2008 set the tone: "Unlike his predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull has a real prospect of leading the party back into office. … The new Opposition Leader is also, of course, strongly associated in the public mind with the cause of an Australian republic, which, it is to be hoped, can now be retrieved from the low-priority status that, until yesterday, it had held for the avowedly republican Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Mr Rudd has now abandoned that stance, challenging Mr Turnbull to join him in a bipartisan campaign for a republic.”

However, the same issue of The Age demonstrated, that “a” republic still has no majority among the Australians: “In May this year, a Roy Morgan poll found support for a republic under a directly-elected head of state was at 45% — its lowest level since 1993 — when the then prime minister, Paul Keating, first floated the idea. That figure was down 6% on 2005.” Just to remind you: The poll was taken in May, weeks after the now half forgotten "2020 Summit" endorsed "a" republic with an unanimous vote.

Considering the noise they create, you would have thought republicans make up 90 per cent of the population and not just half of that number. Their 99 per cent majority on the April summit was achieved, because the so-called delegates were not delegated by anyone, but handpicked by the organisers. However picky they may be, republicans have to face the fact that they don’t possess a majority among the Australian people.

Following the republican logic, Malcolm Turnbull now should be replaced as the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in Australia’s federal parliament. His approval rate fell to 19 per cent, the same figure that lead to Nelson's defeat in the party room. The Age on 10th December: In yesterday's Newspoll, Labor's two-party preferred lead rose from 55-45 per cent to 59-41 per cent. Mr Turnbull's rating as better PM fell two points, to trail Kevin Rudd 19-66 per cent. Mr Turnbull's approval dropped 5 points to 47 per cent."

Turnbull’s low stand in the public opinion is only indicating that he will go down in history as the man who lost two major battles: The one for “a” republic and the other for the premiership.

Can’t wait to see the former investment banker go, the way his colleague quit office: Leaving the house with his belongings in a cardboard box.

Please keep off the "Astroturf"


Grassroots community groups help ordinary citizens, pressure governments and frame debates.

Where would we be if groups such as the National Trust or anti-pollution groups had not fought vested interests in the 1960s and 1970s to protect our historic buildings or environment.

But a new game is afoot ... so-called "astroturfing".

Astroturf is an artificial grass and astroturf groups are artificial "grassroots" groups set up to push an business or political group's agenda while pretending to be independent or community group.

Such astroturf groups are everywhere these days. You see them quoted in the newspapers and they attend conferences such as Mr Rudd's 2020 Summit pretending to be the voice of the people, but actually pushing their backer's agenda.

Such groups as Get Up! ... A group that is officially unaligned but which had 118 delegates out of the 1000 summiteers at that 2020 Summit. Piers Akerman: "Incredibly, 118 of the chosen delegates are GetUp! members, including our Executive Director Brett Solomon." He gained fame for his extraordinary performance at the Summit: “Is anyone actually going to argue that we shouldn't be a republic?” summiteer Brett Solomon of grassroots political movement GetUp asked the 100 delegates in the summit's governance session. One lonely figure shot up a defiant hand, prompting laughter around the room. A remarkable way to deal with a differing opinion, which speaks volumes for his respect for people having a dissenting point of view.

It may be unaligned (which i doubt), but it is stridently pro Kevin and anti-monarchy. It has all the signs of being an ALP astroturf group!

Beware of "grassroots" groups that seem to be little more than fronts for political or business interests and pretending to represent the community.

The whole 2020 Summit seems to have been the ultimate astroturfing exercise ... a group supposedly representing the people of Australia but in fact hand crafted to ensure a predictable outcome.

All they could demonstrate was that their ability to organise a vote was more advanced than that of the Monarchists. They achieved a one hundred precent vote in favour of "a" republic at the Summit, which is ridiculous when opinion polls show that their support base in the population is just 45 percent.

However, their performance was a wakeup call for the Monarchists. The loyal supporters could certainly learn from the grassroot skills of the republicans of this country who like so much signing their posts with "Viva la révolution!". In doing so they not only mix Spanish and French in one senctence, but also show how little they know about the Australians.