Someone, I don’t remember who, said that Joh Bjelke-Petersen was behaving like a Victa Lawnmower just before the end because “they always speed up before they run out of gas”.
So, if you don’t like the idea of a kamikaze swan, you can opt for the victa lawnmower.
Because nothing other than malignant hyperactivity could possibly explain why Wayne Swan would have decided to raise the issue of a republic right at this moment.
You can’t blame Malcolm Turnbull for helping him along.
Here is a government that is going to lose an election by a larger margin than any other, possibly since federation, because it is perceived to be flaky and incapable of following-through and completing any task – the political equivalent of ADHD.
The most recent evidence of this is “Pink Batts Mark II” probably soon to be known as “Asbestos Gate” where the incompetence of Telstra contractors working on a project related to the NBN have subjected people in Labor’s former heartland, western Sydney, to a small increase in mortality by unnecessarily exposing them to asbestos.
This will just add to their disenchantment with Labor, as that other western Sydney barbeque stopper – illegal immigration – continues to accelerate apace.
And what does the Treasurer inject into this cauldron of discontent? He decides to “ramp up his calls for a republic, demanding the Labor Party enact its policy starting the process of constitutional change “sooner rather than later”.
To add insult to injury, Queensland, his home state, where he has already lost his seat once (in 1996) was one of the states that voted most heavily against the Republic referendum. Opposition was wide spread, including in his own seat of Lilley.
Perhaps Swan thinks this is some sort of a diversion. In fact it is confirmation that this government, and its key members, are completely out of touch with what the public wants.
Update:
I just heard Wayne Swan saying words to the effect that Australia is the 12th richest economy in the world, and people must be laughing at us because we don’t have an Australian head of state.
In western Sydney the response is likely to be “I don’t know about that mate, but if we’re a republic does that mean we’re going to be able to police our borders better?”
Out there, they’re not so worried about whether we have an Australian head of state or not, but where the rest of us come from. It may be paranoia, or it may be xenophobia, but they all get a vote.
He must be cunning, ‘cos smart he aint.
Even if he stood on his own shoulders, he could not project his IQ much higher than 80.
Comment by Hasbeen — June 3, 2013 @ 10:31 am
Swan’s dying days … in terms of his and the ALP’s political future. A bunch of goons!
By the way, Western Sydney residents’ main concern appears to be boarder protection; Western Sydney (Gillard’s haven) does NOT represent all of Australia. Western Sydney-siders come mainly from the Middle East now they have turn against other possible migrants from other countries…LOL. Hypocrisy at its heights ….just like J Gillard and her goons. Right now our concern has to be our economy not republicanism. Who cares about the British Royals; they are redundant in Aust, anyway. Focus on our ECONOMY, lest we become another of the PIIGS or Lebanon.
Comment by Jolly — June 3, 2013 @ 12:21 pm
For more than 2500 years, a sovereign country in which its citizens effectively controlled the government was called a republic. History records many: Rome from 510 to 55 BC, Venice from the 7th century to 1797, Novgorod from 1136 to 1478, among others. In the traditional meaning of the word, Australia is already a de facto republic, called the Commonwealth of Australia. It fits the traditional definition.
Since 1922, when Lenin and Co. called the Soviet provinces they ruled, ‘republics’, it seems that anybody can call their country a republic, for instance, North Korea and Syria. The word ‘republic’ has lost its traditional meaning to become a title instead.
Our problems with governance stem from the fact that we suffer under an archaic constitution, written before the dawn of a new age, that produces dysfunctional government. Defining a ‘head-of-state’ or choosing a new title for our nation does nothing to relieve that problem; it is ineffectual window-dressing.
Today, any attempt by the Crown to impose its will on Australia would be emphatically rejected, as it was in 1931, when King George V unsuccessfully opposed the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs as Governor-General. The extent to which some Australians see themselves as compromised by having a ‘foreign head of state’ seems to be a personal psychological problem rather than one of governance. The ANZUS treaty is a far greater threat to our independence than the flimsy threads linking us to the Commonwealth of Nations. Compared with following the Americans into disastrous wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea of having a foreign ‘head-of-state’ is utterly trivial.
Comment by Tony Nicholas — June 3, 2013 @ 6:23 pm
So Wayne is wanting to replace one figure head with one of his choosing. Prof David Flint said today they used to use war as a distraction for the disgruntled masses and Wayne is using a republic as his.The war of terror David is our distraction.
Senator John Madigan has a proposed constitutional bill to give more power to the people. Neither of the major parties want to give us real democracy. They sell of public assets, enslave us in unnecessary debt and treat us with absolute distain and contempt.
We will never be free of the British or their financial system unless we once again can create our credit. The Commonwealth Bank did this from 1911 until 1923.
Mayer Armchel Rothschild, “Give me control of a nation’s currency and I care not who makes the laws.”
Comment by Ross — June 3, 2013 @ 7:03 pm