Australian Politics Forum - Why did he do it?

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Why did he do it?
Reply #15 - Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:59pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:53pm:

wrong again gizmo:

Quote:

Australian law retained the status of British subject until the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984 removed Part II of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 on 1 May 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

I know, I couldn't believe it when I first heard it either.

That article also says:
"From 1949, the status of British subject was also known by the term Commonwealth citizen, and included any person who was one of the following:

A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies
A citizen of any other Commonwealth country
One of a limited number of British subjects without citizenship

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Why did he do it?
Reply #16 - Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:59pm

Karnal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:53pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:28pm:

Someone (can't remember who) posted a recent article on the drum with an interesting theory. She basically says that with all this undermining of Abbott's leadership going on he feels the need, every now and then, to make these completely random "captain's calls" to tell his colleagues who's boss, and to reassert his authority. Knighting Prince Phillip was supposedly one of these random calls.

Sure, it was definitely a way to assert his authority. But why would he waste such precious political capital on such an irrelevant call?

Keating called Abbott a "young fogey". He argued that there’s few in Australia as socially conservative as Abbott.

But this is pomp at its most hollow and superficial. It’s so meaningless no one can understand the reason for it.

I’m wondering if it was meant as a kind of Situationist prank like making himself Minister of Women’s Affairs just to piss off JuLiar.

But I doubt Abbott jokes about "serious" subjects like nearly-dead royals.

The clue may lie in the announcement by the liberal backbencher to introduce a private members bill to abolish knighthoods and dames altogether. That sounds to me like deliberate sh*t stirring - and Chris Uhlman agrees with me. I have a theory that this issue has been used as a weapon to undermine Abbott behind closed doors. I can imagine Abbott's response:

"oh you think you can bully me over knights?? Really?? Well how do you like this for a f**cking knighthood!!" *proceeds to knight Prince Phillip* - "whatyagonna do about it biaatchh??"

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Why did he do it?
Reply #17 - Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:00pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:59pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:53pm:

wrong again gizmo:

Quote:

Australian law retained the status of British subject until the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984 removed Part II of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 on 1 May 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

I know, I couldn't believe it when I first heard it either.

That article also says:
"From 1949, the status of British subject was also known by the term Commonwealth citizen, and included any person who was one of the following:

A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies
A citizen of any other Commonwealth country
One of a limited number of British subjects without citizenship

Australians were British subjects under Australian Law up until 1987. Deal with it.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Why did he do it?
Reply #18 - Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:00pm

Its time wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:58pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:42pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:27pm:

I didn't think it was a big deal, I couldn't care less about this one. The guy has done a lot for Australia it isn't real outrageous.

Abbott said that he would only give awards to Australians to keep his consistency on election promises this means that he had to give one to a non Australian and their is probably not a lot of other possibilities..

All Philip’s ever done for Australia is try to look inconspicuous on boring trips meeting spear-throwing natives and complain that he can’t even get a decent cup of tea.

The idea that he’s a distinguished Australian has been well and truly put to rest. The question is why Abbott would put his neck out by awarding him with Australia’s highest honour.

Well he won't get a Job in Australia when he gets the arse , perhaps he apires to be genuine court jester, articulating the humorous dialogue won't present any problems, no script required ,a funny suit , and abort will have a job for life, I hear those royal toffs don't mind compensating their abstract comedians handsomely.

Probably not, since Prince Phillip 'getting the arse' only actually happens AFTER he dies...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Why did he do it?
Reply #19 - Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:04pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:00pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:59pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:53pm:

wrong again gizmo:

Quote:

Australian law retained the status of British subject until the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984 removed Part II of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 on 1 May 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

I know, I couldn't believe it when I first heard it either.

That article also says:
"From 1949, the status of British subject was also known by the term Commonwealth citizen, and included any person who was one of the following:

A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies
A citizen of any other Commonwealth country
One of a limited number of British subjects without citizenship

Australians were British subjects under Australian Law up until 1987. Deal with it.

Well I really don't care, but I'm pretty sure that, other than on paper, neither England nor Australia actually thought that.......it just took a while for the people in Canberra to get around to amending the 'official' rule.

Much like it's still illegal in NSW to drive a motor vehicle on the road without a person walking in front waving a red flag...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96767

Re: Why did he do it?
Reply #20 - Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:10pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:59pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:53pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:28pm:

Someone (can't remember who) posted a recent article on the drum with an interesting theory. She basically says that with all this undermining of Abbott's leadership going on he feels the need, every now and then, to make these completely random "captain's calls" to tell his colleagues who's boss, and to reassert his authority. Knighting Prince Phillip was supposedly one of these random calls.

Sure, it was definitely a way to assert his authority. But why would he waste such precious political capital on such an irrelevant call?

Keating called Abbott a "young fogey". He argued that there’s few in Australia as socially conservative as Abbott.

But this is pomp at its most hollow and superficial. It’s so meaningless no one can understand the reason for it.

I’m wondering if it was meant as a kind of Situationist prank like making himself Minister of Women’s Affairs just to piss off JuLiar.

But I doubt Abbott jokes about "serious" subjects like nearly-dead royals.

The clue may lie in the announcement by the liberal backbencher to introduce a private members bill to abolish knighthoods and dames altogether. That sounds to me like deliberate sh*t stirring - and Chris Uhlman agrees with me. I have a theory that this issue has been used as a weapon to undermine Abbott behind closed doors. I can imagine Abbott's response:

"oh you think you can bully me over knights?? Really?? Well how do you like this for a f**cking knighthood!!" *proceeds to knight Prince Phillip* - "whatyagonna do about it biaatchh??"

The decision was made months ago - long before his barnicles and back-flips and all the backbench blood.

This was a decision made by Abbott at the top of his game - at the crown of his career. That, I think, is what makes it so surreal.

Abbott was sending out some strange monarchist mating call with the decision - a code only he, David Flynt and Alan Jones understand.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 59402 Here Gender:	Re: Why did he do it? Reply #21 - Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:10pm Of all of Abbotts errors this would have to be the most benign.
Back to top	IP Logged

ImSpartacus2 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6913	Re: Why did he do it? Reply #22 - Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:10pm .......
Back to top	« Last Edit: Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:20pm by ImSpartacus2 » IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Why did he do it?
Reply #23 - Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:11pm

Is this a possible reason, remembering Abbott is a devoted lapdog monarchist at heart. As we know many years ago royal honors were abolished and replaced with the order of Australia. This incenses Abbott. So much so that maintaining and strengthening our connection with the British monarchy becomes one of the things to do on his "To Do List" should he ever become PM. Then he becomes PM and in amongst the rest of his agenda he keeps faith with himself and (1) restores the Royal Honors and then (2) considers who should be his first choice for a Knighthood, keeping in mind that it must be someone who by his very stature gives renewed prestige and respect (in the eyes of Australians) to the award and the monarchy. And who better to choose then someone from the Royal Family itself. Unfortunately for most people the Royals still hold a place and although the Prince Consort is a bit of an old racist, the public generally hold him in high esteem. So Abbott decides on Prince Phillip and thereafter nobody can talk him out of it. I'm guessing that's how it went down.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96767

Re: Why did he do it?
Reply #24 - Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:14pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:04pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:00pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:59pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:53pm:

wrong again gizmo:

Quote:

Australian law retained the status of British subject until the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984 removed Part II of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 on 1 May 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

I know, I couldn't believe it when I first heard it either.

That article also says:
"From 1949, the status of British subject was also known by the term Commonwealth citizen, and included any person who was one of the following:

A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies
A citizen of any other Commonwealth country
One of a limited number of British subjects without citizenship

Australians were British subjects under Australian Law up until 1987. Deal with it.

Well I really don't care, but I'm pretty sure that, other than on paper, neither England nor Australia actually thought that.......it just took a while for the people in Canberra to get around to amending the 'official' rule.

Much like it's still illegal in NSW to drive a motor vehicle on the road without a person walking in front waving a red flag...

Try going to England and declaring yourself a British citizen. Back in the day, any white Australian could do it. Barry Humphries, Germaine Greer, Clive James.

Good luck now.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96767

Re: Why did he do it?
Reply #25 - Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:22pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:10pm:

Of all of Abbotts errors this would have to be the most benign.

Not for Abbott. For him, such issues are at the heart of why he entered politics.

He couldn’t care less about the whole Liberal economic reform agenda, which is why "his" budget must be such a heavy crown to bear.

For Abbott, bringing back the honours system will be one of his crowning achievements - no doubt akin to Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generation. It would seem that Abbott really does want to take Australia back to the Menzies years - as literally as possible.

This is not whether the decision is harmful or not, it’s about the motives of the decision. Why do you think he did it?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96767

Re: Why did he do it?
Reply #26 - Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:34pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:11pm:

Is this a possible reason, remembering Abbott is a devoted lapdog monarchist at heart. As we know many years ago royal honors were abolished and replaced with the order of Australia. This incenses Abbott. So much so that maintaining and strengthening our connection with the British monarchy becomes one of the things to do on his "To Do List" should he ever become PM. Then he becomes PM and in amongst the rest of his agenda he keeps faith with himself and (1) restores the Royal Honors and then (2) considers who should be his first choice for a Knighthood, keeping in mind that it must be someone who by his very stature gives renewed prestige and respect (in the eyes of Australians) to the award and the monarchy. And who better to choose then someone from the Royal Family itself. Unfortunately for most people the Royals still hold a place and although the Prince Consort is a bit of an old racist, the public generally hold him in high esteem. So Abbott decides on Prince Phillip and thereafter nobody can talk him out of it. I'm guessing that's how it went down.

I think you’re getting there, but we’re still lacking a compelling reason for taking such a stance.

Remember, the Prime Minister’s Office doesn’t make public decisions like this without a lot of debate, and usually, market research.

Abbott has clearly gone against this grain, and with huge cost. What’s telling, however, is that he thinks like this in the first place. No other Prime Minister in the post-war era has been so out of touch with public opinion on such things - possibly since federation.

Back to top

IP Logged

____ Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 33410 Australia Gender:	Re: Why did he do it? Reply #27 - Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:35pm NZ's rightwing government did it in 2012 Canadia's rightwing government did it in 2013 Australia's rightwing dipstick did it in 2015. He was just following the mob.
Back to top	IP Logged

Wolseley Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1453 Sydney Gender:	Re: Why did he do it? Reply #28 - Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:35pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 10:48pm: But we haven't been British subjects since 1901. I think you'll find that the change occurred with the proclamation of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 on Australia Day 1949 rather than in 1901.
Back to top	IP Logged

Bias_2012

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 10766
Gender: male

Re: Why did he do it?
Reply #29 - Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 12:11am

Karnal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:10pm:

Abbott was sending out some strange monarchist mating call with the decision - a code only he, David Flynt and Alan Jones understand.

Very good Karnal ... but there's an equally strange conflict in Abbott's monarchist affection though. He's not Church of England! lol

Perhaps the Knighthood was really for the Bank of England ... or he felt a need to carry on Bob Menzie's tireless affection for the Royal Family

From now on Lib Lab voters would do well to vote for Aussies only.

Back to top

Our Lives Are Governed By The Feast & Famine Variable

IP Logged