Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 26^th, 2022 at 7:11am:


I love to repeat myself:   

Hard to believe that anyone in this day and age thinks it's a good idea for Australia to have its Head of State born into the position and living on the other side of the planet.

Pure lunacy.

Time to take the leap into the 21st century.

https://republic.org.au/

Gordon wrote on Dec 26^th, 2022 at 6:46pm:


Well I wont have to pay homage to some old wanker from the UK for a starter. At least I will have a say in who the wanker is.

And you are wrong on both counts in your second comment.

No I am over Charlie and his Camel !

Gordon wrote on Dec 26^th, 2022 at 6:46pm:

This is the issue that so many Australians cannot get their heads around - Establishing a popularly elected Head of State virtually guarantees a future constitutional crisis when the HOS and the HOG both claim the mandate to govern.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 27^th, 2022 at 7:19am:


A HOrSe or a HOG eh? 😂

At least they'd be AUSTRALIAN.

Also the constitution could easily be amended to incorporate provisions in the event of a constitutional crisis.

Lisa Jones wrote on Dec 27^th, 2022 at 7:23am:

How would an elected HOS be disabused from a sense of a popular mandate to govern?

Bobby. wrote on Dec 26^th, 2022 at 8:05pm:



Sounds like ME
Apart from the "get sick" bit


.

AusGeoff wrote on Dec 25^th, 2022 at 10:23pm:


Charles did a far better job. The only response Liz got from her Xmas speeches was predictable stupor. No one can remember a thing from years of Xmas speeches.

Liz was good one on one, but speaking was not her forte. Charles can do both.

Charles has a vision, but he's not so good on the follow-through. Liz was determined. She  could deliver the goods, but she had no vision beyond stability, more of the same.

In many ways, Charles the reformer would have been better suited for the 20th century: the end of empire and the transition to modern Britain.

Liz would be better suited to deliver the stability needed for the 21st - a post-Brexit Britain in steep decline: economic, social and environmental.

But history doesn't get to choose. People and politicians made those changes, not the Crown. Charles is stuck on top of a drowning perch at a time when Brits may well long for the stability and tradition of a monarchy, but Charles has never supported the Windsor model of excess and hollow pageantry.

In the midst of these paradoxes, no one is destined to get what they want. Many of those in the public service Charles championed in his speech will lose their jobs. Charles was criticised by the Tories for raising the elephant in the room.

Charles sees himself as an advocate, but he now occupies a role where this is haram. Brits, on the other hand, desperately want leadership. They have been utterly sold out by their politicians. Labor are as bad as the Tories. No one says what they think, what everybody knows. Charles carries an air of emotional conviction. If he was younger and had more energy, he could well carry out a useful role - a monarch with a brain if not balls.

But Charles appears just as burnt out as Britain. The years of tabloid ink have left their mark on the face now etched on their currency, for what it's worth. Britain's best years are behind, buried with Liz, or maybe ahead, in a future monarch. But they certainly aren't with Charles.

He does what he can, as does Britain, as do we all. We carry on.

So God save the King for now. And thank God you're not British.