Abbott's traitor within - sack him now!

Turnbull re-launches campaign for Australian Republic

It's been more than a decade since the Republican movement was defeated at a referendum, but now a revival is underway to put a Republic back on the national agenda.
This time around Australia's Republicans, including Senior Liberal Malcolm Turnbull, have vowed to engage with the public.

Read more: Via ABC News

GC.Ed.@L.

Comments

[Gregoryno6]

1.

"It's been barely a decade since the Republican movement was defeated at a referendum, but already a revival is underway to put a Republic back on the national agenda."
Fixed.
Really, what do they think has changed?

[Patricia Rogers]

2.

Nothing much has changed except that we now have more people in Australia who are not connected in any way to the UK. I was a GBP10 Pom but I came to Australia to be Australian not just a 2nd class Pom. The Queen is a traditional monarch but her family has proved over and over that they do not support her morals/ethics. Kids grow up and do their own thing - Australia should do likewise

[Phil S]

3.

"Abbott's traitor within - sack him now!"

That is a disgusting headline. There are many, many people with conservative politics (including me) who are fiercely loyal Australians, and we also want a Head of State democratically chosen and who is one of us. A Head of State with the same role and powers as currently held by the Governor-General, at the apex of our existing federal parliamentary democracy.

When you call such people "traitors" you insult us all.

[kraka]

4.

Phil S-the republican movement loves pushing the line an Australian head of state chosen by us. Two things wrong with that in todays Australia.

1stly-the GG IS our head of state at all official ceremonies and she is chosen by "us" if you mean appointed by the government of the day voted in by "us". (I didn't vote this rabble in)

2ndly-if by "us" you mean a popular vote of the people. DREAM ON!!!!! That will never happen and is the single reason why I wil never vote for a Republic.

Apart from the fact I already know Australia is an independent country, with nothing but historical ties to the greatest most successful empire the world has ever known, I am also wary of anything that draws bipartisan support from our nanny state governments.

As Abbott said many years ago-we could move to a republic with only a couple of lines of the constitution changed-why then at the last futile attempt did they want to make 168 or changes-you would do well to think about the why before you get so hot on the if and when.

[David on Sunday]

5.

If he was true leadership material wouldn't Turnbull want to keep his focus on the job at hand, instead of throwing a curved ball into the mix at this most critical time? Well, he's proved what an idiot he is hey?

[Concernedreader]

6.

Phil, I think you have missed the point completely. The Coalition is well placed to win government - at the moment. The last thing they need now is a destabilisation caused by Turnbull's rehash of his pet cause which is contrary to the Coalition's policy.
That's the point, it's not about the Queen, or the GG, or anything else. It's about Turnbull trying to introduce a distraction that failed before. Voters have much more on their minds right now.
If he can't agree to that he should resign or be sacked - Turnbull is not an independent - he is supposed to be a team player.

[Sachiko]

7.

I don't mind Queen Elizabeth II being our head of state - it's worked out pretty well so far - but the prospect of her environmentalist, Islamophile son becoming king should worry all conservatives (and classical liberals).

[Gregoryno6]

8.

With a little luck and good timing he'll be bypassed in favour of the next generation.

[Armchair Beak]

9.

Turnbull should keep his mouth firmly shut until after the election. We do not need anything to muddy the waters (like the local govt referendum for instance).

My main objection to changing the constitution is that all of the usual suspects will be there with their pet "rights" just waiting for a chance to force their narrow world view onto the rest of us.

[Allan]

10.

Concernedreader, I agree wholeheartedly.

Some would do well to remember that the Liberal Party was the second choice for Turnbull and thus the popular motion that he is Labor dressed in Liberal clothing.

Turnbull has never been a team player. Why anyone with their heart in a Liberal win at the next election would choose to muddy the waters considerably with something as non-urgent as the reintroduction of the republic debate is beyond comprehension.

Gillard has already created one diversion with the local council referendum and the last thing we need is Turnbull making more unnecessary waves.

This is not the first time Turnbull has kicked over the traces and if I were Abbott I would have consigned him to the last row of the backbench long ago.

[Wackford]

11.

Can't work out how to pronounce 'concernedreader'
Is it 'concerne dreader'?

[AlterEgo]

12.

First Turnbull goes from his orders to destroy the NBN(with Abbott's apparent approval) to producing NBN lite.

Now he's back on the Republican thing.

Strange timing - not a happy chappie, obviously.

Well, he did blow his changes with Utegate. One look at Godwin Gretch would have made anyone else run a mile ...

Watch for the split ... Look out, one vote Tony (Slipper's vote).

[kraka]

13.

Tony Abbott was elected unanimously (ie 100%) by the Liberal Party after the last election.

Harping on about a 1 vote result 4 years ago when a more recent vote makes it irrelevant is basically admitting defeat that the ALP is indefensible

I might disagree with you Alter Ego but I still get the impression you are a reasonably smart guy/gal. drop the ALP spin or we will start thinking you believe all ALP spin-like revenue has taken a hit in the last 12 months for example?

[Grumpyoldman2]

14.

Turnbull and the Republican push are going about it the wrong way. They want us, the vox populi, to say 'Yes' to a Republic, as the first step. I for one could never go for a deal like that unless someone can tell me what sort of Republic they want for the rest of us. Our political "leaders" are not known for their wisdom when it comes to acting on behalf of and in the interests of, all Australians. Power first, people next seems to be their collective motto.
Design it first. Put the model(s), to the people next, as a sanity check. Then if we the people want it, ask us politely without the political baggage. Any model that gets rid of that is halfway home.
There are too many unknowns to go about this like the last time. Too many people pushing their own barrow.

[kraka]

15.

Also-Turnbull blew his chance when he supported Rudd's CPRS-the Libs received 10's of thousands of emails from Liberal voters who, unlike most left wing idiots, realised that the AGW thing was a huge con (and have now been proved correct)and wanted Turnbull gone.
Strange as it may seem the Libs listened to their base while the ALP listens to about 5 union powerbrokers.
This lead to a turn of events that forever changed Australian politics.

Abbott was narrowly elected on a no carbon tax base by his party

In the face of Abbott being a very effective opposition leader Rudd, Gillard and co shit themselves and reneged on a pro carbon tax stance to save the planet from ourselves

The unions thought Gillard would flog Abbott, thus giving them a PM who could do their bidding. So they knifed Rudd even though he was ahead in the polls

Gillard raced to an election and was forced to say "their will be no blah blah blah

2 non independent voted against their constituents out of spite to install the worst government in Australian history and subsequently trashed the whole notion of "independence".

Abbott was elected unopposed as Liberal leader (again ie by 100% of votes)

Finally, Gillard broke all trust with the Australian people, completely fucked the budget accounts and has been the single biggest reason why the "unelectable" Tony Abbott will be the next PM of Australia.

[kraka]

16.

Perfectly put GOM. I am a monarchist at heart for no other reason than I distrust the republic push. That said I could vote for one if there are the minimal amount of constitutional changes required, the model is right and there is no attempt to put in place a bill of rights where every two bit minority and culturally different group isn't given some additional recognition over and above what we already have.
Australia has a culture defined by our history, a culture made up of a mosaic of other cultures bought here by people who wanted to be Australian. Too many now coming in want that culture changed to suit them while taken our generosity for granted-indeed in many cases taking advantage of our increasingly nanny state welfare programs.
If there is one thing we should be ahead of the rest of the world it would be our willingness to wind back the entitlement mentality.
It starts with our teachers who are too willing to just pick up a pay check at the end of the month.
Check out this student who nails it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_W7R1MsOV8

[Allan]

17.

kraka, your description of the mosaic of Australian cultures is brilliant. Your claim that there are too many coming here now who want to change Australia to suit themselves and their cultures is so correct that it is frightening.

It gets us back to the question that has been asked a million time and that is why come here if they want to turn Australia into the God-forsaken sand pits of filth and degradation they were escaping from while using Australian taxpayers contributions to finance them?

You are correct in saying that any proposed multiple changes to our Constitution would invite every ratbag self interest gaggle to demand recognition and a free ride. As far as I am concerned it is not about to happen.

[AlterEgo]

18.

Allan & kraka -

Just to clarify one thing.

I'm a Monarchist, through and through.

It's not the power that the Monarch has, it is the power he/she denies to other men/women.

Why give more power to a politician?

Look at the mess in American political life. Who needs that?

Funny thing is, I understand that many of the real post-war migrants are strongly pro-Monarch.

In the last Republic referendum, amazing results happened.

Maby Blue ribbon Liberal seats voted pro-Republic (doctor's wives?) while many full-on working class seats voted pro-Monarch.

[Gregoryno6]

19.

Despite the tone of my earlier post, I am not completely against a republic. My issues are with the people leading the campaign and their shoddy planning.
The pro-republicans always seem anxious to make it happen now - immediately. I attribute that to sheer vanity. They want to be remembered by history as those who led, not those who lit the flame and passed the torch.
And in their rush for glory they have said nothing about the State Governors, who predate the Governor-General and are appointed by their respective governments.
The system we have now seems quaint and faintly ridiculous to them. A hybrid arrangement of elected national leader and appointed state leaders would hardly look less silly.
If Turnbull and Co really want an Australian republic they'd better be prepared for to take a much longer view. And to possibly not see success in their own lifetimes.

[Allan]

20.

Just as an aside, "Look at the mess in American political life. Who needs that?" Have you had a look at the mess we have here?

I don't think that it is in any way relevant that the real post-war migrants are strongly pro-Monarch. Firstly, they have been here for in excess of 50 years and are well settled into Australian life and culture and secondly, they are not the recent arrivals I am alluding to and I think you know that.

Also, I believe that discussion about the ins and outs of the voting patterns for last referendum on the Republic is pointless as it has no relevance to what will happen as a result of any future Republican referendum.

I don't know where you get the idea of giving more power to politicians. What I would be more concerned about is that there are no concessions given to the environmentalists or the 'Entitlement' activists.

[Grumpyoldman2]

21.

On the Bill of rights issue I think we need one but not the UN-style stereotype Human Rights. We need a Citizens Bill of Rights that brings us back a 100 years to when each citizen could cut trees, shoot rabbits and kangaroos, dig a hole, warn off trespassers, punch the neighbour if he coveted his ass, get a pretty good schooling for self and kids, camp on the roadside, innoculate the kids and generally take care of what is his instead of asking the government to do it for him.

[Clive_Palmers_Horse]

22.

Wheres my 3D gun? :)

[Roger]

23.

By the logic of not being a 'team player', Alex Hawke should be sacked because he's splitting from the party platform by publicly disagreeing with the Liberal party's Paid Parental Scheme.

However, he has not, and neither has Turnbull for pursuing a matter that many in Australia support in principle.
Sanity prevails.

[Allan]

24.

Many Roger? But not a majority, eh?

[Roger]

25.

So I take it from your response that you do believe that Alex Hawke should be expelled because he disagreed with the majority of the Liberal Party.
Glad we cleared that one up.

[Allan]

26.

I fail to see any part of my response to you that would indicate that I believe that Hawke should not be expelled. As with your earlier comment, you assume too much and employ the distasteful and rude practice of attempting to put words into people mouths.

I am greatly amused by those who seem to believe that people such a Hawke, who dwell in an ethically barren wilderness, should have an unchallenged right to abandon their honour, loyalty, respect and principles in order to draw attention to themselves for purely egotistical purposes and at the expense of the very group that they claim to be a part of.

These are the same people that would claim that it should be their unfettered right to do what they like, when they like and how they like without consideration for the harm, damage, offence or otherwise that they cause.

I have no time for such people or those that support them and their grubby actions.

[Roger]

27.

So while you agree that the paid parental scheme should be scrapped as you have said in previous posts, you don't support MPs such as Alex Hawke publicly stating their opposition to established party policy, even though it goes against the principles of the party?

[Allan]

28.

Read and understand what I said Roger. I don't support anyone who abandons their ethics and principles to do something in public that should have been resolved behind closed doors.

My turn to now ask you a question. What did Hawke hope to achieve with his unprincipled public outburst?

As I said I have no time for such people or those that support them!!!!!!!

[Roger]

29.

They have initiated a public discussion and given us an insight to the true support of this measure, which many conservatives don't agree with as it is merely another handout.
To have greater public discussion about the issue is the starting point of addressing that issue.

More to the point, it offers greater transparency to the political process. Should this resonate with some people, it might make them more inclined to vote for the Liberal Party, for others it will mean they will search for another party that will better suit their own political beliefs.
That is hardly a loss for the public.

[Allan]

30.

Rubbish, Roger. The public discussion was initiated long before Hawke opened his big mouth.

His undisciplined conduct did nothing by way of offering transparency to the political process. That is just an excuse used to support his unprincipled conduct.

Alex Hawke has made many enemies within his own party and his conduct has been generally described as 'juvenile'. Hawke has deliberately set out to make an enemy of Abbott and has recently called for the dumping of Abbott as leader of the party. All of this while the party is supposed to be presenting a united front while preparing itself for an election.

If politicians can't employ some common sense and self-discipline then they are of no use to anyone.

His conduct in this matter does not make him look caring, clever or smart. Instead it makes him stand out for what he is; an irresponsible, untrustworthy liability who is disloyal to both his leader and his party and expulsion from the party would be asppropriate.

[Roger]

31.

The public dialogue may have been open, but it had not received MSM attention until Hawke brought it up recently.
The coverage, plus the information that other MPs are also dissatisfied, would better motivate the public to contact their MPs or candidates to voice their concern with the plan.
If Hawke had not gone public, there would have been fewer responses because the public would be under the pretence that the party was unified around this plan and the likelihood of change would be negligible.
It also, as I have said before, opens transparency in the political process. There have been no shortage of leaks such as this from the Labor party and the Greens and I for one welcome all dialogue of this nature into the public space because it only the inner workings of the party we the electorate are voting for.

Furthermore, should the Liberal party find his conduct unbecoming of a member of parliament, it would be their provocative, not members of the public such as yourself or I, to determine his future within the party.

[Allan]

32.

As this matter has been in the news for some time I find that your claim that "the public would be under the pretence that the party was unified" is ridiculously immature.

There has been comment for some time about the ins and outs of this matter and any member of the public with their head switched on was fully aware that there was some disagreement. We were also aware that the parliamentary party was dealing with it in the proper manner.

Taking that into consideration then Hawkes little dummy spit was all I have said it was in my previous replies to you.

"Furthermore, should the Liberal party find his conduct unbecoming of a member of parliament, it would be their provocative, not members of the public such as yourself or I, to determine his future within the party."

Seems to me you hare having a little dummy spit of your own. What's the matter? Running out of any argument that comes close to being credible. Also, it appears that it is OK for you to have a view on the matter but not me. Sort of says it all about you LDP luvvies.

[Roger]

33.

I am one for greater transparency in most matters, but I give especially strong support for it in regards to the legislature.
If you find that viewpoint offensive to the point of spreading FUD i.e. There has been comment for some time about the ins and outs of this matter and any member of the public with their head switched on was fully aware that there was some disagreement... which was NOT widely reported, nor were there any details leaked about the matter.

And I was trying to keep personality out of this, however if you find issue with my argument, don't be immature and go on about 'you LDP luvvies', you might gain some credibility if you stay on topic.