a president appointed by parliament wont be popular. given how america's panned out, do we run the risk of someone even worse, just rich and popular getting the job? so much about that role is down to convention. direct election is probably in a dead heat with letting the monarchy keep the job for being best of a bad lot of options
Little Things You Hate
- Thread starter -|Sean|-
- Start date
mike14
Likes Dirt
Well yeah it wasn't popular, that's why it failed. I remember my old man being pissed off because even though he was a fan of QEII he thought we should be a republic, but there was no way he was voting for it as worded.
I don't trust the Australian voting public one iota (well, I trust them to do what they usually do, it just doesn't align to what I want them to do!) but my take has always been that you take the good with the bad and not being beholden to a foreign country should always be the preferred option.
As it is, we'get no say in the GG now, the current one was endorsed/approved by the Queen and he's just been slapped down for trying to rort $18m plus $4m in perpetuity from the country but no-one really gives a shit; so how much worse can any other selection be?
Freediver
Likes Bikes and Dirt
We actually do get a say, the king/queen appoints somebody recommended by cabinet but they can only be sacked by the monarch.
mike14
Likes Dirt
OK, we get the same amount of 'say' as we would under the 99 model in that we vote for the people who vote on the GG. But unless you go to an election with each party having to declare who they would vote for/recommend, we don't really get a say.
Just realised you have taken my initial 'we' as = 'Australia'. I meant it as 'we' = 'the people'.
The Duckmeister
Has stumpy thumbs, Speciaized are so weird
Isn't this bordering on the electioneering thread?
Anyway, a possibly adequate solution I thought of could have Parliament shortlisting/appointing a handful of Presidential candidates, who are then voted on by the public. Would greatly reduce the risk of someone like Trump getting in.
Anyway, a possibly adequate solution I thought of could have Parliament shortlisting/appointing a handful of Presidential candidates, who are then voted on by the public. Would greatly reduce the risk of someone like Trump getting in.
Screw having a president or governer, just make the national cabinet a proper thing.
cammas
Seamstress
Dogshit - had to take a call from my daughter about the car key she lost, after I got going again I could see something chunky on the toes of one shoe. Stopped at a set of lights and rinsed it off but when I got on the train I got a whiff of it, as I was running late after taking the call I had push to make then run like an idiot down the platform just making the train as the doors were closing as I got to the carriage.
So currently standing up the back of the train holding the bike, sweating like a pig because I’m unfit and smelling like dog shit.
Edit - at least I made the train.
Another edit-Did I mention it was fucking raining as well.
So currently standing up the back of the train holding the bike, sweating like a pig because I’m unfit and smelling like dog shit.
Edit - at least I made the train.
Another edit-Did I mention it was fucking raining as well.
Last edited:
pink poodle
aka stickchops
Is this why everyone hates us?
Jpez
Knows which side his bread is butthurt
The non stop coverage of this thing is outta control. FFS they are still shelling around a nuclear power plant in the Ukraine and experts are saying it’s literally on the brink of disaster, literally half of Pakistan is under water, and many many other serious and noteworthy local and international stories are literally being ignored so fuckwit Koche can ask his correspondent “So how do you think the royal family are feeling right now?”
And Fuck Prince William and his sudden $1b estate inheritance and fuck the royal family. Outdated wankery.
And Fuck Prince William and his sudden $1b estate inheritance and fuck the royal family. Outdated wankery.
pink poodle
aka stickchops
Easy...she was such a humble servant of the people.
Jpez
Knows which side his bread is butthurt
She never served me a cuppa Earl Grey
pink poodle
aka stickchops
I'm pretty sure she prefered Lady Grey. And who wouldn't? It is a much nicer blend.
The Duckmeister
Has stumpy thumbs, Speciaized are so weird
Fucking deadshit steering wheel attendants (it's a stretch to call them drivers) who stop in the middle of corners. 
It should come as no surprise that said deadshit's trolley of choice is a Toyota.....
It should come as no surprise that said deadshit's trolley of choice is a Toyota..... 
Minlak
Ask me about HoboBlo franchise opportunities
I understand all of the royal coverage it is pretty big news really - But do we need to have an almost blow by blow diatribe of everything that happens around the family now - it’s like a fucking reality tv soap opera - oh King Charles got annoyed at a signing ceremony - it not like he lost his mother or anything.
I guess that is news in general though now - click bait drama to encourage views so I win the viewerships
I guess that is news in general though now - click bait drama to encourage views so I win the viewerships
Mr Crudley
Wheel size expert
Totally agree. It must be slow news day without it
I bet each network has a big FOMO without wall to wall coverage about minor details.It goes on and on. I will always be amused to watch royalty, particularly Charles, to lose his shit over a pen. FFS. Be glad he doesn't have nuclear codes.
beeb
Dr. Beebenson, PhD HA, ST, Offset (hons)
I think I get more puzzled by the worship of wealth by the masses.
If it was some homeless bum that froze to death under a bridge no one would give a fuck. But old Queeny - endless hand-wringing and "Oh it's so tragic!", "What a great leader", "A royal for the people", (etc) ensues...
Yeah, just sit on $28bn in assets and do fuck-all your entire life and when you kick the bucket you're practically anointed a saint.
I didn't hate her but can't grasp people's obsession with the royals like they have some kind of relevance to their life.
Minlak
Ask me about HoboBlo franchise opportunities
She actually did heaps with her life - they all actually do - she was involved in over 600 charities and averaged 400 engagements a year
Freediver
Likes Bikes and Dirt
And what did she do for those charities, was she at committee meetings or did she do more of the boots on ground stuff? Did she ever donate enough to affect her wealth? I'd guess the most she did for a lot of them was let them use the word royal in their name.
You do know that if she ate a dodgy curry she shat like the rest of us and that her husband was a complete dickhead.
ForkinGreat
Random Krishna
Liz must have had a packed schedule, when she was more active, often doing several in a day, I guess, Which is nice, but apparently 36% of charity engagements attended by members of the british royal family were for charities they founded....
royal patronage does not guarantee publicity nor increase donations for the vast majority of charities that could do with a boost.
Queen embarrassment: Royal Family 'useless' at helping charities
THE QUEEN has been left facing a huge embarrassment after an astonishing report noted charities benefit very little from their Royal Family patrons collecting money for their causes.
www.express.co.uk
Last edited:
Mr Crudley
Wheel size expert
I know that many charities are good causes, be that for what it is and all.........but having the government which funds a large chunk of a royal family who in turn go out to spruik the public and corporations to give and fund said charities is a bit circular. Does make an excellent photo opportunity though.
It is a sad state when you can't rely on the charisma of Princess Anne, Andrew and other little known hangers on to collect and watch it all roll in