Posted on 11/26/2007 2:04:51 PM PST by knighthawk
This is much bigger
“He will also the sign the Kyoto agreement on climate change on behalf of Australia — something Mr Howard had always refused to endorse. “
Not according to this NY Sun article:
Debauchery May Win Premiership for Australia’s Rudd
If, as expected, Prime Minister Howard of Australia loses this week’s general election, he can blame his defeat in large part on a drunken evening that his opponent, Kevin Rudd, spent in a Manhattan lap-dancing club with the editor of the New York Post, Col Allan.
Whereas in most countries a well-publicized night on the tiles by a self-professed “Christian socialist” might bring about a swift end to a political career, in Australia the news that the clean-cut leader of the Labor Party was one of the boys did him no end of good.
As soon as news of his evening of debauchery in New York with Mr. Allan, fellow Australian, reached home, his poll lead began to increase, and with less than a week to go until the polls open on Saturday, he leads Mr. Howard, 68, by between 8 and 10 points.
http://www.nysun.com/article/66645
Australia's most socialist Prime Minister Gough Whitlam has spent the last few months violating Australia's constitutional conventions by refusing to call a general election in a situation where he is unable to effectively govern. Because he knows he will lose the election, he's not willing to call it.
He presents a plan by which the Australian Government will compel the Commonwealth Bank - the bank the vast majority of ordinary Australians have their savings invested in - to make an unsecured, interest free loan to perpetuate his government.
The Queen's representative in Australia, His Excellency Sir John Kerr, Governor General of Australia, summons the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser and asks him what he would do if he was Prime Minister. Fraser informs the Governor General that his first act would be to pass the money bill held up in the Senate, and his second act would be to call a General Election.
The Governor General commissions Malcolm Fraser as Prime Minister, and shortly thereafter dismisses the Whitlam government from office. Parliament is dissolved later that afternoon so an election can be held.
The worst constitutional crisis in Australia's history is averted because at the head of our system of government is a figure who is outside politics, who never has to run for office, and whose powers are almost entirely ceremonial - except in an emergency.
This is why a large number of Australians are monarchists.
If someone can come up with another way of giving us a largely apolitical Head of State, with a long tradition of allowing the government to govern without interference, except in times of major crisis, we'd be interested in hearing about it.
As for the idea that the Royal Family are on some sort of 'permanent dole' at the expense of the taxpayer, that's not true of most of them. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh do receive money from the Civil List. They receive that money as a result of a 1760 agreement by which George III transferred the hereditary revenues of the Crown, to the state, on condition that certain expenses would be paid by the government. He gave up his family's money to his country, in exchange for expenses being covered. If the Royal Family had kept those revenues, they'd be far higher than the money paid out under the Civil List. It's called the Crown Estate, and it's worth about £7,000,000,000. But it's true that they do get some money. About £10,000,000 a year - so in about another 500 or so years, the British government will have paid back the value of the land George III gave them in payments to the Royal family. Put it another way, the British government gets about £180,000,000 in revenue each year from the Crown Estates, and gives the Crown £10,000,000 in exchange for that.
And it's only those two get money from the taxpayers. Other members of the Royal Family are largely funded by monies gathered in rent from the Duchy of Lancaster - rent paid on properties that the Royal family owns in the same way, anybody else can own property. They've owned it since before they became the Royal Family, in fact, since 1265, with it first being held by a monarch in 1399. So unless you want land and property to be simply seized from this family by the state, it's their cash. Their property. It's worth about £300,000,000.
Want to steal it from them?
I can understand people thinking the idea of a Royal Family is old fashioned. But economically, it's a pretty good deal for British taxpayers.
And an even better deal for those of us in the rest of the Commonwealth - we only pay for them when they visit.
(Declaring a bias, I'm a friend of the Duke of York, and I know the Prince of Wales as well. I like these people, and I know they do a great deal of hard work to serve their nation, and their people.)
A pretty pony for everyone!
Adios monarchy. Don’t let the door hit yer butt on the way out. Anyhow, after Charles and Diana and all that stupidity, why would anyone want to take the chance on him being king?
Well, he’s welcome to sign the Kyoto treaty; those nations who sign it and screw themselves will soon be taking those who refuse to international courts and forums, which will mean war, or the equivalent of war.
Lefties just LOVE to apologize for things THEY haven’t done, but won’t apologize for things they HAVE done.
After the way the Brits treated the Australian soldiers at Gallipoli, like cannon fodder, I'm surprised the Aussies didn't flip off the Brits years ago.
Seems those Aussies supporters of a "Republic", believe it would consist of doing away with the MONARCHY in Australia, rather than moving to "Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them". (which they ALREADY have in place have WITHOUT being a "Republic").
To make matters worse, they seem to think they can still have DEMOCRATIC elections after becoming a Republic! That can't be, since a bunch of freepers here INSIST that it's not possible to be a Democratic Republic. They claim those are TOTALLY separate, COMPETITING "forms" of government (see their lecturing on "Republic vs. a Democracy", and America is clearly ONLY a Republic and NOT Democratic.
Perhaps the "we're not a democracy" crowd here should start a letter writing campaign to "inform" the Aussies of the truth. I suppose they already are a "Republic", according to what the "we're not a democracy" crowd claims is the meaning of the word "Republic"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.