Jump to content

My political manifesto


old man emu
 Share

Recommended Posts

All this talk about which Party we should elect to form a Federal Government has stirred the political fires in my belly, or it could be a crook prawn that I had in a prawn cocktail last night. Anyway, I've decided to set out my political manifesto. It will be a unique thing because none of the other politicos have published one. My manifesto will outline a philosophy of applying a gentle pressure on the reins of government. It will reflect a consensus approach to assisting the people of Australia achieve the sentiments of our National Anthem. It will recognise that there is wisdom to the Left and Right, and that both ends of the spectrum can contribute to suitable outcomes for all our people.

 

The first problem I have to overcome is determining a title. There are some words used in naming political entities that are tainted by prior abuse.

 

Liberal, Labor, Greens, One Nation, Australia are all out. Democratic has Red colouring. Socialist smells of "sit-down money". Republican suggests abandoning our historical links. Monarchist doesn't sit well with "For we are young and free/". People's definitively is a red ragger. Solidarity is a bit trade unionist.

 

I suppose the two best words I can find at the moment are "concord" and "unity". Concord is a seldom used word nowadays, but its roots from Latin concordia, from concors ‘of one mind’, from con- ‘together’ + cor, cord- ‘heart’ reflect the philosophy. Unity, the state of being united or joined as a whole, has the idea of being all together as one.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They left essential words out of the anthem. Young and (work for) Free is the reality... IF you are not wary, your government becomes your enemy. They spend more time dividing us than serving us, unless serving is meant the way the Bull does it and far from home. Anyhow you can't have a manifesto. It has to be a personifesto. How come you can afford a prawn cocktail and you should know it will be 1/2 rotten before they sell it to you? You must be a capitalist pig in lambs clothing or something sinister What's wrong with a raw onion in public or a big Mac. for Deputy PM. Be thankful for what dog has sent to Rule you or they will find out where you live. Wanting to change the government? That's like sedition. Serious stuff matey. Ungrateful dog,. after all they have done (to) er FOR you . Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dictators generally don't need a manifesto, personifesto, a policy or a mandate.

 

It's only when a country claims to be democratic, that everyone blames the public (voters), for giving a 'd head' the power to 'run' the country.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey!!!!!!!

 

Just because I said I wanted to publish a manifesto, doesn't mean I'm being seditious. It just means that I will state my principles clearly and concisely, and woe betide me if I drift from them for any sort of political expediency.

 

How could I afford a prawn cocktail? Well if you get off your backside and go dumpster diving like I did, you can get a really big feed from some of the best restaurants in town. Just do it the day after the garbage collection because things get over-ripe by the day before.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One option is to become an independent nation, having a Head of State and invite the hereditary monarchy of Great Britain to fulfil that role. Then we could continue to run the country as we do now, but not have to worry about political intrigue in filling the role of Head of State.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"there is an option where the government does not pick their figurehead."

 

Until the Government changes "our" laws, ( with their underhand all night sitting).

 

Then it's not a "democratic republic"

 

NO I don't trust the Government.

 

RE: NZ labor put in law "superannuation" the Nationals told the employers Not to collect the workers super, as they will change the LAW.

 

Then they spent all the $millions, & never gave any back to the workers, who contributed money from their wages.

 

A Head of State,: HAS to be a : NATIVE AUSTRALIAN.

 

spacesailor

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One option is to become an independent nation, having a Head of State and invite the hereditary monarchy of Great Britain to fulfil that role. Then we could continue to run the country as we do now, but not have to worry about political intrigue in filling the role of Head of State.

Er.. I could be wrong (it is not entirely unheard of)... But that happened back in 1986...

 

Australia Act 1986 - Wikipedia

 

Certainly the text book I should currently be reading on the Aussie constitution takes the view the 1986 referendum/change to the constitution refers to the Queen as the Queen of Australia and Australia as an independent nation to the UK. I have to pick this up with my lecturer when I am out in Aus in August, as they don't mention the impact should the UK decided to amend the Australia Acts (there are a few of them).. Do they have the force of law in Aus? The Australian Constitution is actually The Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (imp); the (imp) meaning the imperial parliament - i.e. Westminster. My guess is, in theory, it can be repealed over here, which would remove any theoretical idependence of Australia; but in practical terms, I can't see it happening - except that the military swear allegiance to the queen (when I last worked at the ADF - which was too many years ago to recount)... They made it clear to me it was not a symbolic gesture.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After that 1986 thing , WE lost our right to appeal to the UK privy Council, which we had up till then. Constitutionally, that must have been part of a very significant change in our relationship with the "Mother" Country. You really can't countenance a right to power by birth if you believe in "fair dinkum" government . It's best to have a say and that's fairest expressed in one vote for each of us equally. Many Kings (and Queens) of the past were absolute self gratifying tyrants The poor brits still struggle with their hangover from the Feudal period of CLASS in the society, which they seem to accept as inevitable. That's THEIR problem for them to deal with and not necessarily one we should inherit. Australians have developed a well formed distain for authority.(or RANK) .Here you have to earn respect to have it, Not just demand it. .The yanks use MONEY (their real GOD) as determining class when clearly some of the richest have no class whatever. and amply demonstrate it.. Love of money is a substitute for something else relating to being pre eminent, significant , noticed , obeyed. etc. With it you can (supposedly) get ALL the other "Good stuff" but NOT things. like respect and integrity. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly the text book I should currently be reading on the Aussie constitution takes the view the 1986 referendum/change to the constitution refers to the Queen as the Queen of Australia and Australia as an independent nation to the UK.

Jerry, there was no referendum.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@willedoo - Thanks - for some reason I thought there was. That saved me from embarressment later this year spacer.png

I think referendums are only for proposed changes to the constitution. It must not have involved a constitutional change in this case, so just an act of parliament passed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if we look at how Queen Elizabeth II has conducted herself as Monarch, we can cast away the fear that future monarchs of great Britain will be "absolute self gratifying tyrants". Even the idea of a Monarch holding him/herself aloof from the People seems ludicrous now. In fact, one could say that the Monarch, and Royals family are held in much higher regard and respect than any seat warmer in Westminster.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, OME. Liz has been a nightmare for Republicans like me. Even Gough Whitlam had to concede that if we had to have a monarch, she'd be the pick of them.

 

She has maintained her dignity while the elected mob have taken the Great out of Britain.

 

[ATTACH]50050._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

image.thumb.jpeg.373895a5d8a3ce8f03b52b6c35dd95a6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Charles becomes king, his age will make his reign short. William has a great understanding of the ordinary person's life, and Kate will ensure that George knows that his privileged life is not normal. Despite the diminishing of Empire during the reign of Elizabeth II, she has at least worked hard to retain the spiritual bonds between former colonies and Mother England as no other European monarchy has.

 

In History's pages, Elizabeth II will probably be regarded as the greatest of all English Monarchs.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look about our world currently, there are many forces trying to prevent the citizens having the power to govern them selves, and it will never cease.. There will be a never ending vigilance needed to preserve that RIGHT. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...