Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Queen’s Coup

declassifiedaus.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 113 posts

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#51

Post by mst »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #49
mst wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think having a nominal monarch for people to form parasocial relationships with rather than getting overly attached to any given politician has its advantages. But (note, UK person here, add salt accordingly) it seems like you could retain that part while also stripping any actual power - i.e. 'power-wise practically a republic, emphasis on the -nominal- in my first sentence.'

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how Australia works this one out. I think becoming a republic is a matter of when not if, and there's a ton of ideas around about what to do about a head of state. We're not averse to trying out new ideas if they seem good - the Aussie voting system is about as close to perfect as you can get (but our politicians not so much).

Having an 'above the fray' (or at least apparently so) head of state -somehow- is pretty much the thing I'm endorsing here.

Implementation details thereof I don't have a strong opinion on except perhaps "if I ever do develop such an opinion you should probably ignore it anyway."

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#52

Post by telmo »

b800h wrote: post #50

In a British style constitutional monarchy, it is the job of the monarch to resolve these sorts of stalemates. The title is absurd.

Ok, but then it must be accepted that a "British style constitutional monarchy" is not a full democracy, given that in certain situations a non-elected head of state holds real power.

I believe this sort of news appears in the context of it being commonly argued that in a "British style constitutional monarchy" the monarch holds no real power, and people who suggest otherwise are often dismissed as lunatics.

It is good to point out that one cannot have it both ways. Either this is indeed a coup, or the regime is not a full democracy.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#53

Post by flerchin »

VictorPath wrote: post #43
ggm wrote: post #30

I am an avowed republican, I waited until I didn't have to swear alleigence to the crown to take my citizenship in Oz. But I am aware of a 51/49 class split between Liberal and Labor over Gough, and so the belief this "they tried to overthrow Gough" thing translates to "OMG the republicans will win" is ludicrous. Enough people think Gough was bonkers, That even Razor-gang Malcom Frazer was better. I am glued on Gough…

> Enough people think Gough was bonkers There is much discussion about how in the cold war, a swath of countries from East Germany to China ran as states led by one party. Not much discussed is how many western aligned countries did as well. As the Cold War heated up, from 1949 to 1972, the Liberal coalition ran Australia. In 1972 another party is elected into power, and an extraordinary amount of energy from within…

For crying out loud, a long term majority is not One Party Rule. The primary difference being that dissenting parties are not outlawed.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#54

Post by Defletter »

telmo wrote: post #52
b800h wrote: post #50

In a British style constitutional monarchy, it is the job of the monarch to resolve these sorts of stalemates. The title is absurd.

Ok, but then it must be accepted that a "British style constitutional monarchy" is not a full democracy, given that in certain situations a non-elected head of state holds real power. I believe this sort of news appears in the context of it being commonly argued that in a "British style constitutional monarchy" the monarch holds no real power, and people who suggest otherwise are often dismissed as lunatics. It is go…

Anything short of a direct democracy is not a full democracy

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#55

Post by Naga »

The list of constitutional crises in the former Dominions is a short list, so I thought I'd point out a similar event that happened in Canadian history. Wikipedia calls it the King-Byng affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair), but my history professors usually referred to it affectionately as the King-Byng Thing.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#58

Post by orangepurple »

Jedd wrote: post #45
ggm wrote: post #30

I am an avowed republican, I waited until I didn't have to swear alleigence to the crown to take my citizenship in Oz. But I am aware of a 51/49 class split between Liberal and Labor over Gough, and so the belief this "they tried to overthrow Gough" thing translates to "OMG the republicans will win" is ludicrous. Enough people think Gough was bonkers, That even Razor-gang Malcom Frazer was better. I am glued on Gough…

> But I am aware of a 51/49 class split between Liberal and Labor over Gough .. This may be a somewhat outdated appraisal of the situation. The number of people voting for neither of those parties (including coalition members) has been steadily growing for years, with the most recent federal election reaching 33%. I recall, more hazily, that the previous federal election (so several prime ministers ago) it was just n…

No post body was provided.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#59

Post by 3pt14159 »

anonymous_sorry wrote: post #42
mellosouls wrote: post #33

This seems a rather passionately biased take on the - undoubtedly very controversial - constitutional moment, that seems determined to push "blame" onto the late Queen. The title is absurd clickbait. Reading into the background in less partial news articles it seems that the Royal team were rightly answering the GG's questions in his uncommonly frequent letters and stressing the action should be a last resort. If the…

The monarchy means that prime ministers, who are generally only directly elected by people in a small geographic constituency, get to exercise the power of a head of state, via the monarch. Even weirder in this case, the prime minister (not directly elected by the general populace) appointed an Governor General (not elected at all) to a position with monarchic powers, and that power was used against him.

I know this seems weird to outsiders, but as a Canadian I quite like it.

Having PMs elected by MPs means that it is harder for a single rabble rousing politician to sweep to power and distort the use of, say, the military.

Having Governers General appointed by PMs, and confirmed by the monarch, means that someone outside of politics (usually a well respected figure like a university president or astronaut) holds the final red line about whether or not an election must be called. Since it's via appointment, the monarch doesn't bear the brunt of the public rage for it. And since the monarch must confirm the GG it means that the position can't be stuffed with an obvious political hack.

It jives better than it sounds it would jive. It's like checks and balances with as many arguments and gridlock.

As an aside, I feel the same way about the Notwithstanding Clause[0] of the Canadian Constitution. It's a useful tool to diffuse hard issues that can't be used against the public to stop them from voting or speaking and since it automatically expires after a short, preset time the power is ultimately in the hands of the electorate.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Cha...

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#60

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

flerchin wrote: post #53
VictorPath wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Enough people think Gough was bonkers There is much discussion about how in the cold war, a swath of countries from East Germany to China ran as states led by one party. Not much discussed is how many western aligned countries did as well. As the Cold War heated up, from 1949 to 1972, the Liberal coalition ran Australia. In 1972 another party is elected into power, and an extraordinary amount of energy from within…

For crying out loud, a long term majority is not One Party Rule. The primary difference being that dissenting parties are not outlawed.

no but South America had a lot of cia backed coups when the wrong party won.
Post reply on HN