What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Sack the G.G.

L

legend

Guest
"I have to say it shits me that people are willing to make excuses for Hollingsworth."

Willow, are you talking to yourself again or are you referring to myself and El Duque?
emdgust.gif

 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,346
LOL... Legend, sorry to disappoint ol son but I don't think of you in every post. Does my last paragraph make any reference to you? Unless ofcourse you've re-invented yourself as Tony Abbott... anything is possible I guess.
Perhaps you should read it again. :)
 

imported_midas

Juniors
Messages
988
The public prosecutor is not involved in this case-it is a civil case,like Clarke,s and will be prosecuted by the plaintiff,s lawyers.
Lindsay Tanner has replaced Abbott as Idiot of The Week by raising this matter.
Had he not raised it,it seems fairly certain that the GG would have resigned by next week after Howards return.
To resign now would give credibility to thes rape allegations,so we are stuck with the GG for a while ,thanks to Mr Tanner.
 

imported_Tonyp

Juniors
Messages
37
Being a Republican I hope the matter drags on as long as possible.
The further it goes on, the more damage there is to the Office. The better chance the stench spreads to the Queen. And Australians everywhere will realise privelige and appointment is no basis on which to build a democratic society.
He should have gone when he said the 14 year old girl lead on the priest.

Howard = Hollingworth = Pedophile Protection = Pedophile
 

imported_midas

Juniors
Messages
988
Privelege and appointment is exactly why we haven,t got a Republic now.Had the Republican movement been willing to accept a democratically elected President instead of an appointed one,Australia would be a Republic right now.
As for the stench spreading to the queen,I can,t agree.The queen has indicated on many occasions that she would not be at all perturbed if Australia voted to become a republic.Hollingworth is Howard,s appointment ,not the queen,s.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,346
midas: "Had the Republican movement been willing to accept a democratically elected President instead of an appointed one,Australia would be a Republic right now."

On the surface that may seem correct, but we have to remember who engineered the rabble known as the Republican Convention. It was our very own PM Howard.

The convention was split on whether or not the President should be elected by a two thirds majority of parliament or by popular vote in the electorate. Personally, I was happy with either because both models were far better than having a GG simply appointed by the PM and the PM alone.

Its too easy to write-off the Republican push as having failed because of squabbles over the model to be adopted. It can also be said that if we had didnt have a royalist for a PM, then we would have a Republic right now.

It is priviledge and appointment that has kept the current system in place and it the same attitiude that is allowing Hollingsworth to keep his job. Its as if we're not allowed to sack him because he is the Queens representative. Only the Queen can sack the GG and she'll only do that if the PMrequests as much.

Alternatively, if we had a President who was elected by a two thirds majority of parliament, then he could be voted out by those people who represent the Australian electorate.
 

imported_midas

Juniors
Messages
988
If we had a head of state elected by a two-thirds majority of Parliament and he/she turned out to have a skeleton in the closet/blot on the escutcheon/dark person in the woodpile-whatever,then we would all be bitching about the folly of having a head of state elected by idiots (i.e politicians-same thing.)
What the republican movement failed to grasp was that a significant proportion of the electorate is well enough educated to realise that pollies would use the position to appoint political hacks (remember Bill Hayden ?) or token appointments like token aboriginal,token ethnic,token homosexual,token woman -whatever.
Notwithstanding John Howards manoeuvering,had they embraced the concept of a popularly elected head of state,we would be a republic right now.
When we go to another referendum in years to come,if they dont adopt this principle ,we will still be a monarchy when Prince William is a geriatric.(King Billy?)
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,346
A token woman? LOL. I'd like to have one of those. ;)

"What the republican movement failed to grasp was that a significant proportion of the electorate is well enough educated to realise that pollies would use the position to appoint political hacks (remember Bill Hayden ?) or token appointments "
Not at all. Its interesting that you use the example of an appointed GG to seek out short comings in the Republican movement... how did youmanage that?


If we are to have a President elected by popular vote, then certain caps should be put in place to make sure that the candidates have no party affiliations. The danger being that the head of state could becone hostile towards one side of politics. Additionally, its possible that a President elected by popular vote may become too politicise (assuming that its avoidable in politics) and may have more influence than the PM. I don't think that would happen and this hasn't been the case in Ireland, for example.

I can see the wisdom in having a two-third majority of parliament elect the President because he or she would then have to be acceptable to the opposition as well the government.

Like I said, I think either model is far better then the current system of having a GG selected by the PM and rubber stamped by the Queen, whoofficially remains as our head of state.

Elected or otherwise, there is always a chance that the wrong person will get the job.
Thisraises the question, has the PM shown poor judgment in selecting Hollingsworth?
 

imported_midas

Juniors
Messages
988
The Bill Hayden example was not to point out shortcomings in the republican movement (wild leap even for you ) but obviously to illustrate the cynicism that a large proportion of the electorate has towards pollies and the shortcoming of that particular method of appointment.
A republic is a highly desirable thing but,like someothers, I don,t regard it as a screaming priority because once it is established it will make no difference whatsoever to my daily life,so it can happen whenever it,s most convenient and cheapest-please,no more multi-million dollar gabfests!
 
Messages
207
Willow,
Re the PM's judgement with Hollingworths appointment.
Given the political history between the countrys religious denominations,Howard was actually trying to kill 2 birds with the one stone.His action was an attempt to alienate the Catholics by concentrating the political power into the Methodist/Anglican/Protestant religious sector.Basically put,traditionally, the majority of Catholics are Labor voters and the Anglicans are liberal voters.Whilst that might not necessarily be such an influence in todays society,nevertheless I believe it was a component of Howards thinking when he appointed Hollingworth.Howard is a devotee of Menzies and this was an opportunity for him to maintain his traditions.It also allowed him to continue his politics of divide and conquer.It was a smart political choice to appoint Hollingworth.
It was, however, a poor personal choice.Hollingworth, like Kerr, is a bloke wrapped up in own self-importance, and his decision to forsake a sworn clegy role to appease his own ego made him a potential liability to both Howard and the country.
Hollingworth is a shallow person who likes to dress up in formal attire (robes etc,by the way,Hollingworth is on the public record as having stated his preference for robes,it was one of the things that attracted him to the clergy as a career).
He has similiarity to Kerr in that he likes to be in powerful positions, but lacks the courage to stand for elected office, and it does not take long for gutless bastards to get found out.
Hollingworths inactions whilst he was archbishop smacks of self-protection.
Consequently when Howard chose him to be GG he made a choice based on politics not a personal choice (judgement) of the character of the person required to be able to do the job to the level expected by the community.
This is one of those occassions where Howard had a failure of judgement fuelled by his political ambitions.
One of the beauties of the current situation is that when Hollingworth goes (and he will go),is that all the nonsense about him resigning with his dignity intact,will be just garbage.His dignity is now out the window and he just looks like a dopey,stubborn old prick being held together by a self-righteousness that only he believes.
Soon this thin defense will crumble and he will either descend into a senile mess or suicide.
Serves the bastard right.His ambitions didn't allow him the insight to see how Howard was using him, and that is secondary to deliberately leaving children at the high risk of being sexually molested by self-confessed predators.




 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,346
It wasnt really a wild leap... it was what you said. Perhaps mentioning ex-GG Bill Hayden is the same breath as failed Republicanism is what did it.

But fair enough. So what you're saying is that people don't trust politicians to make the decision for them... even if people elected those politicians and it would still take two thirds of the parliament to elect a President. In any case, who said democracy always works anyway?
I fully agree that this 'don't trust politicians' was one of the big arguments used by Monarchist against the Republic. People wanted to vote for the President. Despite the fact that would be costly and might deliver us a politician instead of Statesman didnt seem to worry a good portion of the voters.

At the very least, there were enough direct electionists to see the Republican Referendum defeated. I recall the 'No' vote was about 54% - that still means almost half thevoters wanted the two-thirds parliamentary model and suggests that more than half of thepopulation do not want a monarchy. Polls in 1999 showed that approximately 75% want a Republic but the Convention, which was set up by PM Howard, split the vote amongst the direct electionists and the 2/3 parliament electionists.

Other arguments the Monarchists used was that Australia would be kicked out of the Commonwealth...they ran with for quite some time despite the fact that it was a lie. They also said that Republican wanted to change the flag which wasn't on the agenda at all and is a totally separate issue. They even had the gall to say that the two-thirds parliamentary model was undemocratic... as if having the Queen of England as our head of state is democratic.

They also used argument that you touched on. 'It aint broke, don't fix it.' They said it would not change our lives so why bother? This totally contradicted all other argument that that we would be worse off with a Republic.
With respect, I find this a to be lame reason. Was it folly for Australia to have Federation? The same things were said over 100 years ago, 'it will make no difference whatsoever to my daily life'. The anti-Federation lobby were using much the same arguments that the Monarchists use now.

It comes down to this. IMO, having a monarchy is holding Australia back. Not economically. Its the attitude that we in some way still British. Its like were in some way afraid of the future... quite frankly, I believe its conservatism gone mad. And with that, the general community will always be grappling with anything that might seem to deviate from the accepted norm.

The irony of all this is the Brits dont understand why we are still a Constutional Monarchy. Many pommies are actually surprised to hear that we still have the Queen as our head-of-state and that we voted against the Republic. The Queen herself has said that it is a decision that Australians have to make for themselves and Prince Charlie has re-affirmed this and even encouraged Australia to leave the nest.

"...most convenient and cheapest-please,no more multi-million dollar gabfests!"
I agree totally. But it was the PM Howard went to so much trouble to set up a divisive and expensive 'gabfest'. Having said that, I dread to think what its costs the Australian tax payer every time one of the Royals pops over for tea and scones.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,346
Thanks Ted.. but I think both you and I are clearly anti-Howard... I'm actually anti-any politician who bullshits 24/7 so that leaves the gate wide open.

I'm still curiouswhat fans of John Howard think of this.. ie was the appointment of Hollingsworth was poor judgment on the PM's part?

Especially considering that he knew about the rape allegations since last last year... we have at least wonder what else Howard knew about the bloke.
 
Messages
207
Willow,
You are right about us being anti-Howard,but my post(no 50),was more of a reply to your question of judgement and to the whys and wherefores of Hollingworths appointment,rather than my usual diatribe of anti-Liberal ranting.
It was also a bit of an analysis of Hollingworth and what a shallowshell of a human being he is.
As I said about him, he will soon decompensate into being a shell of his former shell and good riddance to bad rubbish.
Good to see the genes run in the family.
His silly daughter was mounting a defence based on her perception that he loves his family (ie more than he loves himself).
On those grounds it is now only fair to declare Ivan Milat innocent.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,346
... andTed, I thought you covered the profile of Hollingsworth well. Good to see his daughter thinks he's a top bloke... obviously the desperate kids who he ignored have got it wrong. :(

Thats why I can't understand why people are willing to make excuses for him. eg Tony Abott.. but then again, this is Tony Abbott we are talking about. If ever there was a snake...
 

imported_justme

Juniors
Messages
728
Lord Ted, re post 50, you have summed up my thoughts so well that anything else I say will just be rehashing what you've already written soI'lljust leave it as, yeah, like he said. :)

Willow
So what you're saying is that people don't trust politicians to make the decision for them... even if people elected those politicians and it would still take two thirds of the parliament to elect a President
Too bloody right, and in any case, I didn't elect them, you buggers did :mad:
I do agree with Midas in respect of aPresident should beelected by the people and that was wherewe lost it.Out manoeuvred by slinky Howard.
 

imported_midas

Juniors
Messages
988
With respect ,not being a rep[ublic is not holding Australia back in any way,shape or form-some overseas visitors and trading partners think it a trifle odd but that,s all.
The republicans tried to convince us that it was causing us all sorts of grief in Asia-bullshit !
I have made maybe 40 business trips to vartious Asian destinations over the last ten years and it has not ever been a consideration.
Both sides floated lies,distortions,untruths .half-truths whatever when it was all so unnecessary.The public have indicated that they want a republic but on their terms ,not the pollies terms.Howard was not the main villain bit the loony left who as always took the approach "I,ll tell you what,s good for you."
The public have indicated what they want-cop the tip,get it done.
 
J

Johnsy

Guest
It is very very simple

Hollingsworth is not a representative of the Australian people, he is little Johnnie's chosen representative for the Australian people.

Given the choice of having 2/3 rd's of parliment pick a representative or Johnnie picking his man, I know which I would opt for.

I love the way the little man is trying to distance himself without some mud or blame sticking. At least be man enough to say "Yes I made a seriously bad decision" that is what a man would do.

Johnsy

 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,346
midas, when I said the republican debate was holding Australia back, I made a point of saying that it wasnt economically. So I agree with you on that point.
IMO, progressdoesnt neccesarilymean economical growth. I know this goes against the current new century belief system... but in the long term it means very little to be successful in national commerce if we cant look after things closer to home.

Both sides lied but the Monarchists, with nothing to lose, spoke absolute rubbish for months on end. No doubt about it.

Having visited SE Asia about the same of times, I wonder why we havent run into each other. ;)

btw, do you think PM Howard has shown poor judgment in appointing Peter Hollingsworth as the GG?
 

imported_midas

Juniors
Messages
988
willow
yes,Howard showed exceptionally poor judgement in appointing Hollingworth who,even without the paedophile scandals,had dickhead written all over him and was never going to be popular because he,s so far up himself it,s dark.
As I said previously,for a cunning and savvy polly,it was a really dumb decision.
I get the feeling there was more to it but not any of the theories advanced so far on this thread.
Actually,appointing a religious leader of any denomination would be stupid.(except JC himself,of course,who would have been my choice)
 

Latest posts

Top