Anthony Eden (1955–57)
Harold Macmillan (1957–63)
Alec Douglas-Home (1963–64)
Harold Wilson (1964–70)
Edward Heath (1970–74)
Harold Wilson (1974–76)
James Callaghan (1976–79)
Margaret Thatcher (1979–90)
John Major (1990–97)
Tony Blair (1997–07)
Gordon Brown (2007–10)
David Cameron (2010–16)
Theresa May (2016–19)
Boris Johnson (2019–22)
Liz Truss (2022 (two days ago) - current)
Quite the reign! Can't help but feel a bit sad really.
(credit for observation goes to Matt Glassman)
You don’t get to become a PM by playing nice.
I suspect that you don't realize how bizarre this phrasing is for the vast majority of the world.
Downside: lots of bizarre complexities, bits of dead code, stuff that works as long as nobody touches it etc. Upsides: it's really stable.
There are many countries in the world who run different system of governments, and many as doing it quite successfully.
That phrase implies that she had PMs subservient to her. That's not how the UK monarchy is generally explained, at least not outside of the UK.
The regular rotation of power is a feature, not a bug.
> The Tjapwurung, an Aboriginal people in what is now southern Australia, shared the story of this bird hunt from generation to generation across an unbelievably large slice of time—many more millennia than one might think possible. The birds (most likely the species with the scientific name Genyornis newtoni) memorialized in this tale are now long extinct. Yet the story of the Tjapwurung’s “tradition respecting the existence” of these birds conveys how people pursued the giant animals. At the time of this particular hunt, between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago, volcanoes in the area were erupting, wrote amateur ethnographer James Dawson in his 1881 book Australian Aborigines, and so scientists have been able to corroborate this oral history by dating volcanic rocks.
...
> What are the limits of such ancient memories? For what length of time can knowledge be transferred within oral societies before its essence becomes irretrievably lost? Under optimal conditions, as suggested by science-determined ages for events recalled in ancient stories, orally shared knowledge can demonstrably endure more than 7,000 years, quite possibly 10,000, but probably not much longer.
https://www.sapiens.org/language/oral-tradition/
So, anyway, be it 10k or 30k, definitely within an era of "history" and not "pre-history"
Under Charles III’s reign, it will be His Majesty’s government; how actively he takes an interest in its affairs will be on him, but at a minimum laws will not take effect without his assent and his permission will be asked for to form future governments.
That’s the system of the United Kingdom. It never stopped being a Kingdom, people just chose to view the late Queen as ceremonial because it was a convenient way to square the Throne with democratic ideals, but it really isn’t all that ceremonial. The reason the customs held fast is because Queen Elizabeth II worked to make the system work. A different sort of Queen may have sparked a constitutional crisis or two by now and there’s no guarantee she would have necessarily lost to the Commons.
Serious question: name someone who might realistically be President who would not make you sad.
Asus being a republic is doing to be 50 years of dumb, outdated ideas and strife. None of our pollies are going to be innovative (Kevin, Turnbull, and Gillard were the last attempts)
With Murdoch having such a strong grip on the public conversation, he's going to profit the most from shitty controversies over absolutely nothing.
There's already a "change" vacuum (think power vacuum) in Australia which really opens the door for totalitarianism in the future. And Australian nanny-state-ism hasn't been a good precedent so far.
Definitively, yes, Australia "began" with European settlement of the continent.
You can't just erase all those years of history or say they weren't part of our history, because they're "unpalatable". Ugh. Did you forget your history that you learned in school? :)
Perhaps this may seem like semantics to someone who doesn’t live here but I find this sentiment at best ignorant and at worst offensive.
Michael Kirby, Marie Bashir–both too old now, but either could have been a fine President if we had become a republic sooner. Or, similarly, Ted Egan, former Administrator of the Northern Territory.
Frank Brennan–the whole his being a Catholic priest thing is somewhat of an obstacle, admittedly (although possibly not a completely insurmountable one.)
What about Susan Kiefel? Or Angus Campbell?
However, I think there is nothing further to be gained here as we would be arguing semantics.
Perhaps I’m just jaded. I don’t see it happening. I see it being one of the same old dudes that we all basically can’t stand.
It's common for "Australia's history" to refer to pre-colonisation in addition to the last couple of hundred years.
This is almost certainly because Australians see the country and the continent as 'the same' for all intents and purposes.
Wait, you mean to tell me the King can veto laws in the UK? I thought you guys figured this loophole out? Who controls the military?
The President is a largely symbolic apolitical role – yet also popularly elected. To ensure only high quality candidates run, the hurdle to nominate is rather high – nomination by at least 20 members of the Irish Parliament (the Oireachtas), or by at least four county/city councils (Ireland only has 31). My impression is that people are generally happy with the outcome of the process.
In Australia, we could similarly require nomination by at least 20 MPs (the Parliament of Australia is only slightly larger than the Oireachtas, 227 vs 220). The four councils requirement is a bit harder to translate – but rough equivalents would be nomination by 1 state/territory government, or by 70 local councils.
In reality, if King Charles started vetoing then after a short constitutional crisis, parliament would basically just change the rules of the game to say that the monarch no longer has the power to veto laws.
For all of those Australians, having the democratically elected PM become president is clearly superior than having an unelected monarch be the head of state.
You're the one kidding, mate.
Unbelievable.
The functions and powers of our Presidency are a much closer derivative of the British monarchy than we tell ourselves in our classrooms. The President signing bills into law is a copy of the requisite assent of the monarchy. Political appointments were a copy of how the King vested power, and as you guessed it, the King is the Head of the British Armed Forces.
Also I think even British folks are undersold on how powerful the late Queen really was. She may not have vetoed any legislation, but her Prime Ministers sought and received her advice regularly, consulting with her and unburdening themselves to her the problems they were faced with or tasked with resolving. Put another way, she was an active participant in how laws were formed and the business of Her Majesty’s governments proceeded even if she did not participate in the drafting of the texts or have any policy objectives per se. That isn’t ceremonial at all, although many of her duties as Queen and Defender of the Faith were ceremonial.
In America we celebrate the separation of powers, telling ourselves a few myths along the way about the co-equality of branches (essentially Nixon era propaganda from when he was facing down the gun barrel of impeachment, but Congress adopted the myth despite being head and shoulders the most powerful branch of Government under the Constitution). The King-in-Parliament—or under the late Queen, the Queen-in-Parliament—is absolute power in the United Kingdom and no one may question their directives because this is King, Lords and Commons speaking as one. Their power as one body is what we separated into the President, Senate, Representatives and Supreme Court. We then limited it further by conceiving of powers as enumerated, although clearly this was insufficient as a power limiter.
The royal family is little more then a Kabuki act at this point, no reason to throw out tradition on a whim.
The Duke of Cornwall, The Duke of Somerset, The Duke of Norfolk and The Duke of Richmond
Sign me up..!
We always complain that politicians work on a two-year cycle. If your position is permanent (pending death), you escape this cycle.
See also: the House of Lords.
It’s weird to think about, and I’m a working-class Labour voter from Sunderland whose grandad was a welder on the ships, but there’s something to be said for it.
If the monarch tried to actually do something significant with that power I imagine the law would be changed pretty quickly.
This is why working royals generally have various military titles and positions, because the monarch is the head of the armed forces. It's also why the monarch dresses in military regalia for various military events.
Like how you can question 1788 is the start of Australia is just ridiculous. And the monarch was the monarch of Australia for all that time because it was a British colony and then federation and we still have those heads of state. so it's not completely factual... what I said is factual what the other person said is wrong or limited to the point of view of federation. To argue against what I'm saying is crazy. What's the point of it even it's just like picking fights.
Your facts don't cover the reality of the situation I'm sorry. Australia is not just a name on a piece of paper after federation. Why do engineers think a single fact conveys the whole truth. Then I realize it's abusive to stick to that and not consider all the points of view...ugh. whatever.
Convince yourself what you want man but it's not the truth. But I don't think you've got any skin in the game to even argue this... Haha :)