Croz dressers?

Herbert Thornton

Melanie writes -

"Cameron’s Tories have discovered that it is only when they say conservative things that their poll ratings go up."

How true. Unfortunately, Cameron was also hailed by the media and Tory Party spinners for saying something 'conservative' when all he did was make a vague and largely empty speech at the party conference.

But the speech did include the word 'immigration'. That fact alone was presented as something 'conservative'!

Mike Zarb

There are rumblings of the republican issue being pushed yet again by our newly elected Government. Moreover, Malcolm Turnbill actually led the republican movement in the late 90s! It would be a terrible shame if we Aussies broke our ties with the Crown -- it would be another manifestation of the multi-culti crowd's agenda to rid ourselves of the Anglo-Western heritage that established and secured this nation.

Can you imagine the uproar if a politician tried to push the notion of ridding Australia of our Indigenous heritage, or our Asian ties, or our Irish-convict folklore?

As Dr Shelby Steele puts it: "white guilt", and as Lord Clarke narrates in his series "Civilisation", "...the loss of Cultural confidence".

Mike Zarb,
Sydney

Roy Batty

If Rudd is a poor imitation of Howard, why did he win? The received wisdom in Australia was that Howard wins elections by picking on some rough edge in his opponent and hammering it, hard. Being policy-light was always going to be necessary for Rudd to win. And the Liberals were in fact originally rather liberal. Howard is the political transvestite here, moving them to the right and giving Labour room.

Mike Zarb

It's just been announced that Turnbill is out, and Conservative Dr Brendan Nelson is in. Nice turn of events.

Mike Zarb,
Sydney

Mark from Sydney

The Liberal leadership has gone to Brendan Nelson not Malcom Turnbull. This is probably a better choice. The "received wisdom" in Australia is that Howard won, and kept winning because he said what he meant and did what he said. He was an old fashioned conviction politician who understood that his job was to provide the greatest good for the greatetst number. You don't get much more liberal than that.

Syney Bruce

Interesting comparison. Melanie, but you're perhaps forgetting Bob Hawke who may lay claim to having invented 'New Labour' principles (in his second term, after a disastrous leftist experiment in his first). I seem to recall a visit to Oz by Tony Blair before his first electoral success (Keating era?), just to see for himself what made an economically sensible Labor so successful: "As one of the longest-serving Australian Prime Ministers, Hawke (ALP, PM 1983-91)) oversaw a substantial set of policy changes. Among other things, the Hawke Government floated the dollar, deregulated the financial system, overhauled the tariff system, privatised state sector industries, and sold off the national bank."

davod

The balance of power in th Congress changed, in part, because Dem candidates moved to the right of the Reublican incumbents.

David Lindsay

Well, of course Howard's successor as Leader was always going to be a republican! But thankfully, by rejecting John Howard, Australians have rejected every anti-monarchist argument, not least "meritocracy" (that those with wealth and paper qualifications should determine merit, on the basis of wealth and paper qualifications), globalisation (with its erosion of national and local differences), and, within that, enforced conformity to the culture (in a horribly debased form) and to the geopolitical interests of the United States. Nothing could better encapsulate that rejection than another vote in a referendum to retain the institution that, across so many Realms and Territories, stands for and embodies something so much better, so much nobler, so much more humane. God Save The Queen!

David Lindsay

If you believe in "meritocracy" (that those with wealth and paper qualifications should determine merit, on the basis of wealth and paper qualifications), in globalisation (with its erosion of national and local differences), and, within that, in enforced conformity to the culture (in a horribly debased form) and to the geopolitical interests of the United States, then you must believe in the abolition of the monarchy, whether in Australia, in Britain, or anywhere else. Thankfully, these are exactly the notions that have just been rejected at the ballot box in Australia, and will be again when the next republic referendum comes along. Will the Australian Political Class get the message this time?

Joshua

David, hopefully there won't be another referendum on the republic. The simple argument is this: Australia already voted on it and rejected it. Why do we need another ballot? Is it a case that referendums should be continually held on the republic until Australians finally make the "right" decision? If Australia does opt for a republic, will republicans be sympathetic to monarchists pushing for referendums to return to the monarchy just in case people made the "wrong" decision and have changed their minds? I think not.