Your Say lets readers inform Crikey what they give thought to the tales we’ve printed. In the present day you defend and deny the relevance of Q+A, the Greens, and the monarchy.
Miriam Germein writes: Leslie Cannold’s evaluation of Q+A’s downward trajectory covers most speaking factors on social media just lately. I’ve shared related ideas, initially irritated by the transfer to Thursday evenings and the obsessive trolling of varied hosts. Nonetheless, latest episodes have been sufficiently compelling to stay for the conclusion. Final week’s panel was various in experience and, most significantly, was allowed to talk at size, regardless of proof of Stan Grant’s enthusiasm operating free. That is key. As a viewer, I wish to hear elaboration of points and particularly the engagement and reactions of panel members to one another. When there are such a lot of of the identical outdated views peddled endlessly within the mainstream press, a considered query to a worthy and related recipient invariably reveals concepts and perception. That is the core stuff of a wholesome democracy. If not Q+A, then what?
Paul Recher writes: General the article predicting the demise of Q+A is the place my cash is. But me, myself and I (and others?) would nonetheless be engaged if it had not taken a one-way experience to the Land of Limpdickity. Be daring. Be provocative. Be attention-grabbing.
Terry Mills writes: Sure, I’m nonetheless watching Q+A however I’m selective. Some episodes get very PC with poor panel choice however one in August was a ripper. It was about Scott Morrison’s a number of ministries and panellists had been creator Johann Hari; Minister for Emergency Administration and Agriculture Murray Watt; Keith Pitt, federal Nationals MP for Hinkler; Catherine Cusack, former Liberal member of the NSW Legislative Council; Blak Douglas, Archibald prize-winning artist and musician; Amanda Rose, founding director of Western Sydney Ladies. These panellists appeared to mesh and Pitt was hilarious attempting to supply excuses for Morrison.
Gavin Bamforth writes: Q+A is a nationwide, live-televised, face-to-face public discussion board coping with present points, and though it’s not good nothing else comes even near that. I do watch it — though not each week — and I hope it stays.
Tony Whiteley writes: Q+A was as soon as obligatory viewing for us. Today we watch it solely often. The explanations are a number of. First, it appears to have misplaced its innovative, with audio system usually being much less rigorous and debates being much less compelling. Second, the standard of the internet hosting has diminished, with Stan Grant inclined to supply giant slabs of his personal opinion/commentary as if he desires to be a panel member reasonably than a facilitator/host. Third, I get a whole lot of evaluation of present affairs from on-line sources and Q+A doesn’t usually add much more perception. I discover The Drum extra attention-grabbing and fascinating with the tighter format and educated panel members.
Robert William Auld writes: Leslie Cannold appears to have gotten out of the incorrect facet of mattress together with her scathing view of Q+A. Considerate individuals forged their information-gathering internet wider than her drained outdated sources. Anybody partaking with the wild west of social media is being both naive or plain lazy.
Frank Ward writes: As I’ve noticed over my 93 years there has all the time some variations of so-called progressive insurance policies that enchantment to the left. Who of their proper thoughts wouldn’t assist zero emissions by 2050 or the novel tax coverage that screwed the fossil gasoline trade as arduous because it has been screwing the Australian financial system? Nonetheless, as all Labor prime ministers from Curtin and Chifley on have discovered, the general public is definitely frightened by the Murdoch press and different brokers of capital so it has needed to transfer slowly, taking small steps, a lot to the annoyance of its extra progressive members. The Greens have realised this and all the time advocate extra radical reforms realizing that and not using a miracle they may by no means need to do the issues they advocate however can stand on the sidelines and critique.
Patrick Kennedy writes: I’m an outdated leftie in my 70s who was a Labor member, each in Melbourne within the Seventies and in London within the Nineteen Eighties and ’90s the place I chaired a Labour Celebration department in Jeremy Corbyn’s constituency within the socialist republic of Islington. Since transferring to the seat of Melbourne I’ve voted Inexperienced with some reservations, however my days of becoming a member of political events and overt activism are behind me. My reservations concerning the Greens centre on the ideologues which litter all political events: those that would sacrifice rational wins and progress in the direction of a extra equitable society on the altar of their unimpeachable ideological purity. I’ve all the time believed the one legitimate use of energy is to empower the much less highly effective. I hope the Greens can steadiness their beliefs with some pragmatism to attain advantages for these much less highly effective and a greater world for all of us.
Alan Baird writes: I gave up voting Labor forward of the Greens way back. I began having misgivings about Bob Hawke about three or 4 weeks into his first time period (and the true begin of neoliberalism). Liz Truss of the UK could also be aping Maggie Thatcher however Anthony Albanese is doing the identical vis-a-vis Bob Hawke (and Paul Keating). I strongly suspect neoliberal shibboleths nonetheless maintain for many Labor MPs, though they’re nonetheless left of the US Democrats, lots of whom might switch right into a splendid Republican — though maybe a pre-Trump model.
Gareth Trew writes: I’ve beforehand voted for the Greens — I used to be youthful and extra politically naive — however pretty abruptly modified course once I realised that regardless of speaking an terrible lot, they didn’t truly do something. Nothing significant was achieved. Evaluate this with Labor, the get together that the creator of this text dismisses so readily. Take simply two of its many vital accomplishments: Medicare and the NDIS. These have profoundly modified the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians for the higher. They don’t seem to be simply slogans, or sassy speeches posted to social media for the adoration of the devoted; they don’t seem to be symbolic; they’ve been legislated. With simply these two items of laws, Labor has achieved infinitely extra for the individuals of Australia than the Greens have executed throughout your entire lifetime of their get together.
As for Labor performing some issues that “progressives” disagree with, that is what occurs in a majoritarian democracy. To win authorities, events who’re severe about making change, not simply speaking about it, should enchantment to a variety of individuals. This implies, after all, that some individuals who vote for Labor — whether or not on the left or the fitting — are going to be sad. It’s additionally value noting that progress doesn’t occur abruptly; it occurs step-by-step. Have a look at the progress made on homosexual rights. Once I was seven, it was unlawful for individuals like me to have intercourse; once I turned 30, I gained the fitting to marry. This extraordinary change was not made doable by the “my approach or the freeway” strategy of the Greens.
Vicki Richards writes: Not solely do I discover our pressured fealty to the crown patronising, I discover it demeaning and insulting. A constitutional monarchy, for my part, has no place in Australian authorities, Australian life or Australia’s future. Beneath Australia’s constitutional monarchy our head of state should be a overseas monarch or sovereign who’s born into a selected household, is Anglican, can’t be married to a Catholic or be illegitimate, thus denying Australians sovereignty, and with no issues of benefit, equality or any enter from the Australian people who find themselves certain by a structure properly previous its use-by date. Australia is a complicated, secure and well-developed world nation. It’s time we selected secession and stood on our personal two ft.
Mark Holland writes: On one hand, the idea of our sovereignty handed into the palms of a foreigner by advantage of his standing as a baby is offensive. On the opposite, constitutional monarchies appear to perform economically and socially efficiently. Republicanism isn’t good both — let’s not neglect America’s latest head of state, albeit democratically elected. I’m unhappy that the queen died; she did a high job in an not possible function and appeared a reasonably good particular person. However the passing of energy permits contemplative consideration of a unique mannequin.
What about an Australian monarchy? Except for including the soundness of a royal household, it might add much-needed pomp and circumstance to our lives. We’d want crowns and carriages and new uniforms for troopers with humorous hats. Financial Eureka! How would we choose the royal bloodline? The reply is clear: a Massive Brother-type contest, the place candidates would reside in a giant home and compete in common exams of their Australianness. In a nod to democracy, the inhabitants would vote for his or her favourites till the royal household was chosen. The one remaining query could be to find out who ought to compete. I can think about nice Australians from all walks of life — sportsmen and girls, politicians, businessmen and girls, social activists, actors, rock stars, greats from the humanities and sciences … Think about the scores.
Neil Watts writes: There are lots of people in Australia who admire the royal household and certainly whose household got here from the UK. The British are household. You lead your individual life while you develop up however you don’t spurn your loved ones. Elizabeth and Charles are symbols of household, so solely you and some republicans who’re unable to pledge allegiance for some cause are embarrassed.
Gwen Berry writes: I don’t agree it’s embarrassing. Lots of people get pleasure from having the royals as our head of state. They don’t actually intervene with the operating of Australia, and we elect our personal prime minister and authorities. Why change?
Brian Sanaghan writes: King Charles III married Diana with the principal goal of offering the royal household with a male inheritor. Within the meantime he publicly flaunted his actual love, Camilla, in entrance of Diana till the day of her dying. Now Camilla is queen. Henry VIII married six occasions for a similar cause and had two of his wives beheaded as a result of they failed him. Oh, the ethical turpitude of male majesty.
Don Wormald writes: As a lifelong republican I really feel this entire monarchy enterprise is considerably overstated. Beneath our structure the monarch actually has just one energy vis-a-vis this nation and that’s to nominate (or take away) the governor-general — even when the monarch is in Australia. Those that framed our structure took nice pains to restrict English dominion over our nation. A debate concerning the monarchy is inevitable, however when that occurs can we please keep away from the purple herring thrown in by John Howard to wreck our final try and that’s the suggestion of a popularly elected head of state? Not solely would which have probably disastrous penalties however would require an intensive rewrite of our structure, whereas the minimalist place makes the required constitutional adjustments fairly easy and achievable with a single query in a referendum.
Patricia Poppenbeek writes: I’m a republican, however I nonetheless cried when the queen died. I’m towards our current association of state governors and an administrator and a governor-general. Having a overseas monarch exerting any type of energy over Australia appears not solely bizarre however harmful. Nonetheless, the emotion wrapped across the British monarch must be taken into consideration when contemplating what sort of republic we wish or if we wish to grasp on to no matter it’s we’ve bought now or some type of it.
From the historical past of nations like Britain, Spain and Thailand it seems to be safer for the preservation of a democracy to separate the ceremonial side of a head of state from the chief. So what form ought to such a ceremonial workplace have? Folks say they discovered the queen’s stability comforting. Ought to this workplace be for longer than the governor-general’s traditional five-year time period? For all times? What powers ought to this workplace have? In accordance with the related web site:
Though since Federation it has been a longtime precept that the governor-general in exercising the powers and capabilities of the workplace ought to solely achieve this with the recommendation of his or her ministers of state, the precept has not all the time been adopted … The structure supplies particular and restricted powers, though in some circumstances the methods through which these powers could also be exercised aren’t specified. The identification and vary of prerogative powers are considerably unsure and have on events resulted in various levels of political and public controversy.
It appears applicable to make clear and take into account what powers the G-G has, and it additionally appears applicable to take action within the context of discussing what sort of republic, if any, we wish.
If one thing in Crikey has happy, irritated or impressed you, tell us by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please embrace your full title to be thought-about for publication. We reserve the fitting to edit for size and readability.
Crikey is information for readers who can deal with the reality.
We’re amazed by the assist we’ve had from all around the world over the previous few weeks — and thanks for those who contributed to our defence fund.
Simply in case you’ve been which means to subscribe, we’re retaining the 50% low cost on for slightly longer, and now, as a bonus, you’ll get a duplicate of Leaning Out, the newest Crikey Learn.
Gina Rushton
Information editor
