Republic now!

Written By: - Date published: 11:31 am, October 16th, 2010 - 34 comments
Categories: Deep stuff, leadership, political alternatives - Tags: ,

Labour have pushed the republic debate firmly into the spotlight. There is coverage here:

Republic good for NZ – Goff

Becoming a republic would be the “making of New Zealand as a country” and we need to start talking about it now, according to Labour leader Phil Goff.

In the most direct call for change from any senior politician yet, Goff said the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign was the logical transition point. “Succession of the monarchy is the time to have a head of state who is a New Zealander,” said Goff. “We need to start the conversation now. Don’t rush it. Fully consult the people of New Zealand. It’s a major change and needs a reasonable consensus.”

Prime Minister John Key has previously said it was “inevitable” New Zealand would become a republic but has ruled out the move coming during his time as prime minister.

Here:

Editorial: Goff right to call for debate on a republic

Hats off to the Labour Party leader, Phil Goff. In suggesting that New Zealanders should start talking about our country becoming a republic, he has gone where influential sitting politicians have feared to tread.

Most, including the current Prime Minister, talk about the inevitability of a republic but are unwilling to do anything to create it.

And here:

Time to talk republic, says Labour president

Labour president Andrew Little has called for a fresh debate about republicanism following a speech at the party’s conference by former Wallaby Peter Fitzsimons, an outspoken advocate of ditching the monarchy. Mr Little said that he backed Fitzsimons’ views, and it was time for New Zealand to engage in the debate.

“It’s a cop-out to say, ‘Yes, I’m a republican, but it’s not time’, that it be left up to somebody else. “That’s a failure of leadership, in my view,” said Mr Little.

This is smart thinking from Labour. It’s a clear, logical policy with broad popular appeal. It positions Labour as leaders, nation builders, on an issue where Key and the Nats have painted themselves into a conservative corner. And besides, it’s just damn time.

I’m sure that we all wish Queen many more years of happy and productive life. But let’s as a country decide once and for all that when she does go, it is time for us to cut the last of the apron strings.

If this is any indication of the bold new thinking that I hope is going to come out of the Labour conference – I like it!

[Image from Prodesign.]

34 comments on “Republic now! ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. just saying 1
    16 October 2010 at 11:48 am

    Where’s the ‘satire’ tag??

    Come on, it’s cheating to yank the chain without some kind of disclaimer!

    “Bold new thinking” lol

    • bbfloyd 1.1
      16 October 2010 at 12:48 pm

      JS… you got a point of view on this? or is it just that you like doing your whining on saturdays?

  2. Pat 2
    16 October 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Yeah! As long as we can remain in the Commonwealth, still have Queens Birthday honours, and have the Royal Navy and RAF commitment to save our arses if we are ever invaded, then let’s cut the apron strings!

    • Draco T Bastard 2.1
      16 October 2010 at 12:26 pm

      We can defend ourselves if we build up the industry and strategy to do so. Dump a few hundred long range missiles into a carrier battle-group, estimated minimum offensive force for an invasion, and the invasion stops.

      We won’t be able to invade anyone else but that’s not a concern.

      • Pat 2.1.1
        16 October 2010 at 12:33 pm

        “Dump a few hundred long range missiles into a carrier battle-group, estimated minimum offensive force for an invasion, and the invasion stops.”

        Strangely, that never worked for Iraq.

        • bbfloyd 2.1.1.1
          16 October 2010 at 1:16 pm

          Pat … this is an irrelevant sideshow.. it has been obvious for a long time that the yanks and aussies would be our only realistic options if invasion was imminent. ask any competent military analyst about who is in a realistic position to help us before it’s too late. assuming it isn’t either of them doing the invading in the first place. (competition for resources/space anyone?)

          can we get on with some sort of relevant discussion here? i tend to agree that it is well past time that we accepted that our emotional dependence on “mother” england is holding us back from taking what is a necessary step towards our own maturing as a society.

          assuming some sort of immature, punitive reaction to our becoming a republic shows that there are still sections of our society that need to realise that society’s overall health is more important than individuals obsession with maintaining an unhealthy status quo. one which entrenches inequities in social/economic terms that will do no more than hasten the inevitable unrest that will ensue..

          we need to understand that we will always be part of the commonwealth, as it is now more a collection of historically bound nations, rather than part of any empire( you will recall the commonwealth games were called the “empire games initially). and as such is a collectiove of like minded nations. our becoming a republic will not affect that an oita. if, as we are showing a worrying trend, we descend to outright fascism and dictatorial rule, then, as in the case of fiji, we could well be expelled untill such time as democracy can be shown to have been truly re-established here.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.2
          16 October 2010 at 3:52 pm

          Strange, I didn’t see Iraq dump a few hundred long range missile onto any American carrier battle-groups. Which probably explains why it didn’t work.

          I said it would work for defense. I quite specifically said it wouldn’t work for attack.

      • millsy 2.1.2
        16 October 2010 at 12:36 pm

        Un-PC, but a tactical nuclear deterrent?

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.1
          16 October 2010 at 3:55 pm

          No, if I meant nuclear I would have said “a few”, not a “few hundred”.

      • Lanthanide 2.1.3
        16 October 2010 at 12:48 pm

        Lol.

    • Sanctuary 2.2
      16 October 2010 at 2:37 pm

      WTF?? The Royal Navy? As in the British one? You do know we haven’t relied on the British since that unfortunate business in Singapore in 1942? And they officially withdrew from East of Suez like fifty years ago?

      God almighty, it’ll be a long wait for HM ships for us if we ever relied on them to save us – they won’t be able to even save themselves after the new defense cuts in Britain. You do understand that the RN is alreeady smaller than the Japanese MSDF?

      And as for the RAF- they’ll be able to afford about one new aeroplane a year soon, and they won’t want to waste it on us.

  3. Draco T Bastard 3
    16 October 2010 at 12:22 pm

    We should have started this conversation in the 1980s. Instead we went on a delusional bumper ride courtesy of the “free-market reforms” that have nearly bankrupted us.

  4. BLiP 4
    16 October 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Meh. Republic schepublic. Until parliament indicates to me that the people are actually in charge and not the corporates, makes absolutely no difference what hue the wrapper.

  5. millsy 5
    16 October 2010 at 12:57 pm

    I spend a lot of time pulling splinters out of my prosterior because I am pretty much on the fence on this issue.

    I dont think we should be in too much of a rush to get there. Yes, we will become a republic, but only if we as a country feel we are truly ready, and not before.

    • bbfloyd 5.1
      16 October 2010 at 1:29 pm

      so how do we decide when we are ready? and Who decides that? maybe it’s time to recognise that having courage, and faith in ourselves is actually more realistic than waiting to be told when it’s right to do things rather than making the moves early enough to be able to introduce changes in an orderly, rational fashion rather than as a reaction to outside stimulus.. that approach tends to have led us down an awful lot of blind alleys in the past.

      tagging the timeline of transition to the queens passing, considering how long the windsors seem to live, would, i suspect give us ample time to come to terms with the inevitable “growing up” that is now required here.

  6. Murray 6
    16 October 2010 at 2:23 pm

    I guess when your an irrelevant party with a leader as insipid as Phil Goff youll say anything to try and get noticed.
    :It positions Labour as leaders, nation builders, : Yeah Right who are you trying to Kidd?.

    • bbfloyd 6.1
      16 October 2010 at 3:04 pm

      Murray…. that comment demeans both of us… try to stop doing that stuff while you’re writimg. it’s unhygenic.

  7. Shane 7
    16 October 2010 at 2:45 pm

    Labour should be “leading” with a campaign for an economically fair society, jobs and a Plan for the Future. This is a stupid side show. You pull this one out when you have a stable economy and people are not terrified about their jobs, homes and futures.
    This is not leadership.
    This is stupidity.

    • salsy 7.1
      16 October 2010 at 3:08 pm

      Yes, just another example of Goff shooting off in the complete wrong direction as always. His compass is seriously broken. Its infuriating seeing them wasting energy down this path, they wont win votes for it and may lose some in the process. Wake up Labour..

  8. Descendant Of Smith 8
    16 October 2010 at 3:27 pm

    It’s one of those things I don’t think really matters either in the big scheme of things.

    I’ve not seen any particular advantage in having this sort of independence and have not seen any country in recent times suddenly jump ahead in leaps and bounds because they have decided to disassociate themselves with historical ties and legal systems.

    The pros seem about as important as the cons and there’s much more important things to worry about.

    This is probably the one thing I had hoped Labour wouldn’t make a song and dance about – it’s a distraction at best.

  9. Bob Stanforth 9
    16 October 2010 at 3:38 pm

    LMAO, you missed the best bit from Mr Little..

    “He was not saying it was something that had to be done tomorrow.

    “But it is saying we are committed to making a move and we do it in a courteous and respectful way.”

    Yeah, leadership, erm, soon!! Follow us, um, shortly!! LOL

    • bbfloyd 9.1
      16 October 2010 at 4:54 pm

      thanks bob… i know things are starting to move in a good direction when the best that reactionary apologist can do is resort to arrogance and amateurish lampooning.. keep up the mediocre drivel.. you help the cause no end….

      • Bob Stanforth 9.1.1
        16 October 2010 at 5:28 pm

        Wow, promotion, now Im a reactionary apologist, how fucking cool is that?

        Funnily enough, yet again, I agree with Andrew on this – and given he might be my next list MP, that’s not a bad thing. But if you are going to claim it’s leadership (as in they haven’t, so we will) then SHOW leadership, don’t just talk about the LACK of it FFS.

        As for the cause, yeah, good luck with that. Hows that going for ya comrade? 🙂

        • bbfloyd 9.1.1.1
          16 October 2010 at 6:40 pm

          have you checked under your bed lately? might be a red under there… just waiting to nationalise your wife and kids…. and if reactionary apologist is a promotion, then what were you before?
          …..mindless ditto head? …. second class? ….

          just a small point though… if you read what i wrote you should know that attempting to put words in peoples mouths only works when you have an audience that lacks the wit to read a whole paragraph… are you starting to understand my point?

          can you quote where i mentioned the word “leadership”.. ? please show me.. as i would hate to think that you are just talking shit for the sake of indulging in petty personality politics..

          • Bob Stanforth 9.1.1.1.1
            16 October 2010 at 8:19 pm

            Where did I say you said that? You aren’t deliberately making shit up are you? That would be terrible, indulging in petty personal politics. Wouldn’t it? tsk tsk

            So, try again I shall. Simply stating there is no leadership (no, I know you didn’t, calm tiger, calm) isn’t in and of itself leadership. You do get that, right?

            Get some grip. And don’t assume things are moving – don’t confuse activity for productivity. Simple mistake to make. You’re welcome. 🙂

            • bbfloyd 9.1.1.1.1.1
              17 October 2010 at 12:30 pm

              bob… please don’t waste everyone’s time here telling lies… read your own words… and that’s all the time i will waste on you.

  10. Bill 10
    16 October 2010 at 7:30 pm

    24 comments at the time of writing and not one comment has mentioned ‘the treaty’ with respect to republicanism.

    A republic would leave Maori where exactly?

    Here’s and idea. Why not reject the monarchy and republicanism and in doing so work towards invigorating, not a bi-cultural NZ, but a multi-cultural NZ that is not under the dominant influence of any given culture or group of cultures, and that also affords a genuine practical empowerment of all ethnicities and identities through empowering the individuals who constitute those cultural and ethnic entities?

    Any takers?

    • bbfloyd 10.1
      17 October 2010 at 12:43 pm

      Bill.. from my own perspective, i had simply assumed that the rights of all iwi would have been an integral part of the development process as we work towards, hopefully the best outcomes in forming our republic.. i would be surprised, and disappointed if that was not the case..

      i suppose that, in taking that for granted, i neglected to mention the treaty, and it’s relevance to the final shape of our republican constitution. i would assume this is a failing of the majority here, and not a deliberate oversight.

      i know that for the majority of people i have occasion to discuss issues of this nature with, the general opinion is that they have simply taken for granted that maori have historic, and cultural rights that we as a nation should acknowledge freely. it has not been a “hot”topic because of this .

  11. belladonna 11
    16 October 2010 at 9:15 pm

    I dont think the country is ready to become a republic so why antagonise those who do not want it, surely a silly move when a win for Labour next year doesnt look too likely. Many elderly are not keen on becoming a republic. I cant say I am too keen on it – can you imagine who would be President – John Key, Roger Douglas etc. It is usually someone with a lot of money behind them.
    Sounds ok but the reality, nah, not ready for that.

  12. M 12
    17 October 2010 at 5:43 pm

    I think for Maori to feel comfortable there would have to a hui to end all hui so Maori would not feel they were going to get shafted.

    Becoming a republic would I think a give real feeling of nationhood but would require a good few years planning and drafting of a constitution so no branch of the government could abuse its power. In the US from what I read the executive has been slowly grabbing more power and influence to the detriment of its citizens.

    Besides if we become a republic in time it would deny Key the chance to have a title bestowed on him – I really think that’s why he wanted to be PM. Anything to deny that arsehole such deference would be the sweetest tasting fruit there is.

  13. Crashcart 13
    18 October 2010 at 12:45 pm

    The time and money that would be required to draft even close to an acceptable constitution would be far better used trying to drag this country out of the shit storm NACT has lead it into. This is poor prioritization. Its a banner line thrown out in the hopes of attracting people with no thought into the actual effort that would be involved in what in the scheme of things at the moment is truly unimportant.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.