Dwindling support for Monarchy

A poll commissioned by New Zealand Republic suggests that support for a monarchy is falling significantly.

 

  • The next British Monarch becomes King of New Zealand 34%
  • New Zealand has a New Zealander as Head of State elected by a two thirds majority in Parliament 15%
  • New Zealand has a New Zealander as Head of State who is elected by the popular vote 44%

 

There was no poll option for no head of state above our current Prime Minister.

Support for a New Zealand head of State amongst younger people (aged 18-30) was 76%, and for those 61 and over it was 53%.

Newshub reported Monarchists not amused by poll backing republic

Monarchists are brushing off a new poll which suggests New Zealand is heading towards becoming a republic, instead saying it’s unlikely to happen in the next 500 years.

“I’m a little sceptical of these numbers,” Monarchy New Zealand’s Sean Palmer told Paul Henry on Monday.

“This was a poll that was paid for and conducted by Republicans – I’m a bit surprised they didn’t find 120 percent in support of a republic.”

The poll was carried out by David Farrar’s Curia Research – Farrar is a promoter of a New Zealand Republic – but that’s lame.

April 2014 – What is your preference for New Zealand’s next Head of State out of the following three options?

  • The next British Monarch becomes King of New Zealand 46%
  • New Zealand has a New Zealander as Head of State elected by a two thirds majority in Parliament 11%
  • New Zealand has a New Zealander as Head of State who is elected by the popular vote 33%

Support for a New Zealand head of State amongst younger people (aged 18-30) was 66%

Source: Scoop – Latest Poll: Support for NZ head of state is up

Leave a comment

17 Comments

  1. More calls for an end to our collective obeisance to the monarchy. Yet nobody mentions monarchy’s real value, which is quite independent of the Queen and her family.

    Bagehot’s 1867 book ‘The English Constitution’ stressed the distinction between the “Efficient” part of the system, which did the work, and the “Dignified” (we might say decorative) part, which was symbolically important but functionally feeble. The monarchy, Bagehot noted, provided the dignity, while the royal family offered an institution to the public of comforting familiarity, with wayward sons, mad aunts, saucy grandmothers, and drunken cousins. “A family on the throne is an interesting idea,” he observed. “It brings down the pride of sovereignty to the level of petty life.” Constitutional stability, and not just good manners, required a certain discretion about the regal family’s intimacies. “We must not let in daylight upon magic,” as Bagehot put it.

    It should be noted that Middle East / North African monarchies (Bahrain, Brunei, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) survived the ‘Arab Spring’ better than the republics (Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen.)

    The significance of monarchy is that it is effectively an apolitical, unifying, eternal and extrinsic narrative, in a way that a president, indeed any supra-governance option, cannot be. In these secular times monarchy is the only transcendent entity a nation such as ours has. In rejecting its players as they strut and fret their hour upon the stage, we will lose a lot more than a source of mass entertainment.

    I care not about the actors, but a lot about the play.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  8th September 2016

      Great post, KC. I’m inclined to think that the UK monarchy does us no harm and quite a lot of good. Rather like a benevolent though impotent God and cheap at the price.

      The last thing NZ needs is a President with power.

      Reply
    • Blazer

       /  8th September 2016

      hilarious ,useless ‘observation’-‘It should be noted that Middle East / North African monarchies (Bahrain, Brunei, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) survived the ‘Arab Spring’ better than the republics (Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen.)’

      Reply
      • “hilarious ,useless ‘observation’-” Sounds a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, Blazer. Can you do better, for example defining why it is ‘hilarious’ and ‘useless’? Otherwise it will look like you know absolutely nothing about the governance of MENA states – not a good look.

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  8th September 2016

        There are times when your crassly stupid trolling sorely tempts me to issue a downtick, Blazer. This is one of many.

        Reply
      • Blazer

         /  8th September 2016

        those that ‘survived’ the contrived so called ‘Arab Spring’ were not targeted by ‘insurgents’,because they have acceptable’ relationships with central banks and western corporations.

        Reply
  2. I feel the Elizabeth II has been a great head of state for England but an appalling head of state for NZ. In fact she has sub-contracted the job off to our GG. Seeing as Liz is never going to fulfil the role properly I want the GG promoted to full head of state. Preferably elected by public vote at the time of the General Election. I’d nominate as Gezza inaugural president.

    Reply
  3. There definitely needs to be some person or poli-social mechanism above Prime Minister. It’s possible to be PM and not be Head-of-State material …

    1) King Charles – The polls dip just before an inevitable spike in popularity at the loss of Elizabeth II through abdication or death? Personally I’d like to see Charles ascend to the throne, but this doesn’t alter our archaic Governor General situation …
    2) Two thirds majority in Parliament – Who selects the candidates?
    3) Popular vote – Anyone can stand for Head-of-State, right? Imagine a mini Flag Consideration-like process every 5 years to select a ‘Presidential’ HoS??? If there’s 10 viable candidates and FPP elections, we could have a President elected by a vast minority!? Then, of course, the question arises as to his/her Presidential powers?

    How about a Head-of-State Executive Triumvirate, Troika or Menage-a-Trois? One man and one woman, regardless of race, colour or creed; and one Maori regardless of gender?

    How about a new Constitution – multi-cultural with bicultural foundations – and a relatively small Executive Upper House?

    Just tossing around ideas …

    Reply
  4. spanish_tudor

     /  8th September 2016

    Three simple words to kill the idea of a New Zealander as HoS stone dead:

    President Helen Clark.

    Reply
  5. The head of a secular state who holds allegiance by oath.

    Can anyone say state of hypocrisy?

    Reply
  6. Gezza

     /  8th September 2016

    “oath
    əʊθ/
    noun
    1. a solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one’s future action or behaviour.”

    Could you explain a lttle more what you meant by that somewhat arcane post?
    If not, or if it requires reading some obscure & largely irrelevant linked text, no need.
    Thanks.

    Hugs.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s