The anti-kiwi royals don’t care if we ditched them so we should

Some time in the future New Zealand will ditch the monarchy and become some sort of a republic. John Key liked socialising with the royals too much to consider it and wanted a knighthood too much to consider it, and I suspect Jacinda Ardern likes associating with royal celebrities too much to go there either.

But one day we will get a real progressive Prime Minister rather one than in claim only.

And when we become a country independent of the pomp and snobbery that many of our ancestors escaped from, I think the royals won’t care at all. They don’t care much about us now. We might be a bit of a perk trip to younger princes and princesses, but to the older ones we are probably just another series of boring engagements.

Jonathan Milne:  We want a New Zealander as our head of state? Just get on with it, says the Queen

Former Anglican Archbishop Sir Paul Reeves who led Charles and Diana in prayer for New Zealand’s leadership in 1983, went on to represent the Queen as Governor-General. He later told me the Queen should be replaced by a New Zealand head of state. He said his knighthood had become a part of him since its award in 1984, “but if renouncing knighthoods was a prerequisite to being a citizen of a republic, I think it would be worth it.”

All Black-turned-broadcaster Chris Laidlaw talked to Charles about New Zealand becoming a republic, too, at a dinner in 1997. “Well, to be frank, I think it would come as a great relief to all of us,” Charles told him. “It would remove the awful ambiguity we have at the moment. It seems to me that it would be a lot easier for everybody if you all had your own completely independent head of state.”

Another former Governor-General, Dame Catherine Tizard, asked the Queen the same question. “She is quite sanguine about these things,” Dame Cath later told me. “She has always said it is a decision for New Zealand to make, and ‘whatever decision New Zealand makes, of course we would accept it’.”

They would have to ‘accept it’.  They may lord over us from a great distance, but they don’t rule us.

In a new biography of the Queen, author Robert Hardman reveals the Queen came to one firm conclusion. In the event of this or any other realm opting to become a republic, they should get on with it.

‘It could not be tied to the death of the Queen,” said a Palace advisor. “That would be untenable for the Prince of Wales, untenable for the Queen and untenable for the country itself because, obviously, they’d be looking at their watches waiting for her to pass away.”

So we should at least start doing what we need to do to become a republic before the current queen dies. We can’t go annoying Charlie.

It’s no longer acceptable that our head of state’s allegiance is first and foremost to another nation, nearly 20,000km away.

It’s no longer acceptable that our head of state’s succession gives preference to Anglicans over Catholics, English peers over hardworking Kiwis.

If NZ First seriously believe in promoting kiwi values then they should lead the revolution.

In fact, it’s no longer acceptable that our head of state is chosen by succession at all, when in other spheres of life we celebrate the strongly-held belief that we should be recognised on our merit.

The monarchy is anti do-it-yourself-kiwi and anti-kiwi values, it is anti-secular, it is anti-equality, and it is anti-democracy.

All we need is an actual progressive Government to do the decent thing and ditch the royals.

 

Previous Post
Leave a comment

96 Comments

  1. sorethumb

     /  October 14, 2018

    Just imagine the sort of twits we might get as head of state? Lizzie Marvelly? NZ has lost it’s soul with nothing to bind us together. Our politicians are dreadful: look at the way Finlayson pontificated over Ngai tahu who rattled away in the South Island but should have been paid for anywhere they travelled through etc.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  October 14, 2018

      I would like to say that I am not a royalist and would be happy for NZ to be a republic as the UK doesn’t seem to do much for us and I could have a UK passport anyway.

      But I am very sceptical of the ‘Palace advisors/source/s close to the Palace’ who are quoted on these occasions. Who are they and what authority do they have? How do they know what the Queen et al are thinking? I doubt if anyone who knew these things would be indiscreet enough to repeat them.This quote from a ‘Palace advisor’ seems dubious. ‘Passing away’ for dying is a naff euphemism and very non-U, I would think. The idea that anyone would be waiting eagerly for the Queen to die is insulting.

      The snide remarks about John Key liking to socialise with the Royal family and wanting a knighthood are just silly. Any NZ PM is obliged to meet them as part of the job.One could say that of any of our PMs. Knighthoods and Damehoods are not gained that way or being a PM would be a guarantee that one would be given a title. Is there any evidence that John Key was angling for a knighthood apart from gossip ?

      Please do Kiwis the courtesy of giving our name a capital K to distinguish us from the birds, Nobody spells Aussies as aussies.

      Reply
  2. Corky

     /  October 14, 2018

    Maori don’t want a bar of that…unless they get to rule Aotearoa. Otherwise, the monarchy is ”protector in chief” of the gravy train.

    Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  October 14, 2018

    Define the role before appointing someone to it.

    Reply
    • It won’t be a simple or short process – more reason to start now.

      But the current government haven’t even started a working group. They have just about everything else covered.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  October 14, 2018

        Basically the Queen has done a do nothing job well. How do we ensure a replacement will also first do no harm?

        Reply
        • That should be a lot easier than ensuring our politicians do no harm, and as easy as ensuring out Governor General does no harm.

          Reply
          • Pink David

             /  October 14, 2018

            The existing system does what is required of it, why the need to change?

            Reply
            • PartisanZ

               /  October 14, 2018

              Funny how the people who say that are very likely to be the same people who both envy and champion the United States Constitution …

            • Pink David

               /  October 14, 2018

              Nothing funny about it. The US Constitution is largely a codified version of UK common law outlining the rights of a US government. Maintaining the UK sovereign as the head of state keeps that connection to common law and magna carta.
              On top of which, it’s a financial bargain. Any NZ head of state replacement will end up costing tens of millions per year and will accumulate flunkies over time as well.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  October 14, 2018

              Do we need a head of state as such?

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 14, 2018

              @Pink David – “The US Constitution is largely a codified version of UK common law …”

              Well … sort of …

              They probably forgot to include ‘aboriginal or native title to land’ … and evidently forgot to include or honour any of the Treaties they made with Native American nations … unlike Aotearoa New Zealand where Te Tiriti o Waitangi, although dishonoured in numerous ways for a long time, has ultimately proved inescapable …

              We won’t be able to avoid Te Tiriti o Waitangi now in our Constitution-making, which is why ours may differ somewhat from UK common law?

              “When English common law arrived in New Zealand, one of the principles it brought with it was the principle of aboriginal or native title to land.” – Palmer & Butler, ‘Towards Democratic Renewal’ pg 181.

              As Matike Mai Aotearoa has suggested, it may prove impossible for Westminster-style Parliamentary (so-called) ‘democracy’ to ever honour Te Tiriti?

              It’s possible a bicameral or tricameral ‘spheres’ system may be better?

              This is the conversation we will need to have, as many of us as is humanly possible.

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 14, 2018

              A list of U.S. government treaties with Native Americans …

              http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp

              http://blog.nativepartnership.org/treaties-made-treaties-broken/

              American Indian Resource Center: American Indian Laws & Treaties –

              https://guides.tulsalibrary.org/c.php?g=695443&p=4931680

  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  October 14, 2018

    Oops, sorry.

    Reply
  5. NOEL

     /  October 14, 2018

    Big problem will be what the option of HofS will be favoured. Enough evidence that a President should be kept at arms length.
    Perhaps a panel of constitutional lawyers on retainer to decide if a Government should be dissovled would be cheaper than a GG or President.

    Reply
  6. david in aus

     /  October 14, 2018

    Small steps. How about changing our flag first? ooh, wait.

    It is obvious that the population doesn’t support being a Republic. This discussion is a waste of time. Perhaps in twenty years time, we can revisit it.

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  October 14, 2018

      The population doesn’t support it being done ‘piecemeal’ I’d say …

      Not by “thin ended wedges” and ‘fifth columns’ like Key’s Flag debacle.

      And not half-heartedly like Key’s ‘appointed’ Constitutional Advisory Panel … which was ostensibly a Maori Party appeasement measure …

      If a major party put forward something akin to TOPs ‘Democracy Reset’ though … We might be in business?

      There’s a deadline on this mahi nui, this giant work – 6 February 2040 …

      Reply
      • david in aus

         /  October 14, 2018

        A journey starts with a single step but we are unable to make a move a couple of years ago.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  October 14, 2018

          Constitutionality is a giant journey so perhaps it needs to start with a giant omni-partisan* first step, as opposed to a single, highly politicized and fundamentally Key-flawed one?

          * damn … it’s not a new word!

          Reply
    • “It is obvious that the population doesn’t support being a Republic.”

      Not correct. Most politicians that want knighthoods and damehoods and want to flounce with royalty may be against being a republic, but most Kiwis support having our own head of state.

      New Zealanders appear to have experienced a groundswell of republicanism as a new poll shows nearly sixty per cent want a Kiwi head of state.

      The poll shows 59 per cent of New Zealanders wanted to change the centuries-old system of Government, compared to 34 per cent who favoured the next British Monarch becoming King of New Zealand.

      Support for a New Zealand head of state had risen across every age group, over the last 16 months.

      A total 76 per cent of 18 to 30-year-olds supported change in 2016, up from 59 per cent last year.

      Support waned slightly, the older the age group got, but more than half of those aged 61 and over still supported change – 53 per cent.

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/83864989/nearly-60-per-cent-of-kiwis-want-the-british-monarchy-out–poll

      And that trend is likely to continue as monarchists tend to be older.

      Reply
      • david in aus

         /  October 14, 2018

        How many supported a change in the flag in similar polls, I wonder? When it came to the crunch, it didn’t come to pass.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  October 14, 2018

          When it came to the crunch the citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand thought better of an exercise in ‘managed’ or ‘guided’ democracy … which FlagKey exemplified … because of its extremely poor and ‘transparent’ execution … like “spot the deviousness” …

          Reply
      • david in aus

         /  October 14, 2018

        The whole Flag debate became partisan, it will follow through to any Republic debate.

        The Well has been poisoned.

        If the Left proposes this, it will be opposed and there will claims that it is a vanity project.

        Remember Australia had this debate and referendum in the 1990s but there is still no movement twenty years later.

        There are forces towards Republicanism and against. As you correctly state, the older folk who have an attachment to the Monarchy will die off. But countervailing forces are those insecure with changes in the country from immigration.
        Those of British stock will be reluctant to let go, the Monarchy is a symbol of WASP ascendancy. If there is any insecurity in people’s sense of their place in society these symbols are very powerful.
        I suspect that is why Australia hasn’t revisited this. Australia always had a large Irish population that was reflexively hostile to the UK.
        As the Irishness is diluted and the consciousness melts with the Anglosaxon mainstream, attitudes have changed. The Monarchy is a symbol of links with the past and the wish to continue in the same culture, especially when as the proportion of Europeans diminish due to low birth rates and immigration.

        It is a comfort blanket issue for some.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  October 14, 2018

          Correction: The flag debate was partisan to begin with …

          Reply
          • david in aus

             /  October 14, 2018

            Only by those who made it a partisan issue. They couldn’t see past their hate and look at the bigger picture.

            I predict that Republicanism can only be delivered by a Right-Wing government for this reason. It will be used as a wedge issue when proposed by the Left.

            Reply
            • PartisanZ

               /  October 14, 2018

              Key made it a partisan issue …

            • david in aus

               /  October 14, 2018

              How? By stating a preference and wanting to be the PM delivering?

              It will be the same with all future PMs. PMs will be asked on their preference and how they will vote. It will be assumed as they are approving the referendum, they will vote Yay.

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 14, 2018

              Your “they”, which you equate with “the Left”, weren’t being asked to look at a “bigger picture” david in aus …

              It was only a little picture all along … The Flag … and the Flag alone …

              I equate the Flag Debacle’s “they” [opposition] firmly with “sensible New Zealanders” …

              Currently, subtle shifts in the direction of ‘Constitutionality’ – albeit small ones – are squarely in the Centre-Left arena with the likes of Labour-led’s Maori/Pakeha Relations Office …

              National are steadfastly ignoring the bigger picture, as they must. Their voter base are the very same folks who feel safe with our present Constitutional mess – fearful of addressing Te Tiriti – while cheering on Donald Trump, plus envying and championing the U.S. Constitution …

              It’s a bind … Well … actually, its a kind of straitjacket …

            • robertguyton

               /  October 14, 2018

              “How? By stating a preference and wanting to be the PM delivering?”
              Key? No chance. Jacinda’s the PM delivering (Neve – geddit?).

        • PartisanZ

           /  October 14, 2018

          “Poisoning the well” is a very apt description of many of the actions of ‘Wealth & Power’ in Aotearoa New Zealand …

          “Fouling their own nest” is another …

          Simple solution: Have political parties agree on some particular policy platforms – like building a new Constitution – before and during election campaigns; rather than waiting until afterwards to say they will or might cooperate on certain legislation …

          I know its a lot to ask …

          You’ve identified arguably the biggest roadblock in the process though. Whoever takes on Constitutionality must inevitably deal with the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our new Constitution … and hence in our governance structures …

          Fear of “discomfort” turns to rampant paranoia.

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  October 14, 2018

            Come in Brash, Doc Newman and “the silent majority” …

            Reply
          • Corky

             /  October 14, 2018

            ”Whoever takes on Constitutionality must inevitably deal with the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our new Constitution … ”

            I’m sorry, you can’t have both. You will have to choose. These two instruments are incompatible unless you believe Maori should have exalted rights above other New Zealanders.

            Reply
            • david in aus

               /  October 14, 2018

              I think there is a vacuum in politics where Brash was the most effective. Winston Peters is in government and cannot exploit it.

              In the NZherald yesterday about Maori and PI have preference in employement.
              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12141932

              In education, my wife stated for certain specialist teaching position Maori receive near automatic selection. Have a quarter of the workload and are protected species. There are many examples in the Public sector.

              There is resentment building of the inherent unfairness of race-based selection.

              Is there a political entrepreneur in NZ to make this an issue? Brash is finished. The National party person to highlight this issue would likely be the new leader.

              Simon Bridges, if he is smart, should start the conversation. As a Maori, he has immunity against the ironic cries of racism.

            • Corky

               /  October 14, 2018

              If a constitution containing Treaty clauses was drafted, what you have written would become codified and legal under our constitution with no avenues for redress.. in other words, legal racism.

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 14, 2018

              @Corky – “I’m sorry, you can’t have both”

              Yet both appear in Te Tiriti as ‘kawanatanga’ and ‘tino rangatiratanga’ …

              The prolonged, highly consultative ‘PROCESS’ of building a new Constitution would involve resolving these parallel rather than opposing issues with a view to precisely a future of having BOTH …

              “No avenues of redress” … How absurd … Palmer & Butler suggest 10 year reviews of the Constitution …

              david in aus – the national party politician to ‘polarize’ this issue Trump-like will probably be the next leader …

              Sadly, tragically, you are probably right … and they’ll set back Constitution-making for another decade …

              Like I said earlier, “Foul their own nest” …

            • Corky

               /  October 14, 2018

              ”Yet both appear in Te Tiriti as ‘kawanatanga’ and ‘tino rangatiratanga’ …”

              Both words are disputed. Which treaty do they appear in?

              ”The prolonged, highly consultative ‘PROCESS’ of building a new Constitution would involve resolving these parallel rather than opposing issues with a view to precisely a future of having BOTH …”

              I’m sorry Parti, I disagree. Prolonged consultation would be a waste of resources. Why wait fifty years to find out the Treaty and a Constitution cannot be combined and reconciled?

              “No avenues of redress” … How absurd … Palmer & Butler suggest 10 year reviews of the Constitution ”

              I didn’t know about that. Sounds great..but with such a clause the question may be asked: would we ever have a final draft constitution that wasn’t being continually revised?

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 14, 2018

              The answer to your last question is “no” … just as the much admired U.S. Constitution is constantly being amended …

              No need for the process to take fifty years Corky, in fact we don’t have that long … We’ve got 21.5 years until our bicentennial …

              And a better use of resources could hardly be imagined … Human resources … to build a human Constitution for Aotearoa New Zealand …

              Engagement and participation will have many benefits and not doing so some potential costs …

              A superior law Constitution that defines and limits the powers of government – central and local – incorporates “clarity and certainty” for Te Tiriti o Waitangi into our nation’s governance, and strengthens the Bill of Rights – possibly including social, economic and environmental rights.

              Properly funded, a thorough Constitutional Engagement process could run parallel to Matike Mai Aotearoa’s second round of hui and deliberation on ‘constitutional transformation’, scheduled for 2021 – which must also be properly funded.

              The people of Aotearoa New Zealand might meet at town halls, marae, schools, universities and clubs, through newspapers, websites, blogs and social media platforms to discuss and understand our past and present, and create our own unique, best possible future, together.

              “Our next meeting will be held on your local marae”

        • david in aus

           /  October 14, 2018

          Polls in Australia on Republicanism hasn’t changed significantly in the last 20 years. There isn’t an inevitable movement towards Republicanism with time, unless Prince Charlie makes a real Charlie of himself.

          Reply
  7. PartisanZ

     /  October 14, 2018

    @PG – “So we should at least start doing what we need to do to become a republic before the current queen dies … The monarchy is anti do-it-yourself-kiwi and anti-kiwi values, it is anti-secular, it is anti-equality, and it is anti-democracy.”

    Sounds great! Looks great … at first glance … I certainly agree we should “get on with it” but the question is: Get on with what exactly?

    Simply changing the Head-of-State in isolation is rather like simply changing the flag.

    Like the flag, the Head-of-State is both representative and symbolic of much much more … the stuff of ‘gravitas’ … our ‘Constitutionality’ …

    You’ve actually stated there what we need to do Pete … We must define Kiwi values, including the place of religion, especially Christianity … decide our collective stance on equality … and reset, renew or transform [so-called] ‘democracy’ … our present form of which is a direct inheritance from the Monarchy.

    Indeed, it might be described as the level of democracy the monarchy would allow us to have?

    When a new Head-of-State – (or possibly Heads-of-State?) – watches our fabulous new flag hoisted aloft over Waitangi Treaty Grounds on 6 February 2040 we’ll know we’ve done the real mahi nui, the giant work of together creating a new Constitution Aotearoa New Zealand … the most important thing we can do to serve and protect our mokopuna and theirs far into the future.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  October 14, 2018

      Idealism of the first water. You have just described a scenario for the disintegration of our
      beloved ( and stable) nation.

      Why can’t you see what you ask is impossible?

      What you describe is more the Socialist Promised Land.

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  October 14, 2018

        I’d rather have my “idealism of the first water” than your idealism of piss-water Corky … the maintenance of your delusional and illusory “beloved and stable nation” …

        Its my beloved nation too Corky … and I want it to be more stable.

        This has very little if anything to do with socialism …

        Building a Constitution would, for instance, be one way for the whole nation to constructively move beyond this “grievance period” of natural redress and restitution following colonialism …

        Don’t you want to do that?

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  October 14, 2018

          ”Than your idealism of piss-water Corky … the maintenance of your delusional and illusory “beloved and stable nation” …”

          I hate to admit it, but you do have a way with words, Parti. Maybe a few lessons for Robert wouldn’t go astray .

          Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  October 14, 2018

      Ah, the currant queen – much like Alexandra’s blossom queen. Love them all.

      Reply
  8. Bill Brown

     /  October 14, 2018

    The Royal Fam have become quite cool again – I think Harry is the business

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  October 14, 2018

      He is a little lacking in dignity.

      Reply
    • MaureenW

       /  October 14, 2018

      What’s cool about them? Bludging from taxpayers to repair their castles? How cooool

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  October 14, 2018

        Oh shit! The rule of “cool”!

        Idiocracy is actually coming true …

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  October 14, 2018

          People are unenthusiastic about paying for the wedding security,

          Maureen, as I understand it*, the palaces etc are supposedly owned by the country, which means that the people pay for them. They can’t visit, stay in them or live in them, of course, just pay for them.

          Well, sometimes they can visit them….but what’s the betting that they have to pay to do so?

          * I am open to correction, of course, if this is wrong

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  October 14, 2018

            Wow … Sounds like Gibbs sculpture farm … What sorta farm is that again?

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  October 14, 2018

              The Gibbs Farm is a large piece of open land in New Zealand with exotic animals and a world-class collection of outdoor sculptures.

              Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, Balmoral and the other Royal residences are huge houses in England.

              Can you see the difference?

              One is a farm, the others are houses.

              One is privately owned but is often opened for fundraising (Auckland Art Gallery has been lent it for this purpose) by the owner.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  October 14, 2018

              Look it up for yourself, I am not your secretary,

  9. artcroft

     /  October 14, 2018

    Key’s attempt to shift the country toward a republic came unstuck when the left campaigned against their own beliefs vis a vis the flag. I want a republic and would vote for it even if the Tooth Fairy sponsored the bill. But unlike the left, I’m consistent.

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  October 14, 2018

      Well … or unlike the Left, you’re selectively consistent and partially incongruous?

      Key found out you don’t “shift a country toward a republic” simply by changing the flag in isolation …

      The proper, appropriate and meaningful [and I predict ‘stunning’] design for our new flag will arise naturally as an integral part of the much much larger task of making a new Constitution for our republic … something we could all do together, theoretically at least …

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  October 14, 2018

        If John Key had been angling for a knighthood, would he have wanted a new flag ?

        There is no evidence that he or any other politician has hunted a title and very few are given one, anyway.

        I don’t believe that the Royal Family are anti-kiwi (sic) or anti kiwi-values(sic). This is a pointless speculation.

        When Kiwis are people, they have a capital K. Lower-case kiwis are the birds.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  October 14, 2018

          Well, Miss Kitty, it is just as well I never mentioned John Key “angling for a Knighthood”, isn’t it? Or is this an incomprehensibly oblique defense of Mr Artcroft?

          The Royal Family are probably just pro-themselves rather than anti-kiwi …

          Way up above I simply recycled PG’s list because it adequately described some of the tasks of Constitution-making …

          I do genuinely think even Don Brash could use your help with ‘communication’ …

          You’ve invented a thing called ‘Side-Spin’ …

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  October 14, 2018

            Don’t be silly, don’t put words in people’s mouths and don’t be objectionable. One YNZ brat is more than enough.

            I was (and I thought it was obvious that I was) commenting on the flag/knighthood inconsistency.

            Side-spin? What IS that?

            Reply
            • PartisanZ

               /  October 14, 2018

              You replied to my post …

              Side-Spin* … a name I just now invented … is side-stepping the issue with doctored verbiage of little relevance …

              * new word # 180

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  October 14, 2018

              It’s not new, you didn’t invent it, and I was responding to a specific issue so you are wrong on all three counts.

              It’s two words, anyway, and is meaningless in this context.

              You seem to be either very careless in your reading or you deliberately and maliciously misrepresent what people say. Both are extremely tiresome.

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 14, 2018

              Okay … Thanks for the feedback.

      • artcroft

         /  October 14, 2018

        “incomprehensibly oblique” I like it. Append “nonsense” to the end and it describes your proposition about a “naturally arising flag” (LMAF here) perfectly.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  October 14, 2018

          The abolition of Apartheid gave South Africa their ‘Rainbow Nation’ flag Arty … Why would we be any different?

          The ‘Appointed Committee’ process Key used was so blatantly forced and ‘doctored’ it was like “full steam ahead … nothing can sink the Titanic” …

          Sometime before 2040, when the nation is deeply, deeply engaged in our Constitution-making process, the right person, man, woman or child … will create a flag design that perfectly captures the essence of who we’ve decided we want to be …

          “Naturally” …

          Reply
          • artcroft

             /  October 14, 2018

            What? Are you suggesting the NZ govt is about to fail and be replaced, just as the end of apartheid was the end of the SA govt? Surely Labour aren’t that bad?

            Reply
            • artcroft

               /  October 14, 2018

              Patz you are obviously engaged in writing an amusing work of fiction regarding NZ future. But let me guess the ending; “and they all lived happily ever after”. Hmmm, it needs some work… keep at it.

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 14, 2018

              Do you remember when you were last inspired by something aspirational or idealistic arty?

              Something other than shootin’ at phantom buzzards and coyotes …

            • Corky

               /  October 14, 2018

              In Arty’s line of work of work, Parti, being inspired by anything etherical is a one way ticket to boot hill.

              Irons, bullets, spurs and a good horse are orders of the day. Like us Righties, Arty is” reality based’.’

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  October 14, 2018

              Etherical = ethereal, which means light, delicate, heavenly, airy, fairylike (ethereal beauty) and anything but reality based.

              It’s anyone’s guess what is really meant here.

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 14, 2018

              Yeah … Right … Subjective reality-based … your reality … his reality … the metathesiophobic ‘reality’ loosely shared by the ‘Right Brigade’, a relatively minuscule handful of people …

              Not evidence-based or evidence-informed …

            • Corky

               /  October 14, 2018

              ”Not evidence-based or evidence-informed …”

              I wouldn’t say that, Parti. Trump, Brash and Key. All three are dimensional characters.

              Any melding of the Treaty and a new Constitution will definitely be subjective in nature.

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 14, 2018

              Funny you should lump those three ‘leaders’ together Corky …

  10. robertguyton

     /  October 14, 2018

    What a load of cr*p.

    Reply
  11. David

     /  October 14, 2018

    When you tell the people who no longer want the monarchy what the alternative is the support dissipates somewhat. There really is no need to move from our current situation and us, like Britain, having no constitution is and has been a brilliant system that is ever evolving and adapting.
    We couldnt even have a mature discussion on the flag despite it being every party,s policy to sort of change it and we still ended up with Mother Englands flag on ours.

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  October 14, 2018

      I thought the Flag discussion from people opposed to FlagKey got more and more mature inversely with Key’s growing immaturity trying to ‘influence’ it and promote his favoured designs …

      Example: putting 2 and later 3 rank outsiders alongside two designs by the same person … gleaned by an ‘appointed committee’ from something like 40,000 designs submitted … so the choice ostensibly became between the differences in colour of Key’s two …

      It’s the stuff of a comedy movie …

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  October 14, 2018

        When I looked into how other countries that had changed their flags had got on it was always a pretty fraught process. Calling for thousands of designs wasn’t the usual way. Anything that smells of the All Blacks brand to me I’d never accept.

        Reply
  12. Zedd

     /  October 14, 2018

    I think even Lizzie Windsor is expecting more countries to follow India & become ‘independant of the monarchy’ but still a Commonwealth of nations member. methinks they are all just waiting for her royal highnee to pass on by?

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  October 14, 2018

      ” … waiting for her Royal Highnee to pass on by”

      A sad indictment on our much cherished national trait of ‘courage’ eh Zedd?

      My peasant-class tin miner antecedents couldn’t wait to get away from Queen Victoria and Her Landed Gentry … I hear them calling us cowards … We, who fought so bravely upon Turkish soil for Her son’s Empire …

      We, who bravely ran towards the machine-guns at Passchendaele and died in our droves …

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  October 14, 2018

        Just as well we’re not partitioning the country, isn’t it Gezza?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  October 14, 2018

          Gosh yes. Imagine the arguments over who gets which Island.

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  October 14, 2018

            I know!

            There was a massive argument and media storm some years ago merely about the names of the Islands, with some people fighting viciously to retain only the culturally significant names “North” and “South” ‘Island’ rather than continue to have those names PLUS the Islands’ beautiful, lyrical Maori names Te Ika a Maui and Te Wai Pounamu …

            Hmmmm … So … Okay … Maybe partitioning ain’t such a bad idea after all?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  October 14, 2018

              We might rename them one day. North and South seem so banal. They sound more like a description than the name of a large Island. I’d favour just calling them Ika and Pounamu though.

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 14, 2018

              The issue is really about having both of their names – Maori & Pakeha – as common parlance … I’m pretty sure many involved in tourism would rapidly jump on board the Te Reo wagon … It’s so much more meaningful, colourful and symbolic …

            • Gezza

               /  October 14, 2018

              The now accepted Maori names are poetic but in full they’re a bit of a mouthful. If you look around the world most countries and most islands seem to have short versions of names rather than entire descriptive phrases.

            • Gezza

               /  October 14, 2018

              Te Ika has a nice ring to it. Maybe Te Ika and Pounamu.

  13. spanish_tudor

     /  October 14, 2018

    It takes only three words to explain why New Zealand will not become a republic for at least another fifty years:

    President Helen Clark.

    Reply
    • There are some who say ‘but John Key’.

      If that’s the case we will never be a republic, there will always be someone who is touted as the dreaded president regardless of them being powerless.

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  October 14, 2018

        The Flag Debacle actually proved Kiwis are above that kind of thing … mostly …

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  October 14, 2018

          I can’t see a move to becoming a republic really happening until there is a separate constitution. And constitutions generally seem to set out the rights of all citizens and the limitations of government.

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  October 15, 2018

            Exactly Gezza. My point throughout this topic. All these things, Head-of-State, form of government, individual rights, the flag and possibly even place-names are aspects of Constitutionality.

            There are examples in the world of Constitutions which give considerable self-determination and (more limited) self-government to indigenous minorities – Norway & Uruguay [I think?] … they’re in Matike Mai …

            A properly constituted Bill of Rights might anyhow make it possible to challenge in Court whether tino rangatiratanga was constitutional or not … and how that might impact on governance in this country?

            Just as it might be possible to challenge the constitutionality of government preventing me growing a medicinal/therapeutic plant …?

            Reply
      • spanish_tudor

         /  October 14, 2018

        NZ will likely never become a republic as the institutions of monarchy and the royal family are too clever at maintaining the majority of the public’s interest and affection. Snotty republicans notwithstanding of course.

        Reply
  14. The current monarch seems happy to keep chugging longs as things are.

    But what if the next one throws a wobbly and tells us to piss off?

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  October 14, 2018

      We’ll just have to declare war on them I guess ? Batter them into submission. o_O

      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