King Charles recently stated he will leave causes he cares about “in the hands of others”. But Aussie PM Anthony Albanese thinks climate activism should not be seen as political.
It would be appropriate for King Charles to remain strong on climate: Albanese
Michelle Grattan
Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
Published: September 11, 2022 6.43pm AEST Updated: September 11, 2022 7.37pm AESTAnthony Albanese has said it would be appropriate for King Charles to continue his advocacy on the challenge of climate change.
“That’s a matter for him, of course,” Albanese said on Sunday. But “in my view that would be appropriate”.
“I think dealing with the challenge of climate change shouldn’t be seen as a political issue – it should be seen as an issue that is about humanity and about our very quality of life and survival as a world,” he told the ABC.
“This is a big threat and King Charles has identified that for a long period of time. I think engagement in issues is very different from engagement in party political matters.”
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/it-would-be-appropriate-for-king-charles-to-remain-strong-on-climate-albanese-190416
WUWT recently published the results of a PEW survey, which shows climate action is mostly a left wing cause. So Aussie Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s wish for climate action to be apolitical is mostly wishful thinking.
I guess it is up to King Charles what he does, but I’m not sure in his place I would be taking advice from someone who wants him gone. Aussie PM Anthony Albanese is a staunch Republican, he wants Australia to be disconnected from the British Royal Family. The poster at the top of this page was published on Prime Minister Albanese’s Facebook account in 2016.
I understand many people in the USA would be sympathetic to the idea of ditching the British royal family, and likely many Australian WUWT readers, but there were good reasons the last Aussie republic referendum failed.
I was a young adult last time Australian republic advocates pushed for us to ditch the royals, so I personally remember what happened.
Don’t confuse Aussie Republicans with US Republicans. Although the Republic push was led by conservative MP Malcolm Turnbull, who later went on to topple climate skeptic Prime Minister Tony Abbott, my perception at the time was the Republican movement in Australia was dominated by leftists who saw ditching the royals as payback for the royal dismissal of far left Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.
Then there is the horrifying list of failed ex Prime Ministers who appeared to see the creation of an Australian Presidency as an opportunity to make a political comeback. The big joke circulating at the time of the last Republic referendum was ex PM Paul Keating, who once allegedly called Australia “the @rse end of the world”, would be our first President.
Perhaps worst of all, the presidential role many Aussie republic advocates were pushing for would have been very weak compared to the US Presidency. The plan many were pushing was for parliament to elect the Australian President, rather than a US style electoral college system or direct election, and for parliament to be able to dismiss the President at any time via a simple majority vote – despite popular support for a directly elected president. As far as I can recall there were no plans for the Aussie president to have US style legislative veto powers.
For these reasons my memory is the failed 1999 Aussie republic referendum was widely seen in Australia as a left wing power grab.
And of course, there is, or was, a perception that the royal presence in our national constitution saved Australia from becoming a communist dictatorship in 1975. The Royal Prerogative was used to topple our Vietnamese communist cheer leader Prime Minister Gough Whitlam – so there was a widespread perception that the current system was working.
I’m no fan of King Charles, but until Aussie politicians offer something better than the weak, self serving republican constitutional proposal they pushed last time, better the devil we know.
Then he won’t be upset when Charles pronounces it all a scam?
Yeah…Right…like that’ll ever happen
Good one, Charles will never change his spots, he’s a tree hugger, but he will temper his comments now because his elevated position requires it.
As for Albo, his socialist upbringing is so entrenched and parochial he doesn’t recognize that AGW is a political construct of the Marxists in the UN who are using it to try to overthrow western capitalism. What a dummy!
Nothing political to see here.
How much was environmental protection concerns rather than climate hoax politics?
Does it matter, Dennis? Climate change policies of the left are devastating to the environment. That never seemed to bother Charles.
Well, I will admit I sometimes have very weird dreams, but that one has not yet occurred.
The fine details of political systems do matter.
“Sausage Fingers” might wish to attend to his own health before worrying about Gaia’s.
Yeah, not going to end well should the new king tell his subjects from his castle to suck it up with escalating energy bills and inflated pound, for the planet after all.
Albanese (‘Albo’ to his friends) is merely angling for a title like Sir Anthony Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports.
No Marxist would want a title from a Monarch.
/sarc.
1999 Referendum Question
A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament
A significant portion of Republicans wanted direct vote of the people.
I think this will still be major stumbling block.
Prior to the passing of the Queen, Albanese had already promised a referendum on an indigenous voice.
This will be very hard to get across the line.
Combining and indigenous voice with removing the monarchy sounds like a good idea, but i think is a bridge too far.
Same agenda, voice or republic, primary objective to make changes to the Constitution to amend or remove sections the leftists don’t like that protect the people and stand in the way of leftist manipulators.
The former leader of The Australian Republican Movement Malcolm Turnbull made that clear, that the Constitution is according to his belief out of date and was created by men of the past,
Latest from Australian Prime Minister Albanese;
“PRIME Minister Anthony Albanese is planning a re-education program in an attempt to condition voters to ditch what his government calls a “ridiculous and archaic” constitution.”
The leftists have criticised our Australian Constitution ever since Federation of States, former British Colonies, and creation of the Commonwealth of Australia.
An Al is ….
anal .
😉
Albanese:
–
–
I’m afraid I have to agree with Albanese. It’s not a political issue at all. It’s a matter of:
(Check all that apply)
raking in dough off of Climate Change™
wanting power and control over others
something to scare the sheeple
virtue signaling because it’s what everyone is supposed to do
the best source of grant money
being clinically insane
an excuse to sell overpriced, unreliable energy generators and then run like the wind with cash in hand
being brainwashed about Climate Change™ from kindergarten through grad school
watching too much TV
listening to Swedish teenagers who never graduated from H.S. but insist we trust “The Science”™
reading the NYT or the Grauniad
bringing about a One World Socialist government (Oh wait… that’s a bit political. Never mind.)
redistributing the wealth of the Western Nations to all of the poor hellholes of the World, with a bit of commission for those doing the distributing, of course
–
–
Soooo… nothing political about it at all, eh?
Sure is – to the point of preaching a religious doctrine. There is no engagement. When you know you are right in your beliefs you no longer wish to engage – you preach.
The perfect example on WUWT is Willis E and his firm and honest belief that back-radiation exists because instrument are so labelled. And that is “proof” it exists. Coming up with the crazy notion that Earth’s atmosphere is an energy mutiplier with more energy arriving at the surface than arriving at the top of the atmosphere.
The other common belief on WUWT it that some mysterious “greenhouse effect” is involved in Earth’s energy balance when the overwhelming evidence shows the energy balance is controlled by temperature limits on the ocean surface – long known and easily observed but never included in climate models because it does not fit the belief that CO2 is bad.
I would call this more of a scientific difference of opinion than a political difference. Frankly I’ve never understood the argument there is no such thing as back radiation. The warmer body can’t tell the cooler body not to radiate in its direction.
Eric
You need to learn at least a little bit about the electromagnetic field. All matter, separated by a vacuum from other matter, communicates at the speed of EMR in the vacuum.
The EM field is similar to the gravitational field. All matter interacts with other matter at what is termed the speed of light.
If Earth was to suddenly disappear then it would not appear at the sun for about 8 minutes. The change in either the gravitational field or EM field would take that long to communicate the change.
The fact that you can “feel” the presence of a cloud is simply that your “view” is now a cloud and not something much cooler. You sense it by the reduction in the rate of loss of heat. If you approach a fire you sense its warmth as even greater reduction in heat loss or even heat increase. There is no energy flowing both ways because energy flow in the EM field is mono direction at any point in space at any instant of time.
If you are powering up a transmission line that is not connected to a load, it will appear as its characteristic impedance until the EM field it creates stabilisers. That takes roughly the speed of light to travel both ways. After that time, the line will appear as an open circuit. Before that time the power source could only sense the characteristic impedance.
The sun is radiating mostly to free space at the characteristic impedance of free space apart from those tiny objects in its view that are a bit warmer than space. The EM field is constantly adjusting to their presence. All those tiny objects are communicating at the speed of light in the EM field. There are many similarities between what we know as the EM field and the gravitational field but so far no unifying theory.
Astronomers are now observing events long past because it has taken that long for the information to reach Earth via the EM field. No one on Earth knows anything about changes in those celestial objects until the information is transported through the EM field and gravitational field. Exactly the same thing occurs between you and a cloud but on much shorter time frame. The EM field is constantly adjusting through your presence and the presence of the cloud.
Energy ONLY ever flows from warm to cold – from higher potential to lower potential.
Back-radiation leads you into so much unscientific foolishness; like the atmosphere creating energy from nothing.
Take two identical flashlight. Turn them on. bring the lens of each very close together, pointing at each other. Which ceases to produce light? How was the decision made?
I detect a cloud between me and the sun by the fact that I am suddenly receiving less energy, not by any : reduction in the rate of loss of heat”.
Eric
Before you dig a deep hole that you have difficulty getting out of, read this paper:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/mmishchenko/publications/2013_AIP_Conf_Proc_1531_11.pdf
I will include the last paragraph:
How many pages of search results would I have to go through to find “WCR” that could possibly have any relationship to EMR?
Rick, I recommend you read what Willis has to say about it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/28/the-radiation-fight/
Willis is the one that has the atmospheric energy multiplier. He arrived at a figure of 1.6X. That is there is 1.6X more energy at the surface than coming into the atmosphere. From that point on I know he has no clue about thermodynamics and EMR.
To prove your hypothesis about the “greenhouse effect”, take 2 – 1 cubic meter spaces sealed with thermometers inside. One comprised with ambient atmosphere with current mix of GHGs. In the second fill with only Nitrogen, Oxygen, traces of Argon & Neon but no water vapor CO2 or CH4 (devoid of GHGs). Place both in the sun. If there is no effect on temperatures by GHGs both thermometers should always measure similarly. If the cube with GHGs measures warmer, there is an effect
That is a naive example that has no bearing on Earth’s energy balance. How does playing with a gas in a glass jar have anything to do with ice formation on an ocean surface at -1.8C and thereafter limiting heat loss.
How does you example relate to the formation of a level of free convection and the ocean surface temperature limit of 30C that prevents further heat uptake.
It is such a naive view to think trace gasses are involved in Earth’s energy balance.
With the possible exception of thermal mass, there is no way for GHGs to have any impact on your experiment. GHGs work by capturing and re-radiating in random directions thermal energy. Since the box completely surrounds the gas, no matter which direction the energy gets re-radiated, it will still hit the box.
Try coming up with a valid experiment.
Measuring so-called back-radiation from CO2 requires a heavily cooled sensor..
No hand unit I know of, has that.
Check the frequency band on the hand-held unit.
Measuring so-called back-radiation from CO2 requires a heavily cooled sensor..
______________________________
That’s because radiation involved with CO2 and its back radiation is about 15µ which is about what you would get from a block of dry ice.
We are already a Defacto republic, they no longer act under the original constitution and the Queen(king) is no longer our head of state, we have a toothless Queen of Australia and our government, our court system etc. are corporations listed in the US.
This has all been done illegally as they are not supposed to change our constitution without a referendum’
The last powers remaining for the Monarch were removed by an Act of Parliament in the UK during the 1930s, and included Commonwealth member nations. During the 1980s the Australia Act was passed in The Australian Parliament reinforcing the UK Act.
The Monarch accepts the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia and in accordance with the Constitution, including the choice and appointment of a Governor General representing the Monarch.
Whitlam was dismissed by the Governor General (Kerr) who secretly connived with the leader of the opposition (Fraser). The GG is appointed by the Queen/King on the advice of the Prime Minister and is dismissed on the advice of the PM. The conniving had to be secret since Whitlam could have dismissed Kerr if he had known. The decision was made by Kerr and the Queen was not directly involved. She was probably informed but was in no way involved. Kerr’s decision lead directly to the election of Fraser as PM.
IMO doesn’t really matter whether the Queen was involved or not. Kerr still acted in her name, using powers granted by the Australian Constitution. The buck stops at the top.
Frankly I find it difficult to believe there was no communication with Britain, but I guess we’ll never know – nothing confirming such communication has ever been published.
Whatever went down behind the scenes the bankrupt Whitlam Gummint could no longer guarantee supply so wait for it…shock horror…an Australian appointed Governor General sent the Parliament back to the people to decide who could. Naturally leftists were mortified and have been maintaining their rage over this disgraceful outcome ever since.
Why they want a suntanned indestructible Marxist bureaucracy with a ‘Voice’ to Parliament now rather than the freely elected 11 indigenous heritage members that were good enough to earn the votes of all Australians at present. Notice how the usual suspects want ‘The Voice’ (read non-dismissable ATSIC Mark II) rather than a number of democratic voices? That’s because they can’t stack the deck and engage in political lawyering with their hand picked flunkies and their edicts.
The ABC series “The Dismissal” was a misleading series in title and description of events.
What lead directly to the election of Fraser was the voting public completely failing to re-elect Whitlam.
Kerr didn’t dismiss Whitlam and replace him. He forced the government to go to an election and put all the issues to the voters.
The VOTERS dismissed Whitlam.
Deal with it.
And in a landslide defeat of the Whitlam Labor Government.
The voters of Australia dismissed the Whitlam Government after a double dissolution of the Parliament and a general election.
The constitutional crisis that led to that election was created when the Whitlam Labor Government attempted to secretly bypass the Loans Council to borrow many billions of dollars from foreign money lenders, when the Opposition found out they blocked a money supply bill effectively revealing that the Government did not have the support of Parliament (numbers) to govern.
PM Whitlam was given the opportunity to remain as caretaker PM but he arrogantly refused so the Opposition Leader was appointed and called the election in accordance with constitutional laws.
An interesting piece of useless information: Following his refusal to the Governor General at Government House Canberra Prime Minister Whitlam returned to his official residence in Canberra, The Lodge, and sat down to lunch ordering a steak.
The Opposition Leader, just appointed caretaker Prime Minister leading a caretaker government returned to Parliament House and announced his new role, Labor Cabinet Ministers and MPs were shocked, they had not been advised beforehand.
In the US, Democrats have long taken the position that all opposition to their agenda, is by definition political.
Bi-partisanship only exists when both parties are working to pass the Democrats agenda.
From my experience, no matter where in the world they may live, the rest of the socialists concur with this attitude.
Succinct statement.
Sadly the public are naïve and credulous.
Voters need a brief statement of the key policies to compare and constrast.
What is a candidate’s policies and will he/she adhere to them?
Are the policies necessary, workable and affordable (who will pay)?
Which policies will enable citizens to live a peaceful and quiet life?
We would have had a different outcome if these questions had been addressed
to the energy and climate policies of Western countries.
Unfortunately politicians in general, especially left wing ones, are experts at lying about their goals.
Take the poorly named “Inflation Reduction Act”. There was nothing in the bill that was directed at inflation. In fact, all the additional spending is going to increase inflation.
Perhaps it would be better to formulate their real policies briefly in clear language for them and ask on each policy if they endorse this, yes or no? If no, get them to articulate this in a single sentence – and get them on record!
I had two politicians coming to my door for a vote and told them they were only offering “fifty shades of left.” Perhaps I should have had a list on hand of sensible policies that I would support and ask why they are scared of these – like if I have to budget, be frugal and live within my means why not the government?
Charlie’s waited 70+ years to be king. He’s not going to risk any damage to the monarchy by doing anything stupid like being an activist.
Maybe, but King Charles also said in 2020 we only have 10 years to save the planet, so IMO could go either way.
& on July 9, 2009 Charlie Chump told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James’s Palace that he had calculated that we have just 96 months (8yrs ) left to save the world.”
So by his ‘calculations’ the world ended 13yrs ago.
King Charles should thank his lucky stars that he miscalculated. Otherwise, there never would have been a King Charles, eh?
–
It’s like the ‘Chance’ card in the Monopoly game that says, “Bank error in your favor. Collect $50.”
Amusing cartoon I sighted this morning, two Corgi Dogs discussing their future with one saying that they were facing redundancy, the other responded and replaced by King Charles Spaniels.
With great respect, his world ended when he became the King and will never be the same again.
I believe that his position is not one to be envied, on public view constantly and a huge workload.
Some personality types will do whatever it takes to achieve such positions.
Actors, athletes, politicians in general.
It does seem to be the ones with a distinct lack of ability in their chosen profession that seem to go all out to find ‘other ways’ of achieving fame and fortune; marrying upwards is still extremely fashionable, as John Kerry would no doubt attest.
Also on July 2019 Charlie said that the next 18 months will decide if we have the ability to control the climate. Charlie has a long list of failed predictions along with Tim Flammery and big Al. I am not sure if the current labour/greens government will want to pull a republic when Charles is one of their high priests of climate change.
Prime Minister Albanese has just announced that the government he leads has postponed the republic campaign until they are re-elected to serve a second term after the 2025 election.
He hopes to serve a second term.
Obviously the focus groups and other indicators have not been encouraging, but the Assistant Minister for THE Republic, a first time portfolio, will apparently proceed to try and convince Australians that our constitutional monarchy needs to be changed.
remember.. little Charlie isn’t very bright !
stupid is as stupid does….
I don’t agree, he has lived in a different world and lifestyle, somewhat sheltered, but not stupid.
If you’d heard what he was subjected to at school you might change your mind slightly about the ‘sheltered’ remark – Gordonstoun is a private school with the associated stench of elitism but Charles was systematically bullied for who he was throughout his time there. Isolated and subjected to easily denied beatings during rugby games; other students that were there at the same time as him have mentioned that ‘a certain element’ in the school made his life a living hell while he was there. All because Prince Phillip had been to school there and thought it ‘character building’.
I understand that then Prince Charles was much happier when he was enrolled at Timbertop – Geelong Grammar School in Australia and enjoyed the outdoors activities provided.
I think there are signs that he knows this and has passed the baton on the William. I was not aware how close he was to his sister Anne, who many think epitomises her late mother, and her common sense outlook will help him. I am willing to see how he turns out having been critical of his activism and involvement in political issues.
The Monarchy Model : decades of stability and growth personified by the Queen.
The Republic Model : Corn Pop is… you know… that guy… the thing.
The Other Republic Model : ULTRAAAAAA MAGAAAAAAA!!!
So we should use this moment to re-visit turning Australia into a Republic WHY exactly?
Exactly. We don’t have to pay for the Monarch (they’re worth their weight in UK tourism anyway) yet get to enjoy Westminster parliamentary democracy with a cheap GG and limited reserve powers. The problem for the republicans is they want parliament to carry on appointing said ceremonial (apolitical?) GG whereas the punters want a vote and that means a Presidential style and looking across the moat how’s that style doing?
Checkmate republicans because we’ve got the best deal on the cheap and we get to look at the annus horribilisses of the UK Royals in a media goldfish bowl. That’s the tradeoff for the bucks that Liz understood so well. Better than reality TV which is why the touchscreen generation really dig it as the Womens Weekly crowd still do.
PS: And what’s more girls forget Tinder you can dream of one day marrying a handsome Prince like our serene Cate. LOL.
Or a Prince could have the misfortune to kiss a girl and be turned into a green frog.
What’s wrong with Ultra MAGA? The country was prospering under it.
Sure, the socialists were going nut case, but then the socialists always go nut case whenever the voters separate them from total power.
What’s wrong with Ultra MAGA?
Nothing really. But my recommendation, is politicians go hard Ultra MAGA for one and half terms, then back of to MAGA Lite before the third term election.
I quite agree if ultra MAGA includes.
End of MOST cabinet level departments including Energy, Education Health and Human Services, etc.
Elimination f the income tax replaced by the Fair Tax, thus ALL tax subsidies for Green go away, no more “credits” since no taxes.
Elimination of all DC residential areas from DC, the actual government buildings, spaces and return of the land provided by Virginia and Maryland back to those states, along with requirement to try all federal criminals in a city of 80% + Republican voters.
Elimination of the Federal Reserve with a 50 year forensic audit of the books and persecution of any corruption found.
Elimination of Fanny Mae, Freddy Mack, FDIC and other federal “insurances” including Obama care.
Elimination of welfare and Medicaid in ALL forms by block granting funds to the states on a capitation basis so that the block grant will reach 0$ by the 6th year. If the Democrat states want to spend the money, let them.
Elimination of any loan or grant programs for “higher” education.
While completing the southern border wall, begin mass deportation of all persons in the US illegally, including visa overstays. Start the proses by impounding all funds in any bank account held by the illegals and foreclosing on any business of personal realm estate, impounding any vehicles or other valuable personal property..
Begin immediate prosecution of any state/business/college/person who discriminated on the basis of sex, race or national origin, Ex. California gives illegal aliens free medical care, obviously discriminating against US borne persons.
Finally, eliminate birthright citizenship and, if possible, make it retroactive for any child born to illegal alien parents over the last 55 years. End chain migration established by Ted Kennedy’s legislation of the 60s, and return to ONLY based of immigrants IMPROVING the makeup of the US population.
That is a partial list.
PM Anthony Albanese thinks climate activism should not be seen as political.
Time Alby did some homework on the role of a constitutional Monarch. Also, the big problem is that climate activism always has been political!
I have cherry-picked the following statement from a recent Covid discussion as a similar example to the climate change arguments (and yes-I am fully vaccinated).
……….that the gagging of doctors and scientists around the world has resulted in “a virtual absence of open scientific and medical discussion, debate, or dialogue concerning the medical and scientific literature that has been emerging throughout 2021 and 2022,[despite] a now enormous body of peer-reviewed literature and data 19 specifically focused on SARS-CoV-2 and the Covid-19 vaccines……..
Just substitute ‘climate change’ for Covid. Another case of ‘snouts in the climate dollar trough’.
The climate is going to change whether political activists are active or not. The hubris of political activists is that they actually think they will have an effect. Tossing virgins into volcanoes and witch burning was political activism and the results on the climate were nil. So will be all present efforts.
More lies about lies and lying. Climate scams are nothing but political.
If a warming tipping point was really an emergency situation it would obviously make much more sense to spend money protecting people and public assets than to subsidise unreliable wind turbines and solar installations.
Like Holland has done for centuries to protect their land from the ocean changes and tectonic plate movements with sea walls, canals and pumps. Wind mills replaced when the Industrial Age produced steam engines, internal combustion engines and electric motors.
I am not aware of any commercial sailing ship owners continuing to persevere with sails and buying steam powered tug boats as back up following the sailing ships around.
I wouldn’t be listening to the Pope or the Dalai Lama for their advice on climate change, just a I wouldn’t be listening to the Head of the Church of England.
If he choses to break the exemplar that his mother personified then the value of the soft powers that she enjoyed will quickly vanish … ending it’s usefulness and it’s utility.
God save the Queen … God save us all from an activist Head of State.
The Aussie PM since May 2022 and his Cabinet includes the Assistant Minister for THE Republic.
No doubt Albo would like having the King speaking climate hoax nonsense to use for propaganda purposes and knowing that most Australians respect our constitutional monarchy.
King Charles recently stated he will leave causes he cares about “in the hands of others”. But Aussie PM Anthony Albanese thinks climate activism should not be seen as political.
It would be appropriate for King Charles to remain strong on climate: Albanese
___
Climate is nothing but political, except for two things, money and power, which is why many, if not most politicians, get into politics in the first place. Alabanese, no doubt, is hoping to increase his power and his bank account be promoting climate change and all it’s government funded tax breaks and subsidies.
He, like all the others, must have greatly increased bribes, er campaign donations tremendously from all the corporations who have their snouts in the climate change trough.
Charlie is a constitutional monarch. The Royal Family are, as a rule, expected to stay out of politics, and refrain from giving their personal opinion on certain topics, so as to remain impartial.
My guess is he won’t adhere to the principle set by his glorious mother.
Albo underestimates the black spider
Come on now. King Charles is 73 years old and finally got a job. Let him wear the crown gracefully as his mother did. Why be king if you keep doing what everyone else can do?
The UK hasn’t had a King for 70 years, let’s see how he creates that role in the modern world for William and George to follow.
I think it is fair to say, Charles, now King Charles has been influenced more by the WEF than he has been by scientific study. Who can forget his demand back in 2020 for ‘change’? A piece to camera, so conveniently timed, when the world was fearful, focused on a so called ‘pandemic’. He was filmed and broadcast by the BBC on prime time news and current affairs, demanding we accept the WEF’s much promoted ‘Great Reset’.
Charles is a man who has always been standing by ready to adopt his entitled role in life. He has waited a full 70 years. During that period, he has been involved in all sorts of distractions. His very good friend David Attenborough, no doubt aided by the BBC/Guardian will be pushing for him to maintain the ‘Green’ agenda. The destruction of middle class wealth via the shutting down of capitalism requires constant effort….
Fortunately, the rules of Royal protocol will prevent him being anything other than a figurehead. His influence such as it is, has come to an end for the Green blob policies.
As was carried in a piece the other day here on WUWT,
British Climate Divergence: Jacob Rees-Mogg Appointed Energy Minister, as Charles is Crowned KingOne of the characters covered in Eric’s piece, is highly intelligent, wealthy and has an ability to communicate better than most, plus authority to enact government policy change. The other is King Charles,.
What the Australian left wing government does, will as usual be decided by what it is told to do by the WEF. For now, they think that requires maintaining Charles’ domestic standing. That could well change as the Mogg demonstrates it is he, not Charles, will define the energy future of the UK.
Heil Klaus?
And another computer model bites the dust so why should we believe any of them any longer?
Westpac, NAB, ANZ, CBA lift interest rates again | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site
These modellers are all taking printed money under false pretences.
Entirely appropriate for sane Australians to vote out their off-with-the-fairies Prime Minister.
It seems that for Prime Minister Albanese it is “my way or the highway” a typical response of autocrats. Was this not the same attitude of Prince Charles before he became King Charles? A good leader is honest and humble recognizing contradictory views and having the wisdom as which to support. Any sensible person should be able to see that it is climate alarmism that pushes for the most rash and foolish responses before considering the actual need, effectivity and cost.
Like we have discussed briefly before, the UN globalist politics drive too many politicians of member nations, an example the Great Barrier Reef with threats to tourism as blackmail, do as we ask or else.
I read recently that threats to foreign trade and other threats are why Australian politicians follow the climate hoax agenda, but nearly all of them know better but do not have the intestinal fortitude to fight back.
Of course at COP26 Glasgow Australian Prime Minister Morrison was urged to cooperate by the UK Prime Minister and the President of the United States of America, and others. The focus was on closing coal mines and coal fired power stations (refused), increasing the IPCC Paris Agreement emissions target (refused) and imposing net zero emissions by 2050 – agreed but on the basis of “an aspirational goal” based on research and development of new technology and with no damage to the economy. The new PM has arranged legislation into law for 15% increase by 2030 of already agreed 28%, now 43% emissions reduction and net zero by 2050.
If Oz is the @rse end of the world, NZ must be an enem@.
Ha ha ha ha..
Chuckles does have a sense of humour……… ‘funny old wurld innit’
Headline:“Biden has Trump dilemma as Queen’s funeral invites restricted to heads of state
OK you say, what’s that got to do with anything….
Quote:“Heads of state travelling to the UK for Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral will be forbidden from travelling in private jets and helicopters, according to leaked guidance.
here
Possibly and concerning Brandon, ‘Head of State’ means that your head must actually have something other than fresh air (and CO2) inside of it.
(as in State of your Head)
😀
The guidance restricts the heads of state to them, a +1 and nobody else; no staff, aides or security, no personal limousines; all attending heads of state will go together to and from the funeral on a bus or buses, commercial airlines only to Heathrow; if they want to use a private jet then it cannot land at Heathrow, it must land at another, less busy airport such as Manchester or Luton I suppose. Interesting ground rules there – wonder how Biden’s going to react to all that?
last referendum failed because they tried to slide other things into the topic
and people found out and negged it(sorta how your usa pollies mash an agenda into a heading for a bill that has zero resemblance to what theyre trying to hide.
albo will add aboriginal rights in and thats a HUGE NO for majority
whats called a constitution here now is all for the rich/landowner and biz and SFA for the avg Joes protection or rights, basically we have few rights at all
King Charles co-hosted original ‘Great Reset’ meeting: ‘We have no alternative’.
“You will own nothing, have no privacy, and be happy.”
That sounds exactly like what the commies endeavoured in USSR, Cuba, Korea, Cambodia, East Europe countries, Venezuela, etc…. Except that the people weren’t happy at all. Those who dared saying they weren’t happy ended in the Gulag.
They called this the “Soviet Paradise”.
One may draw from this quote of Charles the 3rd that he eagerly wishes the forever cancellation of the British Monarchy.
“Charles, you no longer will own anything, and you will live happily”. Goodbye, the many palaces, homes, castles, cars, yachting boats, ski resorts, racing horses, mistresses, and so on”.
A once in a lifetime trip to the Gulags. An eight year holiday with celebrities like Solzhenitsyn; stunning vistas of Northern Russia; great exercise routines and special non fattening cuisine. 😉
Maybe King Charles regrets that ridiculous statement?
Anthony Albanese has said it would be appropriate for King Charles to continue his advocacy on the challenge of climate change.
No, it would not be appropriate for King Charles to remain a sociopolitical activist. That would actually be contrary to the Crown, as a rule, remaining apolitical and impartial.
“I think dealing with the challenge of climate change shouldn’t be seen as a political issue – it should be seen as an issue that is about humanity and about our very quality of life and survival as a world,” he told the ABC.
Admitting your position has nothing to do with science in a bold way reminiscent of a Mayan ritual of human sacrifice.