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.
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 @ur momisuglyrse end of the world, NZ must be an enem@ur momisugly.
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.