I find it strange that Key reverted to Knighthoods & Dames but wants to change the flag. If NZ wants its own identity sticking with the NZ honor system Labour introduced would have been a start.
Printable View
I find it strange that Key reverted to Knighthoods & Dames but wants to change the flag. If NZ wants its own identity sticking with the NZ honor system Labour introduced would have been a start.
Exactly Daytr
I have pondered this one often. It was never signalled by National prior to the 2008 election that they( meaning John Key) would reintroduce Knighthoods. If I recall correctly it was also reintroduced fairly quickly after National being elected.
There are several theories as to why it was such a priority and why they didn't talk about it prior to and during the 2008 campaign.
1.quid pro quo
Wealthy National donors pressured National on reintroducing knighthoods as they aspired to have one
2. John Key planning for his future
John Key was already contemplating and planning post political life and a knighthood for himself was on his list
3. Nostalgia
Possibly, but John Key said in 2003 that he was " a little bit republican". So mixed messages there. He has certainly changed his tune, staying at Balmoral etc. NEVER underestimate the shallowness of this man. He has much in common with Marx, Groucho Marx that is.. " I've got principles, and if you don't like them, well i've got others
It was signalled along with returning to use of the Privy Council.
All part of their election promises.
And rightly so. Helen and her mates were doing everything to end any links with Britain. The above and the removal of Royal from anywhere it was being used. e.g. NZAF instead of RNZAF.
Restoring Knighthoods could have been a job creation strategy from the sharp mind of John Key, with knights we could also have blacksmiths and court jesters. John would be the Knight in shining armour although personally I think he would be better suited to be the village idiot
Why rightly so? Do you think the queen should be our head of state?
Its archaic to think a person is born to a position of leadership such as a monarchy.
The Privy Council is an unfortunate necessity in my view, mainly due to the number of serious convictions that have been flawed if not corrupt in the last few decades and having a court outside of NZ to appeal to has proven necessary.
I wish that wasn't the case, but I think recent history proves that it is.
Re Black Peters post 9192
(1) Most went to Australia for high wages and lifestyle reasons, coming home because Australia dependent on the mining boom is now in trouble economically. Lesson for NZ with our our dependenceon dairy?
(2) Dubious honour being ranked high in the easiest to do business lists. Finance company collapses, probably the best indicator of a lack of regulation and surveillance along with Pike River.
(3) ACC went from broke to dropping charges in an remarkably short time. Funny that, along with a hard nosed approach to what was an accident. As for the health system, you need health insurance to have any chance of obtaining basic surgery. Hence the establishment of charity hospitals.
(4)http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11525848
Yeah right.
(5) Labour established the Waitangi Tribunal in 1977, and extended it's powers to look back past 1977 in 1985. National has just tagged along.
(6) Best to ignore this. Could be classed as a whiner. As has been said by Sgt. P the role of the opposition is to oppose.
It would not matter who was the Labour leader she as in Julia Gillard in Australia, or the previous and current Labour leaders in NZ have found out, they will be subject to an unrelenting attack on any perceived or imagined weakness from all sections of the media. John Key has only been mildly chided for personal foibles like pulling pony tails.
For Labour to become more relevant a return to people first policies rather than trying to be a centre party must occur. A start would be the re-establishment of State Advances for low cost first home loans and the MOW to develop lower cost subdivisions.
westerly
I think people need to think further back into history. The old Anglo-Saxon kings did not necessarily accede by right of birth, the then Parliament had the determining say - as you would expect after disasters like Ethelred the Unready and Prince Charles (oops, wash your mouth out Major!).
Parliament, which has shown an extreme reluctance to become involved, needs to step up and take it's rightful responsibility. Prince Charles has shown over a lifetime of tree-hugging wrongheadedness he is unfit for the job. Let's just take one issue, the leak of letters showing him pressuring Tony Blair to adopt particular political decisions and paths and even more incredibly, Tony Blair acceding to this pressure! Anyone who does this shows that he doesn't understand what a constitutional monarchy is. Parliament should choose amongst some better qualified candidates, Prince William is the obvious one and well favoured by political polls over Charles. There are some others, e.g. Prince Edward, Prince Harry...
I am glad to see The Privy Council coming back into favour. While the links amongst the old boys establishment of NZ Judges are very strong, the links between this establishment and the British one have frayed and disintegrated. Moreover we get the Privy Council services very cheaply and I for one would be pleased to see the Privy Council without any NZ axes to grind bring a dispassionate view to bear on NZ problems.
I hate to say this but you are going to get Charles, warts and all. Though some sentimentalists hate Camilla as a marriage breaker and all the rest, She has proved, by her ability to keep her mouth shut among other things, That she probably would have made a good queen.