Were Paul doing what you suggest, he would’ve left that bit out.

There’s a tactic whereby in the absence of concrete rebuttal there’s a resolution to distorting the opponent’s argument and/or dismissing it (so boring darling)
.
I didn’t suggest anything of the kind.
.
What I actually said is that the attack on Tunrbull’s ethics – the standard ethics of mainstream politics – is inadequate. Paul’s critique of Turnbull might be, as you say, a small matter. An anecdote. However it is framed as a rebuttal to Turnbull’s spin machine: his Cult of Personality and by extension his Stupid Cult of Minimal Republicanism. If it’s small stuff why mention it next to the Big Stuff? Tales of Turnbull’s shitsheeting are strictly for the n’ah n’ah n’ah file: Who cares!
.
The anecdote is not in any way a devastatin’ critique of this part of the mainstream republican movement. I really like Paul’s ‘Stupid Cult’ riffs but I don’t think they apply to the ARM. Or at least he hasn’t demonstrated that they do.
.
Australians are marked constitutional conservatives. For good reasons. I myself believe that the Republic is an opportunity for constitutional progress. I think Turnbull is wrong. I think the whole bunch of ‘em are thinking of their place in the history books and want to get the thing done now to facilitate that.
.
And the counter-republicans are not helping. They wanna rush in too. Without really considering even the criticisms of the monarchists which are apt. The irony of the situation is that the more radical you are on the republic the less likely you are to stop the Grey Men fucking it up because you’re just so eager to get it done now! Don’t spend a lot of time on a brilliant new constitution. Just get the juggernaut scarperin’ down on the target asap – before the Tories get back in.
.
The Australian people are right. Slow down and wait ’til Bess kicks the bucket. Meantime speculate on the Federated Republic of Australia. And start with the good questions monarchists ask. But no. They’re boring darling.
.
If this is the standard by which we conduct battle we will lose. Great! The Left love losing. It – a. enables them to take the moral high ground. and b. exonerates ‘em from actually having to do something like write laws n’ shit.

I think that your story is incredibly boring, and what’s more there is just not enough here to sustain it convincingly for anybody but yourself.

.
My story Klaus? What story is that? I’m making a point not a story. You seem to be emburden’d enough understanding the point. Perhaps you only imagine the story.
.

I mean, do you have any awareness of the various contexts in which posters and commentors here have ‘gotten their hands dirty’, in both small and large struggles?

.
Actually yes. I do. The etiquette as I understand it deems it bad form to discuss such stuff in any detail here. I made a few coy refs to Mark’s student hack days a few weeks back. That’s as far as I’ll go.
.
And may I suggest sir that if I was behaving as you are I woulda got told off by now. ‘Stupid dickhead’? – oh yes you didn’t say it directly but we all know what you mean. The fact is that the liberal-left are marginalized in English speaking countries at the minute. True in Australia and perhaps soon in the US their preferred governments are standing. But their preferred governments would prefer it if the luvvies wouldn’t stand so close to them at certain times, in certain places.
.
Rather than taking stock of the situation with a view to strategic reform the tendency is to dismiss and besmirch any heresy to which one has no answer. I suppose the trouble with never actually leaving school is that one never needs to acquire that most essential attribute: the capacity to take criticism constructively.

The requirement to have a wide agreement on a title for our HOS as an essential precondition for a move to a republic is something of a red herring. The title could be changed as appropriate over time through an Act of Parliament, using this approach.

Without having studied law it looks like it might be possible to change the Second Covering Clause: “The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.”

Two possible ways of altering the preamble and the covering clauses have been suggested. The first requires joint legislation of the Commonwealth and the all State Parliaments, using section 15 (1) of the Australia Acts. The second would need a referendum to change the Constitution to confer power to alter the covering clauses and the preamble. Given the fact that the Australian people usually are involved in constitutional change, the second way seems preferable in principle. But whatever the answer, there can be no doubt that, one way or another, the preamble and the covering clauses can now be altered by Australians, within Australia.

Constitutional Centenary Foundation Factsheet 1.6, 1996

Brilliant! Bloody brilliant! And entirely in tune with Australian Cultural Values.
Such a pity you weren’t on that plonkies’ barge in the Hawksbury River, over a century ago, when Federation and the Constitution were being cobbled together. It would have saved us a lot of grief, lost opportunities and a fortune in squandered revenue.

I couldn’t think of anything more democratic than a lottery. But my idea was too late for the constitutional convention. and those 2020 buggers weren’t having any of it.

But there is a serious side to it; that is, read the constitution. You will see that “The Constitution” is clearly referred to in the The Preamble as the bit AFTER the Preamble. And it is the PREAMBLE that defines “The Queen” as meaning “Queen Victoria and her legitimate heirs”. Now of course, this is where it gets interesting. If the English Parliament can pass an ACT OF SETTLEMENT (1701) enforcing rules as to the succession of the English Crown to make William of Orange the heir to Charles II and not his brother not that Catholic recidivist James II … so the Australian Parliament can do likewise. WE DON’T NEED A REPUBLIC REFERENDUM. We can just redefine what a legitimate heir of Queen Victoria is – in case, the winner of an annual lottery. Problem solved. It’s fair (anyone can win), it doesn’t change the existing arrangement of a parliamentary democracy run by a cabinet of ministers, and it doesn’t allow a head of state to claim anything like a mandate. Plus the monarchists get to keep “The Queen”.

Like Turnbull, you also seem to have trouble with evaluating scale. Paul is making a very small intervention here, that much is clear. You are trying to make it signify the willed insularity and inaction of left-liberalism in general, or something, but that is just not a story that can be supported by the scale of, say, a blog post or a blog comment, or for that matter an entire blog. Everything may be a symptom for you, or an episode in your preferred narrative, but I think that your story is incredibly boring, and what’s more there is just not enough here to sustain it convincingly for anybody but yourself. I mean, do you have any awareness of the various contexts in which posters and commentors here have ‘gotten their hands dirty’, in both small and large struggles? Frankly we have enough simple-minded dickheads on the left already who assert that writing about the ethics of this or that precludes real, risky political action, to in any benefit from reading your version of the same.

This is precisely what Paul is implying, as am I.

No Paul is saying mean Mr Turnbull was nasty to one of his students. He lied about her. Oh really? It’s called politics.
.
As for my ‘condescending’ I would like you to take a look around the world these days or any fucking days. Are your nice left-liberal pals running the show? Did they ever? No. They ain’t and never did. Guess why?
.
Again and again and a fucking ‘gain the story is the same. Something happens so… let’s call a meeting, let’s endlessly debate things, let’s split hairs, let’s move a motion. Seen Life of Brian? Muggeridge thought Cleese et al were making fun of Christianity. No mate they were making fun of you. And meantime those who know what the game is – to acquire and maintain power – acquire it and maintain it. And you make it easy.
.
I didn’t concede any point nor did I make it my own. I made the point that Paul didn’t and neither did you. Your point was: Oh boo hoo hoo it’s a nasty world.
.
You want to have a positive influence on republicanism or whatever? Here’s the play: you concede there’s two sides. You join the one you’re on and you fight to get your items on the agenda. What you don’t do is form your own comfortable yet underfunded and underpublicized (hence totally useless) little group who will then be smeared into irrellevance by the big boys.
.
But that would mean, y’know, like competing n’ stuff. Can’t do that can we.