John Tamihere on the republic debate

"The present Queen and her father, King George IV,"

Just how old does he think the Queen is........

"But much has occurred under the present Queen which erodes the very essence of her monarchy." I disagree I think the essence of the constitutional monarchy she inherited has remained intact under her reign. The Windsor constitutional monarchy was always about symbolism whilst devolving power to parliament and cabinet. This was  exemplified by their change of surname from the German to the English during WW1.

"Bagehot's argument in the 1860s was the the Sovereign had the right to 'advise, warn and be informed' - three things that simply aren't happening anymore. "

I would say in relation to the UK the Queen does fulfil those things...as revealed in the memoirs of various of their PMs. It would be difficult to imagine that the weekly audiences would not contain the Queen's candid expression of the experiences over the past 58 odd years of dealing with various PMs and controversies.

In relation to NZ, with the comparatively fast turnover of GGs, Bagehot's argument may occur but maybe not on the same level as in the UK. The GG (and monarch) may be informed. I am not sure on what level the GG (and monarch) would "advise and warn".

As such communications are naturally AND appropriately confidential, we are unlikely to know the full scale of Sovereign - GG - PM communications.

Gavin McLean's brilliant book The Governors....I agree excellent book from what I have briefly seen  -  . I have yet to read it as I bought it as a  Xmas present (half price) for someone else!

"Thatchers basically say the opposite, because the Queen disagreed with her so stridently."

Exactly...the Queen advised and warned, the PM with the confidence of the elected parliament, chose to act differently. Under our system the PM calls the final shot. Under our democratic system - or any system I would like NZ to have - it should be exactly that way.

Many of the GG's may have found the job frustrating because they had been used to jobs, commanding a great deal of decison making power - archbishop, PM, Judge etc. It would be difficult I imagine to adjust to a position with the glory but very little actual power.

I'm inclined to agree with the amused comments about Tamihere's mistake about George IV. However, the issue here is whether political cohabitation works if one has a president who is of the opposite political persuasion to the majority parliamentary or congressional party. If the two arms of republican government are prepared to be cooperative and share median values, then it does. France has had little trouble of this sort during its cohabitation periods, while the Clinton presidency's second half was a headache precisely due to Republican Party extremism. Much depends on political culture.

Yes, although note that the current French republic has lasted about five decades and seems eminently stable. I was talking about periods of partisan co-existence between Mitterand and the Gaullist National Assembly, and Chirac and the Socialists when their turn for cohabitation came.  That seems to indicate that disparate presidents and legislatures can work together for the greater constitutional good. 

Ah, but is  monarchy stable either?

For that matter, what about the circumstances in which the current constitutional monarchy arose? Remember, it was only confirmed as binding by the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Before that, there had to be a civil war (1642-1649) to prevent Charles I from establishing an absolute monarchy. Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth experienced sectarian and regionalist revolts from time to time. Henry VII only won the crown after defeating Richard III at Bosworth in 1485, and there was the War of the Roses before that, Richard II's overthrow in 1399, Isabella and Mortimer's revolt against Edward II, and the regicides of William II, Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward V and Richard III to consider. If there has been stability, it has only existed for the last four centuries.

Moreover,  constitutional monarchy didn't prevent the Chartist upheavals of the nineteenth century, rise of trade union militancy and other instances of militant and extra-parliamentary social change and movements. So, how effective is it in insuring civil peace?

Ah, I have never said the wide term "monarchy" is stable. The constitutional developments you mention (from 1215 - 1688 and beyond) added to its evolution into the stable constitutional monarchy we have today. I do not pretend that the Stuart monarchy is the same as the Windsor monarchy.

"If there has been stability, it has only existed for the last four centuries." Indeed 400 years of relative stability enabled Britain to prosper from the industrial revolution turn a lot of its attention overseas and here we are discussing, in 2010, an evolved version of its constitution in one of its stable ex-dominions on the other side of the World!

It is interesting that whilst Britain had the chartists, there was no rebellion, unlike in much of  Europe at the time. The British constitution had evolved to the point that enabled it to adapt to pressure for change in society without there being more widespread and serious revolt. Arguably it has probably ended up creating a society in which discussion and argument are encouraged and accepted.

I think much of the trade unionist militancy in th UK post-war was Marxist-Leninist and trying to turn British economic malaise to Moscow's advantage .

Just what the British would love to hate - a Franco-German axis dominating Europe! I imagine the Germans are regretting changing the DM for the Drachma - oops I mean Euro.

And yet, the Bloc Quebecois still remains the largest party in that Canadian province... the Bjelke Petersen regime survived for twenty years with no intervention from the federal Australian state...and it remains to be seen whether the Maori Party would ditch the Crown if it came to the inclusion of the Treaty as one of the cornerstones of any future written constitution.

So, once again, is constitutional monarchy in itself enough to guarantee good governance and political accountability?

Granted, a written constitution could be achieved without neccessarily dispensing with the current largely formal constitutional status of the Crown, as it indeed has in the case of Canada. Incidentally, how many liberal monarchists would be open to that particular model?

It's difficult to see how ditching the Crown whilst retaining the Treaty would be possible, unless we are simply replacing the Monarch with an elected Head of State, which isn't really the same as creating a Republic.

Insofar as the Miners Strike was concerned, I suspect that much depends on what part of England and Wales you're talking about- certainly not Northern England's mining communities, I'd wager. Again, constitutional monarchy in itself does not gurantee civil peace and good governance.

I'd imagine that liberal monarchists would concede that and probably point to the fact that Thatcher's excesses led to ongoing constitutional reform under Blair and Brown, though.

Sorry, that's incorrect. The Bjelke-Petersen regime survived for as long as it did due to two factors. One was Queensland's rural demographic skew, while the other was notorious electoral district gerrymandering, which was resolved when the ALP finally won back power under Wayne Goss in 1990. It is highly debatable whether Bjelke-Petersen's regime could be described as 'democratically elected' (There's an excellent University of Queensland Press sesquicentennial volume, "Made in Qld" if you're further interested).

I think I have a site that breaks down QLD elections by percent each party got of the popular vote (regardless of electorates won or lost).

Joh was Country Party I think...in coalition with liberals. In 2 -party splits ALP/LIB CP Joh got 52% in 69, 51% in 72, 61% in 75 etc. 

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/qld/2006/guide/pastelec.htm

So even without gerymandering, rural bias etc. he would have been Premier. I agree he was like QLD's Muldoon+.