Natasha Stott Despoja has an article on the ARM's new Mate for a Head of State campaign. She writes on the inanity of an absent foreign monarch, connect Australian history to the Republicanism and offers some data on the loyalist base. The Republican movement needs a damn the torpedoes campaign more than anything else.

From the article;

The notion that the success and stability of our country is in any way dependent on the rule of an absent monarch is ludicrous.

I totally agree. Also;

The republic debate is not about dismissing our history or traditions; it is about facing them. It is about understanding that our past is filled with so much for which we can be justifiably proud while acknowledging that for which we should feel ashamed.

This is probably a way to explain the "cheerful" history versus the "Black-arm band" history. Australia's past is replete with tyranny, for which we should be ashamed of, and have a national and political memory for, otherwise we will not put the protections and checks against those abuses in our system - and future minorities will suffer at the discriminative and tyrannous hands of government.

It should be noted that the Australian Democrats are the ones who have proposed a statutory Bill of Rights for Australia which the major parties have constantly ignored.

Stott Despoja writes;

Those opposed to a republic remain almost without deviation at 35 per cent. So it is the uncommitted and unaware, not those opposed, who require support and information. We need to engage young people, not just because of votes and percentages but as a matter of identity, to ensure they feel engaged in the future of their country.

The small sample on the frontpage SSR poll shows a similar number with 31% saying never to a Republic . That 35% figure will erode if people are involved in the process. Prior to the Republican referendum support jumped to 70% as people realised they could get involved in making something better, improved and more perfect. Once the professional politicians polluted it up, that dropped to a bare minority.

The lesson there is, ignore the people at your cause's peril. The crowd is wise, they did not want John Howard's pre-amble, nor a system that only changed the name of Governor-General for President. They wanted a better political system which represented them in a superior manner.

The professional politicians, ARM and members of the constitutional convention were unable to produce that. Choosing timidity and a single issue over genuine reform. As a result the referendum failed.

Damn the torpedoes, provide the platform for a superior constitutional and parliamentary system which protects individual rights - people will come on board.