The Republic of Australia, 1947
- Thread starter Keenir
- Start date
Cook
Banned
What a nightmare Keenir!
If Ben Chifley (PM 1945-49) had had the popularity to swing a republic there would have been no stopping him. He’d have nationalised the Banks (his attempt to do so in OTL was his downfall) and an Australia of massive engineering projects, centralised plans and broad socialist policies would have been the result.
Between ‘49 and ‘66 you can forget it unless you find a way not to have Bob “I did but see her passing by…” Menzies as Prime Minister, which is pretty much impossible.
Harold “all the way with LBJ” Holt may have gone for a referendum but wasn’t in long and was busy with the ladies.
Blackjack McEwen only had five days so that’s unlikely.
John Gorton, nope. Popular enough to possibly swing things that way if he’d lent support to such a movement but not inclined.
Billy McMahon, even less likely. (Only Australian Prime Minister to die “on the job” with the Mrs if the rumours are true.)
Which brings us to Saint Gough the divine. His fans will tell you he was deposed in a CIA plot precisely so he couldn’t make Australia a Republic, withdraw from Vietnam, end poverty and introduce the Age of Aquarius. In reality he initially became PM with a majority of eight seats, and that was further reduced to five seats in his second term. He was then dismissed and an election called that resulted in the largest swing against the Labor Party in post war history.
But you face a suspension of disbelief issue with this.
Since a change to the Australian Constitution needs a majority of voters in a majority of States and a majority overall to pass it is unlikely in the best of circumstances, under a divisive or controversial Prime Minister it’s impossible.
Menzies, one of Australia’s most trusted and politicly strong Prime Ministers tried to ban the Australian Communist Party with a referendum and was defeated. And that was at the height of the Cold War!
It is just really, really hard to convince Australians to change the old Constitution unless they can clearly see something isn’t working. Especially if they suspect the change of giving more power to Politicians in general, and Canberra Politicians in particular.
My best bet for an early Australian Republic would be in the 1920’s during the boom when Stanley Melbourne Bruce was at the height of his popularity.
If Ben Chifley (PM 1945-49) had had the popularity to swing a republic there would have been no stopping him. He’d have nationalised the Banks (his attempt to do so in OTL was his downfall) and an Australia of massive engineering projects, centralised plans and broad socialist policies would have been the result.
Between ‘49 and ‘66 you can forget it unless you find a way not to have Bob “I did but see her passing by…” Menzies as Prime Minister, which is pretty much impossible.
Harold “all the way with LBJ” Holt may have gone for a referendum but wasn’t in long and was busy with the ladies.
Blackjack McEwen only had five days so that’s unlikely.
John Gorton, nope. Popular enough to possibly swing things that way if he’d lent support to such a movement but not inclined.
Billy McMahon, even less likely. (Only Australian Prime Minister to die “on the job” with the Mrs if the rumours are true.)
Which brings us to Saint Gough the divine. His fans will tell you he was deposed in a CIA plot precisely so he couldn’t make Australia a Republic, withdraw from Vietnam, end poverty and introduce the Age of Aquarius. In reality he initially became PM with a majority of eight seats, and that was further reduced to five seats in his second term. He was then dismissed and an election called that resulted in the largest swing against the Labor Party in post war history.
But you face a suspension of disbelief issue with this.
Since a change to the Australian Constitution needs a majority of voters in a majority of States and a majority overall to pass it is unlikely in the best of circumstances, under a divisive or controversial Prime Minister it’s impossible.
Menzies, one of Australia’s most trusted and politicly strong Prime Ministers tried to ban the Australian Communist Party with a referendum and was defeated. And that was at the height of the Cold War!
It is just really, really hard to convince Australians to change the old Constitution unless they can clearly see something isn’t working. Especially if they suspect the change of giving more power to Politicians in general, and Canberra Politicians in particular.
My best bet for an early Australian Republic would be in the 1920’s during the boom when Stanley Melbourne Bruce was at the height of his popularity.
Keenir
Banned
thank you for replying and explaining the canidates.
apologies.
so, the only upside there would be that everyone would be employed?
(counterbalanced by everything else, granted)
Definately an accomplishment.
well then its a good thing he was deposed - some of us can't swim.
I feared as much...but thank you for answering anyway.
maybe if you could see Russia from your back porch (and not Vietnam), then?
and I apologize for quoting Palin.
sounds good. I'll get digging.
ps: Melbourne?
apologies.
so, the only upside there would be that everyone would be employed?
(counterbalanced by everything else, granted)
Definately an accomplishment.
well then its a good thing he was deposed - some of us can't swim.
I feared as much...but thank you for answering anyway.
maybe if you could see Russia from your back porch (and not Vietnam), then?
and I apologize for quoting Palin.
sounds good. I'll get digging.
ps: Melbourne?
Cook
Banned
Bob Menzies purchased F-111s so that they could hit Jakarta from Darwin. Indonesia, and South East Asia were feared about to fall to communism. Bear in mind that Communists overrunning SE Asia and attacking Australia just twenty years after the Japs did was very believable.
If you are an American then Dominoes falling in SE Asia is just something nasty on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, for an Australian it is the near north.
Yes, Stanley Melbourne Bruce was his real name, not a nickname.
Keenir
Banned
very true; poor joke on my part.
apologies; I meant "Was he named after the city, or after the guy who founded the city?"
No Melbourne was named after William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne one of the more obscure Prime Ministers of the 19th Century.
Cook
Banned
Really?
I thought it was because naming him Stanley Saint Kilda Bruce would have been ridiculous or that Melbourne won the Grand final in 1883, and given he’s from Victoria I was leaning towards the latter.
I agree that 1947 would have been impossible. Think of how many Aussies had just died fighting alongside Mother England. The ties were still too close then, emotionally, trade and militarily. The 60's were unlikely due to the growing opposition to Vietnam. We would have to turn to one of the two big powers for, well, something, and the US was too unpopular in the 60's and early 70's. That left Mother England again.
I feel that in the one opportunity we had to do something arrived in the 90's, and the Republicans stuffed it up "Royally" by trying to ram a very unpopular type of republic down our throats, rather that just asking us the question.
The Royalists didn't win that one, the Republicans lost it.
The 1920's might have been a good time if you could stir up enough anti-English opinion over the thousands of our soldiers the Pommy Generals just threw away, (like thier own of course).
I feel that in the one opportunity we had to do something arrived in the 90's, and the Republicans stuffed it up "Royally" by trying to ram a very unpopular type of republic down our throats, rather that just asking us the question.
The Royalists didn't win that one, the Republicans lost it.
The 1920's might have been a good time if you could stir up enough anti-English opinion over the thousands of our soldiers the Pommy Generals just threw away, (like thier own of course).
Cook
Banned
Being an Anglophile wouldn’t have ruled him out.
I was just looking for an early time of great national confidence and a popular and persuasive Prime Minister and we’d have to have The Ashes in our hands too.
There are sundry problems with the idea, just relabelling the Governor-General as the Prime Minister isn’t enough, the Constitution gives the G-G almost absolute power and doesn’t even mention the Prime Minister.
Luckily Australians ignore that little issue so maybe a name change would be enough and we’d not bother with a re-write.
Last edited:
Cook
Banned
So unpopular that Harry Holt won an election with “All the way with LBJ”?
America was very popular in the ‘60s.
Cook
Banned
The “problem” if you like is that Australians are very cautious and reluctant to change when the system is seen to be working.
And you are right, the whole Republican campaign was a rush, we were told we HAD to have a vote right now without further debate or discussion on what any changes meant or what we really wanted. And anyone that didn’t agree MUST be an inbred three toed supporter of Bob Katter.
I’d have liked to see a plan laid out for changes in stages; starting first with the Prime Minister’s nominated Governor-General being approved by a majority vote by Parliament instead of just being chosen by the PM and announced.
And any victory by the Monarchists was purely pyrrhic; their down playing of Betty Windsor just ensured that the G-G was accepted as Head of State.
It was an acceptance that there were more important things in the world, like the cricket.
Larrikin
Banned
Everybody already was employed. Aside from the immediate post-War problem of getting the 750,000+ uniformed population back into civilian jobs, which didn't take long, Australia had effectively full employment until Gough's workers' paradise managed to coincide with the post Yom Kippur oil and financial crisis.
Larrikin
Banned
Did they nationalise their private banks?
It was mooted, but Lords pretty much put the kibosh on it.