Straggler writes:
All in this thread seem to agree that having a head of state that isn't the political leader of the day is a good thing.
Boof writes:
Boof writes:
But then again I'm not keen on separate elections for this post either.
That does make selection rather difficult. Unless hereditary "selection" remains in place.
Not necessarily. The Governor-General in Australia is nominated by the Prime Minister and then appointed by the monarch and it seems to work pretty well. All we need to do here is remove the need for royal assent. I'm sure you could do the same.
One negative of this system is that the G-G's tend to be high profile judges, lawyers and politicians, which in some ways means they don't have much connection with the majority of the Australian public, however I myself think that's a small price to pay compared to introducing another round of electioneering. Interestingly the Australian states have a similar Governor system representing the monarchy, and in many of these states more recent appointments to Governor have moved away from the political and legal regimes and include former sporting heroes such as
the Lithgow Flash, prominent business people and health professionals. There has even been the odd
scientist in there. Maybe this will start to happen federally as well.
Ricky Ponting as the head of state at formal banquets and suchlike. The mind boggles!!
Would seem like a good way of antagonising our former colonial masters, but it would be at the risk of some international embarrassment. I'm sure some would think we were being ruled by G W Bush.