Australian Republic Constitution
Australian Flag News Get Involved! Events Resources
Main Menu
ACM Home
About ACM
ACM News
Anthems
Afghan Court Martial
Book Reviews
The Commonwealth
Contact ACM
Convenor's Column
Constitutional Monarchies and Republics Compared
Constitutional Monarchy in the Muslim World
Cost of Republicanism to the Taxpayer
Crowned Republic
Diamond Jubilee 2012
Event News
Federalism and the Mining Tax
Fiji
Flag: Keep The Flag
Governor of New South Wales
Head of State
Keating-Turnbull Republic: The Nineties
Knights & Dames
Latest News and Opinions
Links
Mate for a Head of State
Media and monarchy
Nile Inquiry
Opinion Polling
Orthodoxy and Monarchy
People's Republic?
Plebiscites
Prince Andrew
Prince Charles
Prince Harry
Prince Philip
Prince William & Catherine
Prince William In Australia
Prince William: The Early Years
Racist Republic?
Reserve Powers of the Crown
Resources
Return the Governor
Royal Commissions
Royal Finances
Self Funded Monarchy
Royal Yacht Britannia
The Succession
2020 Summit
Join our Mailing List
See our selection of videos from across the world:-
ACM Videos
AussieCrownTV - ACM's own TV channel:
Aussie Crown TV
Follow ACM on Facebook:
Facebook
Self Funded Monarchy
Self Funded Monarchy
Royal Finances
Royal Finances
Diamond Jubilee 2012
Diamond Jubilee 2012
Head of State
Prince Philip
Prince Philip
Special Caribbean Report: Crown & Commonwealth

      Crown

The Commonwealth
The Commonwealth
Prince Harry
Prince Harry
Prince Andrew
Prince Andrew
Knights & Dames
Knights & Dames
The King's Speech: read the book, see the film.

The King's Speech

Watch the 2010 Neville Bonner Oration: Tony Abbott.
Tony Abbott
Nile Inquiry
Royal Commissions
Royal Commissions
Opinion Polls

 

Plebiscites
Plebiscites
2020 Summit
2020 Summit
Orthodoxy & Monarchy
Orthodoxy & Monarchy
Afghan Court Martial
Constitutional Monarchy in the Muslim World
Constitutional Monarchy in the Muslim World
Mate for a Head of State
Mate for a Head of State
Racist Republic?
Racist Republic
A People's Republic?
A People's republic?
Keating Turnbull Republic: The Nineties
The Keating Turnbull Republic
Crowned Republic
Crowned Republic
Polls
Republicans' Best Asset?
Is David Flint ( National Convenor since 1998) the republicans best asset, as some claim?
ACM Home arrow Opinion Polling arrow Irrelevant hypothetical poll

Irrelevant hypothetical poll Print E-mail
Written by Professor David Flint AM   
Thursday, 23 January 2014

As we mentioned in our last post on opinion polls, the republican movement is making much of a poll of no relevance  to the constitutional future of the land.

That was one they paid UMR to undertake.

 Indications over time and across the polls suggest support for republican change I sin the 30 percentile range. But note that this is for some vague undefined politicians' republic.  Once a specific model is revealed, the vote falls further.  For more information, visit our section on opinion polling

Image
[ Republicans tried in 1999 to make the president the PM's poodle]

Now on 14 January, 2014   Essential Vision  polled respondents on this irrelevant and hypothetical question: ''Would you support or oppose Australia becoming a republic at the end of the Queen’s reign?''

I was asked to appear on a programme compared by Steve Price on radio station 2GB on Thursday 16 January to answer the republican leader, former politician Dr Geoff Gallop.

He argued, as only an experienced  politician could, that this poll means that a plebiscite should be called.

He claimed - without any evidence whatsoever - that Australians were upset because Prime Minister Abbott had restored the oath of allegiance for ministers.

This is similar to the one in the Constitution for MP's - the one the Australian people refused to change in 1999.

The difference between the two oaths is that the ministerial oath may be surreptitiously changed on the advice of a  Prime Minister  who respects neither the Constitution nor the will of the people.

The MP's oath may only be changed with the approval of the people.

It is instructive that Dr. Gallop champions changes against if not the letter, then the very clear spirit of the Constitution without the approval of the people.

 

 

.....poll question irrelevant...

 

 

As to the question in this poll about the end of the reign, this  has absolutely nothing to do with issues which impact on every day Australians.

It has nothing to do with curing any of the problems that Australians may feel about the way in which they are governed.

It is only of interest to a small inner city elite obsessed as they against the oldest institution in the Australian constitutional system. It is aimed at one part of a constitutional system which works smoothly and well. That is the one part of the system which the republicans want to trash.

 

 

....hypothetical....

 

 

But the next thing to note is that this question is purely hypothetical. It is hypothetical into aspects. It is about something which will happen at some time in the future. Hopefully this will be many years away.

The idea of asking people what they will think about something which will happen in several years time is hardly a sensible exercise.

To use it to give some impetus to a what is seen in most circles as a comatose political campaign is devious.

The question is hypothetical for a second and significant reason.

It uses the vague and undefined word "republic".

For whatever reason the republicans won't reveal what sort of republic they have up their sleeves. Or perhaps, they don't know.

It is, as we have said so often, as if they were marching down the street chanting: "We want a republic! ......... But we haven't the foggiest idea what sort of republic we want!

We can however be certain that whatever model, their preference will be a politicians' republic.

It certainly won't be crowned republic.

 

...results...

 

 

  

 

 

The next  thing you may note are the results to this hypothetical question.

 47% voted Yes, 32% No and 20%  were undecided.  

The republican movement tries to hide the fact that the number of yes votes in a poll taken before any debate in a referendum fall over time.

This is because the electorate only later hears the arguments against some proposition.

The undecided in a poll on the subject of a constitutional referendum almost invariably consist of people who are actually undecided and those who are reluctant to give their opinions to a stranger.

All indications are that in a referendum  most of the undecided in the previous polling actually vote No.

If the Yes case doesn't score very well in that early polling, it is very unlikely the Yes case will receive even a respectable minority vote.

We should note also that of those voting Yes to this very hypothetical question about the end of the reign, only a 21% minority were prepared to declare themselves ''strong supporters'' of the proposition that Australia becoming a republic at the end of this reign.

In a referendum on this, this 21% would divide into two groups. Just as they did in 1999. Whatever the model, a significant proportion would declare that they prefer the existing Constitution to the model on offer.

For example, former NSW Premier and Foreign Minister Bob Carr has made it very clear that a model in which the Pres is directly elected by the people is anathema.

He would far prefer the constitutional monarchy to that. It is certainly not alone.

 

...polling...

 

 

 Any experienced observer knows not to draw too many conclusions from one individual poll, particularly where the question does not properly, fairly and unambiguously relate to the question under consideration.

The objective is to change the Constitution to make Australia a specific form of politicians' republic.

What is necessary is to look at relevant polls over time and across different posters. However the question is defective the result has to be discounted.

There are two typical weaknesses in republican polls in Australia.

One is to use the words ''Australian  head of  state'' as shorthand for a politicians' republic. For example a question asking: "Are you in favour of an Australian head of state? ''Is ambiguous. Many  monarchists could answer in favour of this. This was, after all, the position taken by the principal monarchist organisation in the 1999 campaign.

The other weakness in polling questions is leave the word "republic'' vague and undefined. This will increase the Yes vote to include people who will vote No when they see the model.

Polls containing either misleading question will overestimate the yes vote in a referendum. So for comparison purposes they have to be discounted by at least a few per cent.

The result is that since at least 2010, no political party is willing to test even a spin doctor designed plebiscite, such is their estimation of the level of support for this among the public.

 

 

 
< Prev   Next >
ROYAL VISIT 2014

Image

The Book Depository
Image
Image
Prince William: The Early Years
Prince Charles

Prince Charles

Constitutional Monarchies & Republics Compared

Image


Defend the Constitution and Flag
Australian Election Watch

10th Anniversary Neville Bonner Oration

11th Anniversary and Appeal

Crowned Republic 

   Keep The Australian Flag
Return the Governor to Government House
The Succession
The Succession
The Governor of New South Wales
Governor of New South Wales
Fiji
Fijian soldier
Media and Monarchy
Media and Monarchy
Royal Yacht Britannia
Royal Yacht Britannia
Republic Audit: Costs of Republic
Republic Audit: Costs of Republic
Reserve Powers of the Crown
Events
October 2017 November 2017
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
Week 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Week 41 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Week 42 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Week 43 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Week 44 29 30 31