Hi Banjo,

I could tell you a lot more, about dirty tricks within, but there are people still around who wouldn't like such things made public, including a couple of MP's.

BTW; Not all Independents are independent, ha, just an observation.

My son who also has the name Paul, recently tried to join the NSW Labor Party, twice he's been knocked back without explanation. He's never been politically active, although he is a union member, but not particularly active in his union. I did say on the Forum I was not displeased with the defeat of Kristina Keneally, I'd call it poetic justice in some respects.

.

In their book The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy (Hart 2020) Professor Robert Hazell and Bob Morris write :

« No new political theory on this topic has been developed since Bagehot wrote about the monarchy in The English Constitution (1867) »
.

The comments on this thread about Prince Charles remind me of the following passage in The English Constitution, pp 98-99 :

« I am afraid, looking to the early acquired feebleness of hereditary dynasties, that we must expect him to be a man of inferior ability. Theory and experience both teach that the education of a prince can be but a poor education and that a royal family will generally have less ability than other families. What right have we then to expect the perpetual entail on any family of an exquisite discretion, which if it be not a sort of genius, is at least as rare as genius ?

Probably in most cases the greatest wisdom of a constitutional king would show itself in well-considered inaction »
.

Here is the link :

http://play.google.com/books/reader?id=3g0QAAAAYAAJ&pg=GBS.PP8&hl=fr

.