The Whitlam Government - another US inspired Coup?

[King Salvo]

granted the 75 election was a landslide but that was a question of who the people wanted in government for the next three years rather than a referendum on kerr's decision to sack whitlam. labor was elected for a 3 year term and always had a majority in the house of reps where governments are decided.

kerr should have granted whitlam's request for a half senate election. that was a viable alternative and would have meant that he wasn't reduced to the skulduggery of hiding fraser in a back room of yarralumla because fraser arrived to be appointed pm before whitlam had been sacked. straight shooters don't carry on like that.
don't forget that the reason that the libs had a majority in the senate was because qld and nsw non-labor governments had defied convention and replaced resigning/dead labor senators with non-labor senators.
also: supply had never run out - the u.s. congress has often gone closer to not passing money bills before a deal is done at the last moment without resorting to such drastic measures.

Labor was a train wreck - Khemlani/Rex O'Connor loans affair/Lionel Murphy raid on ASIO/ Cairns and Morosi/Grasby and his Mafia links in Griffith/Economic turmoil etc etc

The US Government has closed down with the failure to enact funding legislation to finance the government for its next fiscal year- last one December 22, 2018, until January 25, 2019 (35 days) - so only the essential workers continued working

Governments can't operate without funding why such bills need to be passed.

It wasn't Kerr decision or his jurisdiction to grant a 1/2 senate election though - he did speak to both Whitlam and Fraser to ascertain if a compromise could be reached but there was no chance of this so he was left with no alternative but to dismiss Whitlam.

That's democracy

The subsequent elections showed that Whitlams Government was clearly on the nose and the Pubic had lost confidence in it

NLP- 91 Seats (61 in 1974 after the double dissolution election ) - 58 seats in 1972

Labor - 36 seats (65 in 1974 after the double dissolution election ) - 67 seats in 1972


https://www.naa.gov.au/learn/learnin...atement-events

[ism22]

I think John Menadue plotted it all :P

[Paddo Colt 61]

* All of the "crises" were classic CIA tactics. We never heard a word about Khemlani again - all throw away after purpose was served. The rest was typical Murdoch "buckets of shit".

* That wasn't Democracy, not our version anyway. In the Westminster system, the Crown accepts the advice only of the PM leading the majority party in the House of Reps - the Government. In those circumstances, Fraser was irrelevant.

* The connivance of 2 High Court judges, the House of Windsor (see the Palace Letters kept from scrutiny for 50 years) and monopoly right wing media all point to a coup, nothing less. Fraser later was contrite about his part in the whole shameful exercise.

[ism22]

* All of the "crises" were classic CIA tactics. We never heard a word about Khemlani again - all throw away after purpose was served. The rest was typical Murdoch "buckets of shit".

* That wasn't Democracy, not our version anyway. In the Westminster system, the Crown accepts the advice only of the PM leading the majority party in the House of Reps - the Government. In those circumstances, Fraser was irrelevant.

* The connivance of 2 High Court judges, the House of Windsor (see the Palace Letters kept from scrutiny for 50 years) and monopoly right wing media all point to a coup, nothing less. Fraser later was contrite about his part in the whole shameful exercise.

Menadue was all in on it and is proud of working for Fraser. He was totally part of the coup.

[zac]

Labor was a train wreck - Khemlani/Rex O'Connor loans affair/Lionel Murphy raid on ASIO/ Cairns and Morosi/Grasby and his Mafia links in Griffith/Economic turmoil etc etc

The US Government has closed down with the failure to enact funding legislation to finance the government for its next fiscal year- last one December 22, 2018, until January 25, 2019 (35 days) - so only the essential workers continued working

Governments can't operate without funding why such bills need to be passed.

It wasn't Kerr decision or his jurisdiction to grant a 1/2 senate election though - he did speak to both Whitlam and Fraser to ascertain if a compromise could be reached but there was no chance of this so he was left with no alternative but to dismiss Whitlam.

That's democracy

The subsequent elections showed that Whitlams Government was clearly on the nose and the Pubic had lost confidence in it

NLP- 91 Seats (61 in 1974 after the double dissolution election ) - 58 seats in 1972

Labor - 36 seats (65 in 1974 after the double dissolution election ) - 67 seats in 1972


https://www.naa.gov.au/learn/learnin...atement-events

geez you talk some bs sometimes. kerr didn't have the power to grant a senate half election? yeah? whitlam was at yarralumla on nov 11 for the very purpose of asking kerr to call a senate half election. granted we haven't had a stand alone half senate election since 1970 but it's still an option. who can tell, but maybe labor would have got the extra seats in a half senate election. they might have reclaimed the seats in nsw and qld that that the non-labor governments had un-conventionally taken off them. a half senate election would have been fought on different issues to a full election. kerr was presumptuous in his dismissal of that idea.

governments are elected for three years and their lack of popularity isn't a valid constitutional reason to cut their term short. there might be an argument that it should be allowed - something similar is allowed in california - but that's not constitutional in australia. the fact that the libs won the 1975 election convincingly is no vindication of kerr's decision to sack whitlam.

the question of whether or not the senate should have the power to block supply is a tricky one. it comes from the conflict between the idea of responsible government which we got from the poms and the idea of states' rights which we got from the yanks. fraser recognised this conflict which is why he never rejected supply, instead deferring the vote on it. there was enough money until the end of november and it's possible that if kerr hadn't acted the liberal strategy would have collapsed (as it had done in 1974 on the same issue) and supply bills would have been passed.

was labor a train wreck? people criticising labor's economic performance is fair enough but any criticism that doesn't acknowledge the extraordinary world economic situation rings hollow. economists had said that you couldn't have high inflation and high unemployment together and yet that was what was happening right across the western world. labor's economic performance was not significantly worse than other countries' and there's no guaratee that if the libs had been in charge they would have done better.

rex connor looking to find money outside the usual channels was risky but not crazy. him trusting khemlani was naiive but not corrupt. him continuing to contact khemlani after his authority had been revoked by cabinet was clearly wrong. still, connor was an old school labor pollie, a genuine patriot, and despite his shortcoming and failures is worth more than most of the jokers who sit on the green leather these days.

lionel's murphy's raid on asio could have been handled better but the idea that an elected government doesn't have the power to oversee an unelected organisation that is funded by public money is odd.

cairns and morosi? fmd. what do people's private lives have to do with anything? that became a story cos morosi was hot and the press likes a bit of titillation.

[Paddo Colt 61]

Well said Zac. I'm not in full agreement with some of it but the you nail the gist and some of your finer points are very well made. As usual King's version mimics the MSM line of past and present.

The Cairns/ Morosi thing certainly did have the titillation element but it also fed into the media's confected insistence that Cairns was married, neglecting his duty, foolish and c**t struck (as the lover of Heath Services Union fraudster Kathy Jackson so delicately put it on the ABC some years ago). The entire shameful episode was put together by an Australian establishment no doubt in cahoots with US Intelligence services and the sheeple bought it. Baaaa....

[mightyrooster]

geez you talk some bs sometimes. kerr didn't have the power to grant a senate half election? yeah? whitlam was at yarralumla on nov 11 for the very purpose of asking kerr to call a senate half election. granted we haven't had a stand alone half senate election since 1970 but it's still an option. who can tell, but maybe labor would have got the extra seats in a half senate election. they might have reclaimed the seats in nsw and qld that that the non-labor governments had un-conventionally taken off them. a half senate election would have been fought on different issues to a full election. kerr was presumptuous in his dismissal of that idea.

governments are elected for three years and their lack of popularity isn't a valid constitutional reason to cut their term short. there might be an argument that it should be allowed - something similar is allowed in california - but that's not constitutional in australia. the fact that the libs won the 1975 election convincingly is no vindication of kerr's decision to sack whitlam.

the question of whether or not the senate should have the power to block supply is a tricky one. it comes from the conflict between the idea of responsible government which we got from the poms and the idea of states' rights which we got from the yanks. fraser recognised this conflict which is why he never rejected supply, instead deferring the vote on it. there was enough money until the end of november and it's possible that if kerr hadn't acted the liberal strategy would have collapsed (as it had done in 1974 on the same issue) and supply bills would have been passed.

was labor a train wreck? people criticising labor's economic performance is fair enough but any criticism that doesn't acknowledge the extraordinary world economic situation rings hollow. economists had said that you couldn't have high inflation and high unemployment together and yet that was what was happening right across the western world. labor's economic performance was not significantly worse than other countries' and there's no guaratee that if the libs had been in charge they would have done better.

rex connor looking to find money outside the usual channels was risky but not crazy. him trusting khemlani was naiive but not corrupt. him continuing to contact khemlani after his authority had been revoked by cabinet was clearly wrong. still, connor was an old school labor pollie, a genuine patriot, and despite his shortcoming and failures is worth more than most of the jokers who sit on the green leather these days.

lionel's murphy's raid on asio could have been handled better but the idea that an elected government doesn't have the power to oversee an unelected organisation that is funded by public money is odd.

cairns and morosi? fmd. what do people's private lives have to do with anything? that became a story cos morosi was hot and the press likes a bit of titillation.

I think that’s a pretty fair assessment of what happened Zac. I think the Whitlam government did try to spend too much money too quickly though which didn’t help their cause with the supply issue. But it certainly didn’t justify Kerr doing what he did.

[King Salvo]

geez you talk some bs sometimes. kerr didn't have the power to grant a senate half election? yeah? whitlam was at yarralumla on nov 11 for the very purpose of asking kerr to call a senate half election. granted we haven't had a stand alone half senate election since 1970 but it's still an option. who can tell, but maybe labor would have got the extra seats in a half senate election. they might have reclaimed the seats in nsw and qld that that the non-labor governments had un-conventionally taken off them. a half senate election would have been fought on different issues to a full election. kerr was presumptuous in his dismissal of that idea.

governments are elected for three years and their lack of popularity isn't a valid constitutional reason to cut their term short. there might be an argument that it should be allowed - something similar is allowed in california - but that's not constitutional in australia. the fact that the libs won the 1975 election convincingly is no vindication of kerr's decision to sack whitlam.

the question of whether or not the senate should have the power to block supply is a tricky one. it comes from the conflict between the idea of responsible government which we got from the poms and the idea of states' rights which we got from the yanks. fraser recognised this conflict which is why he never rejected supply, instead deferring the vote on it. there was enough money until the end of november and it's possible that if kerr hadn't acted the liberal strategy would have collapsed (as it had done in 1974 on the same issue) and supply bills would have been passed.

was labor a train wreck? people criticising labor's economic performance is fair enough but any criticism that doesn't acknowledge the extraordinary world economic situation rings hollow. economists had said that you couldn't have high inflation and high unemployment together and yet that was what was happening right across the western world. labor's economic performance was not significantly worse than other countries' and there's no guaratee that if the libs had been in charge they would have done better.

rex connor looking to find money outside the usual channels was risky but not crazy. him trusting khemlani was naiive but not corrupt. him continuing to contact khemlani after his authority had been revoked by cabinet was clearly wrong. still, connor was an old school labor pollie, a genuine patriot, and despite his shortcoming and failures is worth more than most of the jokers who sit on the green leather these days.

lionel's murphy's raid on asio could have been handled better but the idea that an elected government doesn't have the power to oversee an unelected organisation that is funded by public money is odd.

cairns and morosi? fmd. what do people's private lives have to do with anything? that became a story cos morosi was hot and the press likes a bit of titillation.

Lots of if's , maybe's and pie in the sky assumptions on your part one has to say in all honesty - I could call it BS as well

Well the 1975 election did vindicate Kerr in sacking the Labor Government one has to say - Democracy in action something your new mate hasn't a clue about being a fan of Authoritarian and Totalitarian Regimes and all that goes with them

Cairns and Morosi took various newspaper and radio stations to court for defamation and lost and even to the appeals court - I recall Morosi was paid 30k or so as a result still - of course it later came out they were having an affair - was the money paid back ?

The double dissolution election as it was called after sacking Whitlam was the right call as Australia could not afford another 2 or so years of Labor

[King Salvo]

I think that’s a pretty fair assessment of what happened Zac. I think the Whitlam government did try to spend too much money too quickly though which didn’t help their cause with the supply issue. But it certainly didn’t justify Kerr doing what he did.

It did as the election result proved that - where you around at that time ? - it was bedlam and scandal after scandal they had to go and the voters made sure Whitlam never returned as PM again as he was well beaten again in the 1977 elections.

[King Salvo]

Well said Zac. I'm not in full agreement with some of it but the you nail the gist and some of your finer points are very well made. As usual King's version mimics the MSM line of past and present.

The Cairns/ Morosi thing certainly did have the titillation element but it also fed into the media's confected insistence that Cairns was married, neglecting his duty, foolish and c**t struck (as the lover of Heath Services Union fraudster Kathy Jackson so delicately put it on the ABC some years ago). The entire shameful episode was put together by an Australian establishment no doubt in cahoots with US Intelligence services and the sheeple bought it. Baaaa....

What a load of Bollocks - Just more leftist conspiracy / anti west and capitalist nonsense from the resident old commo Comrade Paddo who is still stuck in the cold war era or even before -

I Noticed you even attacked the working class in another post on the main site- wow are they your enemy now as well as the West and Capitalism - that's not what Marx view was though of the working class - they were to be equally rewarded via wealth distribution.

You better re-read Das Kapital again Comrade Paddo as I think you still have some Capitalist sympathies in your brainwashed mind that are coming to the fore

[ism22]

Double dissolutions are in the Constitution for the purpose of breaking deadlocks. One must remember that there is a separation of powers and that the crown is the head of state, not the prime minister (who isn't even in it, though tradition gives the title to somebody who has the confidence of the parliament).


It's all well and good to say that the PM's elected, but they're elected as a member of parliament.

If the parliament cannot make laws because of a logjam, then the GG doesn't have to ask the PM if they can do a double dissolution. It was a shock when the GG did this and I doubt we'll see it again (coz then we'd probably have a referendum on whether to sack the crown), but it wasn't unconstitutional. IMO the power was exercised for the purpose in which it was created.

During the said election, the people (how dare they get a say in a democracy!) made it clear who they wanted to make laws. The crown wasn't isn't there to take sides and try to rig the election so that it favoured the PM. If anything, the people sacked Whitlam from the role of PM as they're the ones who voted!

If this were Russia or China then the people wouldn't have had the final say in who would form the new parliament. I'm not saying I woulda voted for the tories (all theoretical as I'm too young for that) but they won! Unlike Donald Trump, I have a strong believe in the integrity of democracy and have spent 1/2 my life accepting that 'the people have spoken'.

[mightyrooster]

It did as the election result proved that - where you around at that time ? - it was bedlam and scandal after scandal they had to go and the voters made sure Whitlam never returned as PM again as he was well beaten again in the 1977 elections.

I was about 9 years old and I remember all the ‘drama’ about the dismissal on the news. I did read about it all in depth when I was at uni though as I did a political science unit plus of course studied the economics of that period as part of my economics degree. Also, I just did a lot of reading about it out of general interest. I think the point with the election is, yes the electorate made their thoughts clear BUT the election was not actually due at that time. Whitlam was elected for 3 years. The people had enough of Keating and Morrison and Howard, among others too, but they had to wait due course to vote them out. That’s the way our system is supposed to work.

Edited to add, of course I don’t think it was a US conspiracy though.

[ism22]

I was about 9 years old and I remember all the ‘drama’ about the dismissal on the news. I did read about it all in depth when I was at uni though as I did a political science unit plus of course studied the economics of that period as part of my economics degree. Also, I just did a lot of reading about it out of general interest. I think the point with the election is, yes the electorate made their thoughts clear BUT the election was not actually due at that time. Whitlam was elected for 3 years. The people had enough of Keating and Morrison and Howard, among others too, but they had to wait due course to vote them out. That’s the way our system is supposed to work.

Edited to add, of course I don’t think it was a US conspiracy though.

I think you raise a good point (from a political science perspective) that tradition frames all of this.

If you ask me... I think the GG coulda refused to do all the secret swearing-in business for ScoMo and also coulda told Turnbull that there was to be no double dissolution for him as there was no real logjam (he just thought he was gonna control both houses as he was ahead in the polls).

Part of democracy is that any time the GG makes a captain's call, it's inherently controversial. Tradition would say that they always follow the PM's requests. However in the specific circumstance of a PM trying to ram a controversial supply bill through the parliament, I dunno. Where do you draw the line and say 'the guy's doing a Donald Trump and wrecking the place... time to put it to the people!'

[Paddo Colt 61]

The ALP won the Double Dissoution election in '74. I was called over the Tory rejection of Medibank (which they are still bent on shafting). The Dismissal had nothing to do with a Double Dissolution. It was to be a general election. Jeez, those Billionaires must be desperate.

The "spending too much money" is an opinion and a political/media confection. Zac is correct in identifying stagflation as the reason for electoral unease (apart from mSM hysteria) and Fraser, following, couldn't do anything about that either. Your "in depth" reading was far too shallow MR.

How does Russia and China fit into this discussion King? You seem to think that their mere mention in any context means that all bets are off. And they're really not so bad, The Brookings Institute's (Harvard University) international survey tells us that the Chinese government has 96% popular approval. You're not going to argue with that are you?

Izzy's Constitutional "knowledge" is abyssmal. Double Dissoutions are a political calculation - a huge risk when a partisan media is taken into account - the GG can't call one except on the advice of the PM.

[ism22]

Izzy's Constitutional "knowledge" is abyssmal. Double Dissoutions are a political calculation - a huge risk when a partisan media is taken into account - the GG can't call one except on the advice of the PM.

Which part of the constitution says that the GG can't call an election unless the PM requests one?

PS - love it how this has revealed your colours. You're a Whitlam fan who's still all salty and anti-establishment because you don't accept his defeat. Now I get the whole Menadue and anti-establishment cr@p lulz...