Comments on: Abbott's (grey) army

By: Fran Barlow

Fran Barlow — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:13:56 +0000

And indeed, Whitlam could have instructed the ALP members in the Lower House to withdraw the supply bills the passing of which was the basis for Fraser’s commission. Then Kerr would have had no basis for keeping Fraser. He’d have had no option but the half-senate election option Whitlam had canvassed.

By: Katz

Katz — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:39:08 +0000

Well we know that with hindsight, but at the time he appointed Kerr, he probably never gave it a second thought.

I’m sure that’s true. However as the events you mentioned ripened, the possibility of a vice-regal coup emerged and then loomed. So it is incorrect to imply that Whitlam’s state of knowledge when he nominated Kerr was identical to his state of knowledge as the crisis deepened. However, in the face of this knowledge it is quite possible that Whitlam’s state of mind with regard to Kerr did not change.

Importantly however, as I recall, more than one person went to Whitlam to express concerns about Kerr. Like Cassandra, their warnings went unheeded.

Whitlam could have called the palace and had Kerr’s commission rescinded. But he didn’t.

By: John D

John D — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:28:39 +0000

Not sure what rehashing the Whitlam days has got to do with explaining the +55 yearning for a conservative government.

By: Fran Barlow

Fran Barlow — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:13:01 +0000

Well we know that with hindsight, but at the time he appointed Kerr, he probably never gave it a second thought. Let’s face it, the last time it happened was the other side of the Statute of Westminster and the War and at state level. he wasn’t thinking about deferral of supply at that stage. And until Milner died it couldn’t have happened. It couldn’t have happened if Lionel Murphy hadn’t gone to the High Court when he did.

By: Katz

Katz — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:20:49 +0000

In that case Whitlam substituted a small problem for a huge one.

By: Fran Barlow

Fran Barlow — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:58:28 +0000

Yes, but he was paying off the right of the party for their support Katz.

By: Katz

Katz — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:40:20 +0000

Whitlam, a QC would have known exactly what the literal constitution said. He figured the conventions of the day were sufficient to allow him to do what he needed.

In that case, Whitlam should have known that a GG can do more or less what he likes.

Yet in choosing Kerr GG, Whitlam chose a dodgy egomaniac with pretensions of historical significance. Egomania and unlimited power make an explosive, unstable, and dangerous mixture.

Whitlam should have chosen some chinless, Pommy remittance man with a ridiculous double-barrelled name.

Silly old Gough.

By: Paul Burns

Paul Burns — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:23:08 +0000

joe2 @ 47,
That’s them. Not us. Different generation.

By: Droo

Droo — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:07:37 +0000

I’m over 50 (over 55 in fact) and I too find myself totally at odds with the majority of voters may age – you know the ones who get counted in opinion polls. I have never voted Liberal in my life and never will. I don’t always vote straight ALP but I totally reject the LNP and everything it stands for, now and always. Looking at the poll results as Possum sets them out I find myself in the minority every time.

By: Katz

Katz — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:04:29 +0000

It doesn’t work like that Joe2.

Any government must face the fact that their electoral popularity tends to decay over time.

A Tory party wins if it doesn’t lose. Their self-appointed role is to prevent, delay, or blunt change.

A reformist government must conquer both its own inertia and opposition stonewalling.

In the mechanism of the joint sitting the founding fathers have provided an extraordinarily potent circuit-breaker that gives the initiative to reformers unlike any other constitution that I know of.

Rudd has chosen not to use this circuit breaker so far. His time is running out.