1
   

The coming Oz election thread ...

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:05 pm
Oh, YES he is!!!!! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
moondoggy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:07 pm
what was it he said on the steps of parliment house that day

"Well may we say: 'God save the Queen', for nothing will save the Governor General"
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:08 pm
Great quote, Lunar Canine, i'm glad you provided that . . .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:10 pm
By the by, Mogduney, whenever the conservatives here rant about their virture, i like to point out that the cur Kerr was a cat's paw for the CIA, and he did the hatchet job on Whitlam at the instigation of Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon . . .

(Edit: for any conservatives who show up, yes i know Nixon had resigned by then, but it's not as if he had planned to do so.)
0 Replies
 
moondoggy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:12 pm
hahaha

setanta, you surprise me yet again!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:13 pm
And what's your take on Hawke's role in the dismissal/coup, setanta?
0 Replies
 
moondoggy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:14 pm
here's another...


Shortly after delivering his famous "Kerr's Cur" speech, Whitlam and members of his staff listened to a re-broadcast on radio. Whitlam then rose trance-like and walked towards the door of the prime ministerial office. Gazing back at his colleagues, Whitlam asked, "Comrades, did I go too far?" (Cohen, pp196-7)
0 Replies
 
moondoggy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:17 pm
msolga
as i was about 10yrs old, i watched it on the norman gunstan show

Norman was on the steps of Parliment house as the drama unfolded and the crowd started chanting "norman for GG, norman for GG..."
and Hawkie told him to piss off!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:18 pm
I think he benefitted, obviously, but i'm not into a conspiracy thing involving him, as he would have done anything to bring about the Labour downfall anyway . . . i suspect Kerr got his marching orders from his many buddies in the CIA (well documented) at the instigation of the Nixon administration, which saw Whitlam as dangerous. It simply fell out that Kerr had no opportunity before the Watergate debacle had overtaken Tricky Dick . . .

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5557/images/whitlam.jpg

I have been referring to Kerr as the cur Kerr, in deference to the description of Fraser as Kerr's cur, and Whitlam commented on that as follows:

"What the Establishment may call poor taste I must, in the circumstances of 1974 and 1975, call the truth of the matter.

"The fact is, it has always been the Establishment's first line of defence to raise the mealymouthed cry of poor taste whenever its interests or, in the case of people like Sir John Kerr and Sir Garfield Barwick, its tools are under attack.

"Let's cut through the humbug on this matter. In the orchestration of the destruction of my Government, no rumour or innuendo, from moral turpitude to financial corruption, was deemed outside the rules of the game, because in this country the Establishment makes its own rules and sets its own canons of taste."
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:26 pm
moondoggy wrote:
msolga
as i was about 10yrs old, i watched it on the norman gunstan show

Norman was on the steps of Parliment house as the drama unfolded and the crowd started chanting "norman for GG, norman for GG..."
and Hawkie told him to piss off!


I remember Norman on the steps of Parliament house, moondoggy!
Absolutely bizarre! I was older than you & in a state of total shocked disbelief at the dismissal. Should one laugh or cry at Norman? Laughing Crying or Very sad Crazy times!
As for Hawkie .... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
0 Replies
 
moondoggy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:33 pm
he was a bit of a union rough nut back then (hawkie that is)
brilliant negotiator though
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:40 pm
I personally believe that he wanted Whitlam to fall, but i don't necessarily believe he was in cahoots with Kerr. I think that was a CIA operation, and i doubt Hawke was in with them. But he definitely benefitted. He was a total political slut . . . excuse me, i mean "consensus builder" and could not have come to power as long as someone as powerfully charismatic as Whitlam was on the scene. This sort of "the King is dead, long live the King" infighting in political parties is nothing new.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:54 pm
Ah, setanta, 1975! What a time!

It was generally accepted by the (far) left in Oz at the time that the Whitlam dismissal had everything to do with the CIA. That it was not a dismissal but a coup. The theory was that it had much to do with the CIA protecting it's intelligence base in Oz (Pine Gap) And that Whitlam was a threat to the standing arrangement & couldn't be trusted.

Hawke, did indeed benefit from Whitlam's fall, as history has shown.
A national strike was called for Friday the 13th (2 days after the dismissal), as a protest, & Hawke played a major role in ensuring that the country wasn't brought to a stand-still. He (wearing his ACTU hat) appealed to people to stay away, in the interests of "public safety". Many did, as a result. But effectively he divided the troops & undermined the opposition to the dismissal.

The 1975 election in Oz was one of the most dismal, disappointing & heart-breaking events I can recall. It left many leftists totally disillusioned that that REAL change was possible here. And certainly, no Labor Party following 1975 was going to risk major changes that rocked the boat of the establishment, major financial interests & US interests.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 11:00 pm
I got out of the Army in February, 1973. I was a card-carrying Pinko Commie New Left agitator. Those of us in "the underground" (read, people on the left who weren't actually blowing things up) paid a good deal of attention to news that didn't make in the mainstream American media. None of us foresaw, but were also not surprised by the Watergate revelation. In 1974, my work schedule allowed me to watch the Senate Watergate hearings, and all of us kept in touch and passed news around. As early as 1974, we were informed that Kerr was in thick with all of the CIA station chiefs in southeast Asia. Australia had ostensibly been an American ally in the Vietnam War, and well-informed conservatives were really pissed off that Whitlam had become PM. When Whitlam was dismissed, it barely got 30 seconds on the evening television news in the U.S., but it was talked about a good deal among us commie types, and we conjectured that the CIA was involved, not because we really knew anything, but just because it was so easy to be a conspiracy theorist in the Nixon era. We were also very tuned into the Lon Nol/Pol Pot debacle in Cambodia, and applauded the Vietnamese invasion of the country.

By the late 1970's, however, i was sunken into a miasma of drug and alcohol abuse, and didn't surface for many years. I lost track of international affairs until i was about 40, and have spent the last 12 or 13 years trying to catch up. I do remember Australians in America in the mid-1970's who complained that Hawke was a shill for "the establishment" in Oztralia.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 11:02 pm
Setanta wrote:
...He was a total political slut . . . excuse me, i mean "consensus builder" and could not have come to power as long as someone as powerfully charismatic as Whitlam was on the scene.quote]

Yep!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 11:27 pm
Very interesting history you have there, setanta. I see where you're coming from.

I wasn't part of the organised (far) left (not a Moaist, or anything like that. I hate following "party lines"with a vengeance) but was very much a fellow traveller. And followed events very closely, did the right things politically, had the right connections .... And yes, I DO believe that there was a coup here in 1975. The CIA just did it in a different way in Oz than they did in Chile. Perhaps because we were far more complacent, or because they had enough Kerrs , Hawkes (?) & other establishment interests to do the job for them? And Australians, believing the views of the media, "experts" & other "authority" figures, went along with it all. They voted Whitlam out ... decisively!. Democracy at work! Anyone expounding the views I have here, in this thread, was considered a "lefty loonie". It was a profoundly depressing time for many on the left, but the country didn't skip a beat. But it sure was divided!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 11:32 pm
msolga wrote:
I wasn't part of the organised (far) left (not a Moaist, or anything like that. I hate following "party lines"with a vengeance) but was very much a fellow traveller.


Now that describes me to a "tee" . . . the only organization i ever joined was the Regular Army of the United States . . . that cured me of any "joining disease" for all time . . .
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 11:38 pm
Laughing
Very wise! And you get to miss out on the Party "splits", caused by minor ideological differences, too! A definite bonus! :wink:
0 Replies
 
gozmo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 12:25 am
msolga wrote:
Setanta wrote:
...He was a total political slut . . . excuse me, i mean "consensus builder" and could not have come to power as long as someone as powerfully charismatic as Whitlam was on the scene.quote]

Yep!


Nonsense. Bob Hawke, rough union type (Rhodes Scholar and Oxford Blue), is one of the few who can stand in the presence of the Great Man. Suggestions that he was disloyal to Labor and Gough are fantastic. I note that no evidence for such disloyalty has been offered here. Hawke will always be distinguished as the PM who oversaw the introduction of Medibank and that alone marks him as special. Hawke's period as President of the ACTU is without parallel. It was Hawke who transformed this office from obscure union post to a force in national politics. Hawke entered parliament in 1980 and was PM in 1983. The parliamentary careers of Whitlam and Hawke do not overlap and would not have even if the premiership of Gough had been more successful. Hawke - Keating did in a sense hijack labor by continuing Gough's work of modernising an institution which anchored itself in depression and wartime angst. Whitlam challenged the Labor old guard and won, had he not, the party would now be an historical footnote. The old working class was disappearing in the 80's and is now gone. Whitlam foresaw it, Hawke and Keating ensured that Labor survived it.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 12:32 am
Setanta wrote:
Is there an historical precedent for suggesting that interest rates would go higher with Labor, or has this been tailored entirely from whole cloth?


Yes - happened under the previous Labor government - interest rates of 18% on housing loans.

Not sure if this was a govt. thing, or not - I guess economists will argue forever - or whether it was a world economic circumstance thing. The economy was overheated - and they used interest rates to try to bring it down.

'Twas the late eighties - they were down to 8 to 10 percent when I bought a home in 1992, and down well below that by 1996 when Labor was thrown out, and the Libs got in.

It was awful while it lasted, though - for borrowers.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Beached As Bro - Discussion by dadpad
Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour - Discussion by msolga
Australian music - Discussion by Wilso
Oz Election Thread #6 - Abbott's LNP - Discussion by hingehead
AUstralian Philosophers - Discussion by dadpad
Australia voting system - Discussion by fbaezer
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 11:42:29