The Sacking - 1975, Whitlam, Fraser and Kerr

[JoondalupJ]

My reason for supporting the status quo is the absurd inability of the Australian buffoons to agree on a system of appointing/electing a head of state. A directly-elected head of state with more power than any prime minister is a recipe for instability and conflict, both at parliamentary and social levels.

However, the current system allowed a drunk with a megolamaniacal agenda to dismiss an elected government, on a whim. This act had the potential to destroy any faith one side of politics may have had in this whole process. It nearly caused blood in the streets, that after waiting 23 years, supporters of one side of politics were disenfranchised.

Like all political systems/theories, to assume either would work in reality is a misconception.

1975 was a very bad time. For me it got rid of a PM who I thought was fantastic.But it also got rid of a situation that could have been a massive 100 year problem for this nation. That was the fact that one of Gough's men was looking to borrow huge money from somewhere outside the normal, and could have had us in debt to god knows who. Very frightening.

John Kerr was exactly how you described him. But the Monarchial system of government was what this fellow used whether under the weather or not, to remove the threat of a horrible loan obligation to who???? Under what conditions. And whatever else went along with these negotiations. God knows what.

The system our democracy is based on gave an individual with the correct advice and the "head of state" powers (governor general NOT QUEEN!!!! She was a, commanded document signer, that's all) to over ride a prime minister who may have allowed a disaster to take place in our economy, and had us obligated to god knows who?

When the republican argument comes up I am amazed at the lack of knowledge of Australians who don't understand that we are a totally independant nation run on a system of a monarch, or a monarch styled representative.The GG!

The Queen has no power over us, nor does the British government , we use the "system".

Your correct in saying that we Australians are unable for some reason, to just change the name of the governor general to President but leave everything the same as it is.

If we don't, we risk having a dictator or some other type of terrible system.

You must have, for safety OF YOUR COMMUNITIES, a "SAFETY VALVE", so no person can have absolute far ranging powers if voted into government. Voted into government is the special meaning of that word.Then you have your protection under law who the people can go to or rely on if things went haywire.
Now I guess its not the perfect system , but its the safest and best of all the other pretty troublesome systems other places in the world have.

 

[skilts]

1975 was a very bad time. For me it got rid of a PM who I thought was fantastic.But it also got rid of a situation that could have been a massive 100 year problem for this nation. That was the fact that one of Gough's men was looking to borrow huge money from somewhere outside the normal, and could have had us in debt to god knows who. Very frightening.

John Kerr was exactly how you described him. But the Monarchial system of government was what this fellow used whether under the weather or not, to remove the threat of a horrible loan obligation to who???? Under what conditions. And whatever else went along with these negotiations. God knows what.

The system our democracy is based on gave an individual with the correct advice and the "head of state" powers (governor general NOT QUEEN!!!! She was a, commanded document signer, that's all) to over ride a prime minister who may have allowed a disaster to take place in our economy, and had us obligated to god knows who?

When the republican argument comes up I am amazed at the lack of knowledge of Australians who don't understand that we are a totally independant nation run on a system of a monarch, or a monarch styled representative.The GG!

The Queen has no power over us, nor does the British government , we use the "system".

Your correct in saying that we Australians are unable for some reason, to just change the name of the governor general to President but leave everything the same as it is.

If we don't, we risk having a dictator or some other type of terrible system.

You must have, for safety OF YOUR COMMUNITIES, a "SAFETY VALVE", so no person can have absolute far ranging powers if voted into government. Voted into government is the special meaning of that word.Then you have your protection under law who the people can go to or rely on if things went haywire.
Now I guess its not the perfect system , but its the safest and best of all the other pretty troublesome systems other places in the world have.

Kerr's sacking of Whitlam had nothing to do with any loans affair. He intervened because 'his government' was unable to pass the supply bills through the Senate. The reason this was so was because of the opportunistic bastardry of Malcolm Fraser and his main-chancer cronies.

In fact, what Kerr did was illegal under the constitution. He allowed Fraser a double dissolution, on the basis of Fraser claiming that the Senate was obstructing him, by refusing to pass legislation through that chamber, when, in fact, Fraser had never attempted to have passed any legislation during that parliament - he wasn't part of the government.

The assumption you make about Kerr acting on correct advice is ill-founded and throws out the window the concept of the Governor-General taking the advice of his Prime Minister. In fact, Kerr's duplicity is exposed by the fact that he never consulted Whitlam before he acted against his government. Kerr's stated reason for adopting this strategy was that had Whitlam been aware of his intentions, he (Whitlam) would have had Kerr's commission withdrawn, by contacting the palace. Kerr thought it better for the country to suffer the greatest constitutional catastrophe in its history, rather than that he lose his job. a-hole!

The major issue attendant upon any loan is not who is doing the lending, but whether the loan can be repaid. Which is not to say that the methods employed by the clowns in Whitlam's cabinet to secure these fantasy loans were in any way savoury. The problem of not being able to pay the debts never existed. The effect of the withholding of supply by the Senate meant that day-to-day running costs of government and salary payments to public servants were deferred. It was not as if the government had run out of money.

A good outcome from this was that Kerr spent the rest of his life as the odious pariah he was, hounded wherever he went. Another outcome was that the nature of Fraser's headlong, unprincipled rush to power made his government an impotent, static nothingness. The bad thing about this is that these days people have forgotten what an a-hole Fraser was, and still is. The difference these days is that he hides it better, and isn't as ambitious.

To me, nobody has ever been able to come up with a satisfactory reason to have a head of state at all. We either have a democracy or not. If our representatives in parliament are deemed unfit to elect a head of state, why the **** were they elected by the voters in the first place? To say this, is a blatant admission of collective imbecility. Apart from one other system, that of direct election of a head of state, in direct opposition to a PM elected by his/her party, this is the worst possible so-called system of Westminster government.

As regards the undesirability of a dictatorship, have you cast your eyes over those who currently vote in this country?

 

[JoondalupJ]

Kerr's sacking of Whitlam had nothing to do with any loans affair. He intervened because 'his government' was unable to pass the supply bills through the Senate. The reason this was so was because of the opportunistic bastardry of Malcolm Fraser and his main-chancer cronies.

In fact, what Kerr did was illegal under the constitution. He allowed Fraser a double dissolution, on the basis of Fraser claiming that the Senate was obstructing him, by refusing to pass legislation through that chamber, when, in fact, Fraser had never attempted to have passed any legislation during that parliament - he wasn't part of the government.

The assumption you make about Kerr acting on correct advice is ill-founded and throws out the window the concept of the Governor-General taking the advice of his Prime Minister. In fact, Kerr's duplicity is exposed by the fact that he never consulted Whitlam before he acted against his government. Kerr's stated reason for adopting this strategy was that had Whitlam been aware of his intentions, he (Whitlam) would have had Kerr's commission withdrawn, by contacting the palace. Kerr thought it better for the country to suffer the greatest constitutional catastrophe in its history, rather than that he lose his job. a-hole!

The major issue attendant upon any loan is not who is doing the lending, but whether the loan can be repaid. Which is not to say that the methods employed by the clowns in Whitlam's cabinet to secure these fantasy loans were in any way savoury. The problem of not being able to pay the debts never existed. The effect of the withholding of supply by the Senate meant that day-to-day running costs of government and salary payments to public servants were deferred. It was not as if the government had run out of money.

A good outcome from this was that Kerr spent the rest of his life as the odious pariah he was, hounded wherever he went. Another outcome was that the nature of Fraser's headlong, unprincipled rush to power made his government an impotent, static nothingness. The bad thing about this is that these days people have forgotten what an a-hole Fraser was, and still is. The difference these days is that he hides it better, and isn't as ambitious.

To me, nobody has ever been able to come up with a satisfactory reason to have a head of state at all. We either have a democracy or not. If our representatives in parliament are deemed unfit to elect a head of state, why the **** were they elected by the voters in the first place? To say this, is a blatant admission of collective imbecility. Apart from one other system, that of direct election of a head of state, in direct opposition to a PM elected by his/her party, this is the worst possible so-called system of Westminster government.

As regards the undesirability of a dictatorship, have you cast your eyes over those who currently vote in this country?

Wow , yes you are still maintaining the rage. I believe the withdrawal of supply was because of the loans affair, Kerr could have been sacked in time by Whitlam, before it went through , yes /no?
He didn't , too late? or just letting it taker its course.
I wasn't in the room or rooms , I too disliked Malcolm Fraser but the people at the time sure thought something was wrong with the Labor gov.

Me I voted for Gough. As I got older I began to think that maybe that loan was something absolutely disastrous for Australia , I don't know whether it would or wouldn't have been, as I and probably most of us have no idea of the inner workings of what was going on then. But I tend to look at it in a more general way, and that is to understand the need for a protection valve over and above the PM.
Just in case mate , just in case.
We live OK here I think . And really we do only have Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee yes?

 

[skilts]

Wow , yes you are still maintaining the rage. I believe the withdrawal of supply was because of the loans affair, Kerr could have been sacked in time by Whitlam, before it went through , yes /no?
He didn't , too late? or just letting it taker its course.
I wasn't in the room or rooms , I too disliked Malcolm Fraser but the people at the time sure thought something was wrong with the Labor gov.

Me I voted for Gough. As I got older I began to think that maybe that loan was something absolutely disastrous for Australia , I don't know whether it would or wouldn't have been, as I and probably most of us have no idea of the inner workings of what was going on then. But I tend to look at it in a more general way, and that is to understand the need for a protection valve over and above the PM.
Just in case mate , just in case.
We live OK here I think . And really we do only have Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee yes?

Great to discuss with you. Obviously, this affair doesn't come up very often these days and when it does the debate is misinformed due to a lack of understanding of what happened. I suppose I do still maintain the rage. After waiting 23 years for Labor government, to have its program frustrated because of Fraser's born-to-rule mentality, made those who thought as I did think that the system was stacked against us, and that even if we played by the rules, others wouldn't.

Nowadays, both sides of politics not only don't play by the rules, they don't even know of the book's existence. My current cynicism about politics and politicians is greatly informed by the doings of 1975.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Great to discuss with you. Obviously, this affair doesn't come up very often these days and when it does the debate is misinformed due to a lack of understanding of what happened. I suppose I do still maintain the rage. After waiting 23 years for Labor government, to have its program frustrated because of Fraser's born-to-rule mentality, made those who thought as I did think that the system was stacked against us, and that even if we played by the rules, others wouldn't.

Nowadays, both sides of politics not only don't play by the rules, they don't even know of the book's existence. My current cynicism about politics and politicians is greatly informed by the doings of 1975.

Yes I agree . The born to rule mentality of the Libs for me, was reinforced when Tony Abbott fought for cross bench support as hard as any one else did in 2010. So close Tony, yet so far.
I suppose he may have faced a ruling set of numbers in the cross benches as did Julia Gillard.
But things have changed a little , to be honest I have no idea how this next election will go now.
But I am what I am, and will always be . Waiting for the ALP to announce a candidate for Moore electorate.
Liberal, Mal Washer retiring.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Dark chapter in our history.

The facts of the Whitlam dismissal are more important than ever

By Christopher Pollard
Updated about 3 hours ago

The dismissal of the Whitlam government on November 11, 1975, is singularly important to Australian history.

Even now, this severe test of our democratic institutions is poorly grasped. Our haziness around the facts has led to many rationalising the dismissal. These rationalisations focus on Whitlam's personality, his alleged lack of strategy or claims that the government was "disintegrating anyway".

None of this is adequate — these rationalisations show a troublingly casual disregard for democratic process.

But facing the facts of our past can teach us how to better face the present. Without a clear grasp of the facts, our interpretations of political events are bound to go astray.

In a time of "fake news", it is crucial that we remain committed to the facts — whether they tell us what we want to hear or not.

Here are five facts you need to know to understand why Whitlam's dismissal matters

1. The 'supply crisis' was actually over

In the weeks before Whitlam's dismissal, the Senate was frozen. The Liberal opposition were starving the government of funds by repeatedly deferring the vote on its money bills, creating a "supply crisis".

In response, Whitlam called a half-Senate election. Governor-general John Kerr agreed and was exchanging draft documentation with Whitlam — it was already being announced on ABC radio's PM program.

The Liberal Coalition had used the same strategy to block the government in 1974. In response, Whitlam had consulted with then governor-general Paul Hasluck and called an election. The money bills were passed as soon as the election was called.

This sequence was about to be repeated in 1975. Instead, Kerr "ambushed" Whitlam, dismissing him just hours after he announced the Senate election.

2. Kerr's second dismissal

After Kerr sacked Whitlam, the House of Representatives met in the afternoon. Kerr's newly-appointed prime minister Malcolm Fraser was defeated in a "no confidence" motion.

By the afternoon, the Senate passed supply, resolving the supply crisis.

Next, the Speaker of the House went to advise the governor-general that the House had no confidence in the Fraser government.

Kerr simply refused to see the Speaker or receive the motion of no confidence.

In short, he rejected the democratic role of the House of Representatives in the making and unmaking of governments.

This, argues historian Jenny Hocking, was "Kerr's second dismissal: the dismissal of the Parliament".

3. Kerr believed he had a green light from Buckingham Palace

Kerr's recently released papers show he was seeking advice on using the "reserve powers" to dismiss Whitlam long before was previously revealed.

This included consultations with Prince Charles, the Queen, and the Queen's private secretary, Martin Charteris.

The Palace offered to delay Kerr's recall to help the governor-general sack Whitlam before Whitlam could sack him.

The Palace didn't counsel Kerr to consult with Whitlam, nor did it contact Whitlam. Kerr took this as a green light.

4. Fraser and Kerr were in secret phone contact

Former Liberal Senate leader Reg Withers recently revealed that Kerr had already decided to act against Whitlam in the week before November 11 and Fraser was aware.

In utter disregard for our constitution and political conventions, the pair were in secret phone contact the week before the dismissal.

Their deception around this was sustained for decades.

5. Two High Court justices secretly advised Kerr

In an egregious breach of the separation of powers, Chief Justices Garfield Barwick and Anthony Mason advised how to dismiss a government.

Kerr's papers show Mason secretly advised him for months leading up to the dismissal, and both during and after it.

Mason even drafted a letter of dismissal for Kerr.

Mason's central role was unknown before the release of Kerr's papers.

Kerr and Barwick — a former Liberal minister — colluded to deceive the public.

By focusing attention on Barwick, they shielded Mason from public view.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-11/whitlam-dismissal-five-facts-you-need-to-know/9133768

 

[Bomberboyokay]

'Volcanic': Evidence of Queen's involvement in the 1975 dismissal uncovered

Stephanie Peatling October 15 2017

Representatives of the British government flew to Australia in the lead-up to the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam government to meet with the then governor-general, casting further doubt on the accepted narrative that London officials did not play an active role in Australia's most significant constitutional crisis.

Historian Jenny Hocking discovered files in the British archives showing Sir Michael Palliser, the newly appointed permanent under-secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, arrived in Canberra a month before the dismissal and held a joint meeting with Sir John Kerr and the British High Commissioner, Sir Morrice James, just as the Senate was blocking supply.

Sir Michael later reported back to London that Sir John "could be relied upon".

"What is in those files is, to my mind, volcanic," Professor Hocking, a research professor with the National Centre for Australian Studies at Monash University, told Fairfax Media.

"These are extraordinary materials indicating that the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British High Commission are in discussion about the possibility of interfering in domestic Australian politics, specifically in the half Senate election, in the lead-up to November 1975."

Although there is no detailed report on the meeting nor any correspondence relating to it, there is a draft itinerary to show this "planned contact between the head of the Foreign Commonwealth Office and the Queen's representative in Australia on such a significant date in our political history," Professor Hocking said.

Immediately after the meeting Sir John Kerr cancelled a planned international trip to remain in Australia.

Professor Hocking believes the Queen knew what might happen to the government well before it happened – unlike Whitlam, who was caught completely off-guard by the actions of November 11, 1975.

Although Sir John's role in updating the Queen and the British government about the events is well known, what remains unclear is how active government and royal players in London were in trying to prevent the 1975 half Senate election from being called.

"Kerr met with the British High Commission within days of the dismissal and communicated to him had dismissed the government in order to protect the Queen's position. That should have no place in the governor-general's thinking," Professor Hocking said ahead of Wednesday's release of a new edition of her book, The Dismissal Dossier, which contains the revelation of the meeting pointing to Britain's involvement in the dismissal.

"Prior to 1986 and the passage of the Australia Act there was a perception that the Australian states were in a quasi colonial relationship in which Britain could exercise its own interests. It acted to protect those interests in approaching the government-general. It's an extraordinary development."

Professor Hocking is also waiting for a Federal Court judgement on her application to have access to what are known as the 'Palace letters', the correspondence between Sir John Kerr and Buckingham Palace which she believes will – finally – reveal just what the Palace knew of Sir John's intentions in the lead-up to the dismissal.

The letters are held by the National Archives of Australia which has deemed them "personal" – rather than official – correspondence that will not be released until 2027. They may never be released if Buckingham Palace decides to exercise its power of veto over their release.

Professor Hocking says a joint Australian-British inquiry into the events leading up to the dismissal, which remains Australia's greatest constitutional crisis, is needed.

"We need to know what happened at this key time in our history but we also need to look forward to the implications of this for the way we might construct the powers of a head of state when we become a republic," Professor Hocking said.

Next month marks the 42nd anniversary of the dismissal.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...1975-dismissal-uncovered-20171015-gz18zd.html

 

[Crankyhawk]

Kerr's sacking of Whitlam had nothing to do with any loans affair. He intervened because 'his government' was unable to pass the supply bills through the Senate. The reason this was so was because of the opportunistic bastardry of Malcolm Fraser and his main-chancer cronies.

In fact, what Kerr did was illegal under the constitution. He allowed Fraser a double dissolution, on the basis of Fraser claiming that the Senate was obstructing him, by refusing to pass legislation through that chamber, when, in fact, Fraser had never attempted to have passed any legislation during that parliament - he wasn't part of the government.

The assumption you make about Kerr acting on correct advice is ill-founded and throws out the window the concept of the Governor-General taking the advice of his Prime Minister. In fact, Kerr's duplicity is exposed by the fact that he never consulted Whitlam before he acted against his government. Kerr's stated reason for adopting this strategy was that had Whitlam been aware of his intentions, he (Whitlam) would have had Kerr's commission withdrawn, by contacting the palace. Kerr thought it better for the country to suffer the greatest constitutional catastrophe in its history, rather than that he lose his job. a-hole!

The major issue attendant upon any loan is not who is doing the lending, but whether the loan can be repaid. Which is not to say that the methods employed by the clowns in Whitlam's cabinet to secure these fantasy loans were in any way savoury. The problem of not being able to pay the debts never existed. The effect of the withholding of supply by the Senate meant that day-to-day running costs of government and salary payments to public servants were deferred. It was not as if the government had run out of money.

A good outcome from this was that Kerr spent the rest of his life as the odious pariah he was, hounded wherever he went. Another outcome was that the nature of Fraser's headlong, unprincipled rush to power made his government an impotent, static nothingness. The bad thing about this is that these days people have forgotten what an a-hole Fraser was, and still is. The difference these days is that he hides it better, and isn't as ambitious.

To me, nobody has ever been able to come up with a satisfactory reason to have a head of state at all. We either have a democracy or not. If our representatives in parliament are deemed unfit to elect a head of state, why the **** were they elected by the voters in the first place? To say this, is a blatant admission of collective imbecility. Apart from one other system, that of direct election of a head of state, in direct opposition to a PM elected by his/her party, this is the worst possible so-called system of Westminster government.

As regards the undesirability of a dictatorship, have you cast your eyes over those who currently vote in this country?

From what we see of current day liberals, I'd say Fraser compares favorably to the clowns there now

 

[skilts]

From what we see of current day liberals, I'd say Fraser compares favorably to the clowns there now

These days, he's considered by the LNP to be a raging, Commie. pinko.

 

[sherbrook]

These days, he's considered by the LNP to be a raging, Commie. pinko.

I have a relative who supports coalition and he calls Fraser a traitor over issues such as his enthusiasm for multiculturalism

 

[EasternTiger]

I have a relative who supports coalition and he calls Fraser a traitor over issues such as his enthusiasm for multiculturalism

He had no choice. Manufacturing was booming and the Smorgons needed labour.

Those were the days employers would literally drag you off the street to work.

 

[AM]

Should make for interesting reading.

 

[Les Malone]

I was there that day on a primary school excursion, was on the steps as Whitlam was making his speech, in fact shuffled through the upstairs visitors gallery at old Parliament house at the exact time it happened, we had no idea of course what unfolded or what it meant.

*** it was a pretty big year, we also got the VFL GF on color TV that year for the first time, we all went round to some friends places who had bought one, not sure when we got one but it was years later

 

[GreyCrow]

Podcast from the ABC - yes I know - but they go fairly hard

I learnt a lot of things that stripped the rose coloured glasses from my eyes

INTRODUCING — The Eleventh - ABC listen

What do you know about the 11th of November 1975? Maybe you've heard that famous, "Well may we say" speech made by Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam on the day he was sacked by the Queen's representative in Australia... but do you really know what led up to the dismissal? The Eleventh...

www.abc.net.au

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Should make for interesting reading.

Will we be getting EVERYTHING though? Will stuff be missing from the archive? Will anything be redacted? Because pages that look like this

aren't going to really tell us that much.

 

[AM]

Will we be getting EVERYTHING though? Will stuff be missing from the archive? Will anything be redacted? Because pages that look like this

aren't going to really tell us that much.

Pray tell me how that would play out? In an emphatic judgement - 6 to 1 - the HC has ruled the so-called 'Palace letters' are public documents.Jenny Hocking now has full access to them. Looking forward to finding out how the reactionary piss head GG handled the massacring of a duly elected government.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Pray tell me how that would play out? In an emphatic judgement - 6 to 1 - the HC has ruled the so-called 'Palace letters' are public documents.Jenny Hocking now has full access to them. Looking forward to finding out how the reactionary piss head GG handled the massacring of a duly elected government.

Believe me - I'm hoping we get the full deal with ALL the dirt. I guess I'm preparing myself for disappointment on that score. Don't forget the HC ruled that they are public documents just now, in a historical sense. Who's to say when these documents were originally defaced (if at all?) Maybe Kerr, under further orders from Her Madge, pilfered then destroyed the really important bits soon afterwards?

I'm saying "Hope, but don't expect." That's what politics has taught me all these years till now.

 

[AM]

This is encouraging - sort of. The 'unless there is a specific and compelling need to withhold it' is tad ominous.

One thing is certain, Prof Hocking isn't likely to let go of a matter she's been pursuing for ages.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Yeah, definitely a tad ominous. I might be a bit jaded and more cynical than others when it comes to s**t like this, but it only comes from long years of disappointment with 'the man'.

I won't hold my breath on this one.

 

[AM]

Go Prof!

JENNY HOCKING. High Court says 'Release the Palace Letters' - Pearls and Irritations

In an emphatic 6:1 decision the High Court has ruled that the ‘Palace letters’ between the Governor-General and the Queen relating to the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam government are Commonwealth records, ending the Queen’s embargo over them and opening them for public access under the Archives...

johnmenadue.com

 

[HairyO]

Pray tell me how that would play out? In an emphatic judgement - 6 to 1 - the HC has ruled the so-called 'Palace letters' are public documents.Jenny Hocking now has full access to them. Looking forward to finding out how the reactionary piss head GG handled the massacring of a duly elected government.

Its reactionary to dissolve Parliament when it fails to pass Supply Bills? I suppose it was contrary to our Constitution ?

But it was perfectly okay for our Government to approach Middle Eastern money lenders to wrangle loans worth tens of millions dollars ?

Probably okay with Mafia families being set up with citizenships too.

 

[GreyCrow]

One of the things I took from the podcast is the contrast to Trump I saw in Gough

Both big picture men , both incapable of emotional intelligence and both quite happy to get blood on someobody elses hands. And never had the political nous to get rid of barnacles preferring to keep them onside/inside rather than outside stirring trouble

 

[Kwality]

I agree with access to the letters.

I understand 'maintaining the rage' in that it is historically signicant, but I have no rage, because I was able to vote on the issue that the swinging voters were considering, ie Gough & his Government.
I voted Gough in & I voted him out.

That some believe the people should not have been given a voice mystifies me.

 

[Gethelred]

I agree with access to the letters.

I understand 'maintaining the rage' in that it is historically signicant, but I have no rage, because I was able to vote on the issue that the swinging voters were considering, ie Gough & his Government.
I voted Gough in & I voted him out.

That some believe the people should not have been given a voice mystifies me.

I do have a question for you though. There's enough of a pull towards the Motherland and monarchy even now, in 2020, a good almost 50 years later; do you not think that the removal damaged Whitlam electorally that, even were he a popular PM it was an uphill battle towards reelection, especially with Fraser being funded by all and sundry?

 

[Kwality]

I do have a question for you though. There's enough of a pull towards the Motherland and monarchy even now, in 2020, a good almost 50 years later; do you not think that the removal damaged Whitlam electorally that, even were he a popular PM it was an uphill battle towards reelection, especially with Fraser being funded by all and sundry?

Fraser was a dud, I rank Gough highly even though I voted him out. Whether he had lost control* or not, thats why I voted him out.
Maintaining the rage was a rallying call to the faithful but sounded like a sore loser stuck in the past. To that extent he shot himself in the foot.
I'm wary of placing too heavy a reliance on funding but the role of newspapers & the editorials of the day were anti Gough & it was influential, very influential.

I'm keen to see what role the Queen had in the dealings of the day but to me thats a curiousity, my sense is the people voted Gough out.

* the Khemlani loans fiasco, & the Juni Morosi affair with Jim Cairns were examples.