Belt and Road branch office criticises foreign overlordship

Labor calls the sacking of Whitlam a ‘blight’ on Australia’s national character.

This entry was posted in History, Hypocrisy of progressives. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Belt and Road branch office criticises foreign overlordship

  1. stackja

    The nerve of the Australian voters dethroning Gough!

  2. Andre

    The GG and Queen letters have sunk the Republican’s conspiracy theories about the Palace being complicit in removing Australia’s worst government. What have Albo and his mates got now as an argument given a republic head of state would have the same issue to deal with if another incompetent government lost the funding power to govern? The only answer is a fresh election and that is what Kerr did.

  3. Davey Boy

    FFS the freaks and weirdos of Labor really do view the voters with contempt

  4. tombell

    Albo says it reinforces the need for an Oz Head of State. But the irony – obviously lost on Mr Headland Speech – is that Kerr acted as a Head of State! And last time I looked he was a local (handpicked by Gough too!).

  5. AC

    When will Jenny Hocking realise her conspiracy theory was just a lame idea in her empty head, at taxpayers expense of course!!

  6. H B Bear

    Another Liar myth dies in the flames of truth.

  7. AC

    Sorry to change the topic but was reading the ABC website about the palace letters and I noticed that the CSIRO is a “funding partner” for The Conversation website which is feeder to ABC online.

    How does funding a left leaning, anti conservative website qualify as scientific research?

  8. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Another Liar myth dies in the flames of truth.

    Clearly time to re-resurrect the CIA conspiracy hypothesis, with a special extra bonus dose of Fatty Trump (who of course, was no doubt secretly “pulling the strings”).

    The Ozzie Labore Pardee – an unholy agglomeration of mindless cement headed lemmings that are completely and resolutely impervious to facts.

  9. stackja

    ALP can’t handle the truth.

  10. Kerr acted as a Head of State!

    I heard the babbler’s comment yesterday and thought much the same thing. How would it make any difference how the head of state was defined, the authority to sack a government should remain the same, or would it under Labor?

  11. Carpe Jugulum

    Labor calls the sacking of Whitlam a ‘blight’ on Australia’s national character.

    LOLGF

  12. stackja

    The Australian people decide who is the government. ALP don’t like this?

  13. mundi

    so you think it ok to just replace the elected PM with the opposition leader?

    Kerr was nice enough to do it on the proviso that an election be called, but that was purely his good grace.

    A GG can appoint anyone from parliament to basically be PM / leader of executive , and democracy has no say in it.

  14. Chester Draws

    My objection to the Queen as head of state, and why I am republican is precisely because she refuses to actually fulfil her role. She just sits there doing nothing, so why bother having her?

    I was particularly unhappy when she didn’t sort out the military coup in Fiji. She was literally the only person who could have restored proper democracy, and she did zip. If she is happy to let a democracy die, I cannot support her.

    Getting rid of her, however, will lead to more issues like Kerr faced, not less. Any president is bound to be more political than any GG. Not necessarily party political, but whereas non-political people can be picked as GG, non-political people are never going to run for President.

    So while complaining, still, about Kerr, their solution is going to lead to more such situations.

  15. duncanm

    Kerr comes out squeaky clean.

    Whitlam – not so much.

    The letters show the pressures on the governor-general went back well before the opposition actually blocked supply in the Senate on October 16, 1975. Before that, in mid-September, there was an expectation that the new Liberal leader, Malcolm Fraser, would block supply, and plans were being made in response. Whitlam suggested to Kerr that he would ask Kerr to give royal assent to appropriation bills that had only been passed in the House of Representatives, not the Senate. Kerr was worried that this would be unconstitutional. Sir Garfield Barwick, in what will no doubt renew controversy about his role, suggested that in such circumstances, Kerr should refuse assent or leave it to the High Court to determine.

  16. Bruce of Newcastle

    Let’s remind Albo shall we?

    Loans affair

    The Loans affair, also called the Khemlani affair, was a political scandal involving the Whitlam Government of Australia in 1975, in which it was accused of attempting to unconstitutionally borrow money from Middle Eastern countries through the agency of Pakistani banker Tirath Khemlani (17 September 1920 — 19 May 1991), bypassing standard procedures of the Australian Treasury.

    Whitlam, together with ministers Cairns, Murphy and Connor authorised Connor to seek the loan on 13 December 1974, without involving the Loan Council. Connor had already been investigating the loan. Through an Adelaide builder, he had been introduced to Pakistani dealer Tirath Khemlani. According to Khemlani, Connor asked for a 20-year loan with interest at 7.7% and set a commission to Khemlani of 2.5%. Despite assurance that all was in order, Khemlani began to stall on the loan, notably after he was asked to go to Zurich with officials of the Reserve Bank of Australia to prove that the funds were in the Union Bank of Switzerland as he had claimed.

    Mr Khemlani was an interesting guy. I feel justified in previously calling him, satirically, a Middle Eastern used-camel salesman.

    With the Whitlam Government flagrantly breaching Australian law I think Kerr was perfectly correct to boot them over the horizon. And Albo is tacitly supporting illegality by government? I don’t think I want such a guy to be an Australian Prime Minister.

  17. Mother Lode

    Labor calls the sacking of Whitlam a ‘blight’ on Australia’s national character

    It was what the voters desperately wanted. If they had disapproved they could have re-installed the bumbling oaf.

    The fat git wanted a half dissolution on the off chance that it delivered him numbers to win, but if you are going to appeal to the judgement of the people for a very particular purpose then you should include them all, not a subset of the electorates.

    Anyway, Whitlam himself had serially tried using the same ‘blocking supply’ tactic. His problem is that Fraser made it work.

    Look, I am not really that thrilled to see such a provision co-opted for a political outcome to remove governments. With the strange menagerie of ogres and goblins we get from minor parties these days forming opportunistic alliances with lumbering dinosaurs of the major parties we would be seeing elections every year. Like the Romans marking the years as the ‘Consulships of X-us and Y-us’ we could refer to individual years as the ‘Prime Ministership of Z-asaurus’.

    We are probably only spared from that through the repeated jury-rigging of government finances, each time for single fleeting purpose but not removed after, we have accumulated a system so complicated and perverse that it is beyond the cunning of our very mediocre leaders to manage it again.

    It is likely the only instance where their stupidity serves as protection from their cupidity.

  18. duncanm

    A GG can appoint anyone from parliament to basically be PM / leader of executive , and democracy has no say in it.

    yes in principal. No in any practical sense.

    That leader still has to operate within the confines of the HOR and senate. There’s the democracy bit.

  19. Mother Lode

    It is the hypocrisy that annoys me.

  20. Mother Lode

    Albo says it reinforces the need for an Oz Head of State.

    My understanding is that when the Queen is not in Australia the GG is the head of state. Certainly he was not doing anything at the behest of the Queen.

    I believe Gough did contact the palace and the Queen said as much – while in Britain she had no authority to interfere. (Quentin Dumpster believes the Queen should have been scurrying off to tattle on Kerr.)

    So having whatever Albo means by an ‘Oz’ Head of State (Kerr was Australian and was our Head of State) would have made what difference.

  21. Leigh Lowe

    Mr Khemlani was an interesting guy. I feel justified in previously calling him, satirically, a Middle Eastern used-camel salesman.

    That is a lie!
    He was never a camel salesman.
    A camel rustler maybe.

  22. Leigh Lowe

    I think what stung Gough the most was that he regarded himself as the pre-eminent Constitutional scholar in the Universe.
    He loved talking the technicalities of Double Dissolutions, the prorogation of Parliament, yada, yada.
    To be snookered by his own “tame appointee” in Kerr (who Gough naturally regarded as an intellectually inferior being) must have absolutely cut him to the quick.

  23. Mother Lode

    When will Jenny Hocking realise her conspiracy theory was just a lame idea in her empty head

    Lefty historians and investigators are like those old palaeontologists who believe they can reconstruct an entire dinosaur from a single ankle bone.

    This woman got one little thing, applied a whole lot of supposition and ‘common knowledge’ from her lefty peers, and invented a terrifying chimera of progressive pieties, all talons and fangs and fire.

    Turns out bone came from a very ordinary herbivore that has long been known.

  24. Mother Lode

    How would it make any difference how the head of state was defined,

    Labor wants the GG to have to join AGGU (Australian Governor General Union). The GG would be the only member, but would be beholden to the ACTU.

  25. Neil

    Getting rid of her, however, will lead to more issues like Kerr faced, not less. Any president is bound to be more political than any GG.

    I guess that is the reason the Brits still want the Monarchy. They do not want a politician to be Head of State

  26. Mother Lode

    Mr Khemlani was an interesting guy. I feel justified in previously calling him, satirically, a Middle Eastern used-camel salesman.

    Interesting too is the fact that the only thing that prevented the scheme was the collapse of Khemlani’s fraud, not the honour or propriety of the Australian government.

  27. Terry

    ‘Any president is bound to be more political than any GG’

    Which is inevitable and why we should embrace it rather than try to invent evermore complicated and ineffective measures to curtail it.

    If Australia is to become a republic, then make the “President”(Head of State) the executive, USA-style.

    It isn’t like we don’t already hold pseudo-Presidential elections anyway; voting for the Labor Leader versus the Liberal Leader every few years, before rinse and repeating.

    Allow the executive to pick its team, based on competence (hopefully) and not draw on the ill-equipped elected representatives to run departments (handed out as largesse/prizes for compliant party hacks).

    “Heading” departments with incompetents is what allows unelected, out-of-control bureaucrats to run their own agendas, protected entirely from public accountability.

    If the executive gets it wrong, in the view of the electorate, then they answer for it at an election; directly to their masters, the public, not through the “party” apparatus. There will be no more running from a public hiding at the election by parachuting in a new “dear leader”.

    Keep the representatives as limiters on the powers of the executive, and ONLY that.

    Simply substituting the Queen for an “Australian President” is no real change at all and therefore not worth doing at all (unless you’re an “elite” with delusions of status).

  28. Kerr was our first President.

    He will be viewed as a hero one day by republicans.

  29. Terry

    ‘He will be viewed as a hero one day by republicans.’

    The current “Republicans” do not want a President, they want an Australian “Monarch” and they are all fighting for them to be it.

  30. Iain Russell

    Labor. The Filth. Always were, always will be. The Filth.

  31. Xword

    What a shame Prof. Enoch Powell didn’t fatally club uppity and antagonistic student G Whitlam with a lab stool back in their Sydney Uni days

  32. Iain Russell

    Leigh Lowe @1116am, Yes!

  33. sabena

    Mother Lode,
    Section 2 of the Constitution provides:-
    “A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him. ”
    The result is that because of this section,only the Governor General may exercise the powers of the Queen in relation to Australia,not the Queen herself.Her power is limited to appointing and,if necessary,dismissing the Governor General,in each case on the advice of the Government.

  34. Tim Neilson

    I think what stung Gough the most was that he regarded himself as the pre-eminent Constitutional scholar in the Universe.

    You’d think that having been the chief buffoon in “the night of the long prawns” he’d be a bit more circumspect about Constitutional matters from then on.

  35. NoFixedAddress

    There is only one way for the Labor without U Party to fix this.

    Gough Whitlam must be appointed as Leader of the ALP.

    If they can canvass dead voters to vote then surely a dead leader can be resurrected to lead them to a glorious victory and cement his place in The Australian Public Service Government ™

    It’s Time

  36. John A

    bemused #3513651, posted on July 15, 2020, at 10:30 am

    Kerr acted as a Head of State!

    I heard the babbler’s comment yesterday and thought much the same thing. How would it make any difference how the head of state was defined, the authority to sack a government should remain the same, or would it under Labor?

    Of course, it wouldn’t! The purpose of the modern “republican” movement is to abolish the power of a GG to dismiss a PM.

  37. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Gough the most was that he regarded himself as the pre-eminent Constitutional scholar in the Universe.
    He loved talking the technicalities of Double Dissolutions, the prorogation of Parliament, yada, yada.

    I can still remember listening to an interminable (or so it seemed at the time) speech by St Gough where he intoned the term “parliamentary democracy”, every time he’d uttered at least three or four other words.

    I far preferred his facsimile machine ads which he opened with the following line: “Now that I’ve stopped watching videos of myself …”

  38. Chester Draws

    Like the Romans marking the years as the ‘Consulships of X-us and Y-us’ we could refer to individual years as the ‘Prime Ministership of Z-asaurus’.

    Given how fast you Australians change Prime Ministers, you’re almost there already.

    One reason for having politicians as Presidents is that it tends to end up in deadlock. Trump can’t do anything because the House is Democrat, and Obama was stymied likewise for 6 of his 8 years. Macron can’t do much, because he’s at odds with the parliament. I consider that a massive benefit. I like politicians not being able to do too much.

  39. The BigBlueCat

    mundi
    #3513671, posted on July 15, 2020 at 10:44 am
    so you think it ok to just replace the elected PM with the opposition leader?

    Kerr was nice enough to do it on the proviso that an election be called, but that was purely his good grace.

    A GG can appoint anyone from parliament to basically be PM / leader of executive , and democracy has no say in it.

    It wasn’t a case of “just replace” … The LNP Coalition MP’s blocked appropriation bills in the Senate, so Whitlam had no money to govern. To break the impasse, Kerr sacked Whitlam, installed Fraser as caretaker PM until an election was held. S57 of the Australian Constitution allows for a joint sitting of the House of Representatives and the Senate to vote on the bills in question – Whitlam would have likely lost that anyway. So Kerr took the issue to the next step, and determined that the Australia people would decide – Fraser won comprehensively. Labor supporters have been shedding tears ever since – even to this day.

    It wasn’t a case of Kerr “being nice enough”, he had executive power. But he couldn’t be capricious with that power, so there must be an underlying, constitutional reason for him doing so. That’s what makes it democratic. The election process is democracy-in-action, and we (via the Australian Constitution) give the PM the power to appoint the GG, whose powers are defined by the Constitution, also democratically determined.

    And now we know the Queen had no part to play in Kerr’s decision. More Labor tears.

  40. NoFixedAddress

    It was the CIA wot did it.

  41. NuThink

    Neil
    #3513719, posted on July 15, 2020 at 11:20 am
    I guess that is the reason the Brits still want the Monarchy. They do not want a politician to be Head of State

    Neil, I heard that the UK Prime Minister of the Day has a weekly informal chat with the Queen using her as a sounding board rather than using a politician who will mostly give a biased opinion. The Queen on the other hand sees things from a more balanced view point (the interests of the UK and not self interest party politics ) and is not likely to undermine anyone by leaking. Maybe I heard wrong – I do not know.

  42. Squirrel

    “Belt and Road branch office criticises foreign overlordship” – so true, but imperial honours won’t pay for Harbour views – for that you need ALDI bags.

  43. Tel

    What have Albo and his mates got now as an argument given a republic head of state would have the same issue to deal with if another incompetent government lost the funding power to govern?

    Repeating the same BS over and over, hoping that brute force will do the job where truth and justice are not on their side. It’s pretty much all they have ever had … seems to have work now and then.

  44. Neil

    Neil, I heard that the UK Prime Minister of the Day has a weekly informal chat with the Queen using her as a sounding board rather than using a politician who will mostly give a biased opinion.

    The Monarchy is useful for the Brits but not so much for us. The big question is what do you replace it with?

    But the Brits do not want a politician as Head of State most probably for good reasons

  45. a reader

    The Prime Minister of the UK has weekly meetings with the Monarch. What is or isn’t said is 100% secret. Her Majesty also has regular conversations with the Prime Ministers of her Realms, including this one and even New Zealand and Canada. They’re not weekly but they’re commonplace. The Governor-General in Australia has regular meetings with the Prime Minister and other senior cabinet ministers, google ‘Federal Executive Council’ or ‘Governor-General in Council.’

Comments are closed.