I've read the Wikipedia page and it makes no sense to me how the opposition can interfere to such an extent by blocking supply
Why didn't Whitlam sack Kerr (before he was sacked himself)?
Why didn't Whitlam order a 2nd double dissolution in response to the supply block?
I'm assuming this is because of his arrogance and the assumption that Kerr would not dismiss him.
Edit: As predicted there are a lot of contradictory answers and controversy here and the CIA hasn't even been mentioned!
A quick rundown
Gough Whitlam was the PM (similar to President) of Australia from 1972 to 1975. During that time, he:
- Abolished conscription
- Introduced universal health-care
- Introduction tuition-free university
- Withdrew from Vietnam
- Established trade relations with China (before the USA did)
- Expanded the sewer networks across Australian cities
- Made it easier to get a divorce (mainly good for women fleeing abusive marriages)
The dismissal
He was pushed out by the representative (Governor-General) of the British monarchy (who Australia is technically a subject of) in a pretty controversial move following political gridlock. The whole affair is very confusing. Allegations have been around for a long time that the CIA had a role, mainly based off the testimony of Christopher Boyce.
So, what do you think? Do you have any other thoughts on Whitlam?
On Rudd: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/24/coup-j24.html
On Whitlam: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence
What do you think?
If yes, why?
If no, why?
As you may have guessed the far left didn't take the UK Election very well. This includes a pinned rant about how the left needs to dump electoralism, which among other things made a curious claim Gough Whitlam, the Aussie PM sacked by the Governor General in 1975, was removed by the forces of the state for being too radical. The top comment goes further, claiming it was a coup and linking to a piece alleging the coup was organised by the Americans and British because of Australia's foreign policy under Whitlam.
#So What Did Happen?
In order to fund a series of national development projects the Whitlam Government sought to borrow $4b from overseas sources. It did not seek approval for this from the Loan Council, as constitutionally required for loans that are not for defense or temporary purposes, and instead argued the loans were temporary. It also authorized Minerals and Energy Minister Rex Connor on the 13th December 1974 to secure the loan, rather then utilising the Australian Treasury. Other unusual elements included the Governor General (John Kerr) not being invited to this meeting, the scale of the loan, the refusal to consider a private partnership to secure funds (due to Connor's belief that Australian resources should not be owned by foreigners) and the attempt to gain the loan from Arab financiers through a Pakistani Banker (Tirath Khemlani), rather then from an American bank as Treasury usually did.
Up until May 1975 Khemlani maintained correspondence with Connor informing him the loan was close to being secured. When this didn't eventuate Whitlam instead sought to raise the money from a major US investment bank, and revoked Connors authority to secure the loan.
Shortly after the events just described were leaked to the public, and Whitlam quickly found himself up shit creek. On the 20th May under questioning from Opposition Leader Malcolm Fraser Whitlam claimed the Loans Council only needed to be advised if the loan was secured. The day after he told Parliament that the plan had been revoked. On June 4th Deputy Prime Minister Jim Cairns was found to have misled parliament: he was demoted to environment minister (from Treasurer) and sacked by Whitlam shortly after. On 13th October Khemlani provided evidence Connor was maintaining co
... keep reading on reddit β‘