I have never been a great fan of Whitlam. Unfortunately for him and his great plans for the nation, the Labor caucus presented him with the most inept bunch of individuals they could muster from which he had too choose a cabinet. His failure to more closely oversee their activities can however, only be blamed upon himself. His desire to strut the world stage also helped to bring about his downfall. The party was much more responsible for his downfall than the hapless Kerr who was largely a victim of circumstances. Frazer did what had to be done and the electorate responded accordingly.

Whitlam could really have been a great man if he had a competent team to lead, but such was not the case, hence history will remember him more for the circumstances of his dismissal, rather than for any of the good things which he accomplished.

Labor leaders, of varying quality, come and go but the inept Labor party seems to continue in the same vein.

Whitlam was indeed not helped by the bunch of C's which surrounded him. RFX Connor and Jim Cairnes were mentioned. Frank Crean was a plodding Treasurer. Moss Cass, former Minister for the Environment, still lives on in the form of unthinking, drum-beating opposition to uranium mining. By all means, make rational argument about policy, but Cass made popular brain dead populist posturing as a substitute for argument, in a way that was previously seen only rarely - the White Australia Policy, anti-German feeling during The Great War and McCarthyism come to mind, but each of those issues has mellowed considerably with time. Cass's damage is yet to be rectified.

Those 4 C's were individually intelligent but organisationally divisive and negative, the results too often being stifling of good core programs due to stuff-ups with bad non-core ones.

On balance, Gough Whitlam was probably too far ahead of his times, a gifted visionary but a flawed leader.

I feel that Bill Shorten might be remembered for significantly opening up the Labor Party, in due course, though not of the same order as Gough's historic achievement.

He has stated unequivocally that he wants the next National Conference to deliver on his reform objectives which centred on getting rid of the faction-based mentality, getting the best possible candidates, and making the party also attractive to people outside its traditional bases.

I suspect Shorten will prevail at the National Conference, otherwise the Party will be giving Tony Abbott the wondrous gift of a campaign line: "Who do you trust? A Prime Minister who stop the boats as he said he would, make the world save from a death cult,repaired the budget mess,... OR a lame duck recycled union leader who talks about opening up his Party to every day Australians but get blocked at every turn by the entrenched union heavy weights!"

Somehow I feel the National Conference will deliver, otherwise Bill would be going into the next Federal Election with little authority within the Party and no authenticity in the eyes of the public.

Like Rudd in his come back Bill has a trump card to play at the next National Conference. Him as a alternative PM or just another disposal Opposition Leader at the whims of the faction bosses.

When Whitlam was rushed to hospital some years ago, my comment on the article was, “If it is terminal, it is 38 years too late to help anyone”

Now he has died, it is 44 years too late, for anyone who suffered from his incompetence.

I know that is a facetious comment, because without Goof, the Labor Party would have produced something just as disastrous to inflict on us.

Goof could have been useful. If he had served as a warning to never, ever vote Labor again. Since he did not serve that purpose, there was no other reason for him to be around.

John Bennets sums it up very nicely for me, and can add little more, save say, I liked neither him nor his even more, I believe, arrogant wife!
He was one of many elitists, who have since joined the Labor party, and in so doing, changed it forever and into a me too, pale shadow of the Liberal party!
Where people with far too little real world experience, now come in far too early, and stay far too long.
Today's Leader, Bill shorten, seems to have accepted that they've gone far too far down the, we know best, elitist road, and is seeking to change the party from within, into a vastly more democratic and inclusive one!
Whitlem showed his true (mine fuhrer) colors, I believe, in the first two weeks of power, when he and one henchman, changed everything that could be changed, without caucus, parliament or party agreement!
Little wonder he got on so well with Chairman Mao?
They were, it seems, birds of a feather, non consulting authoritarians/know it all dilettantes, like too many Labor Leaders!?
Vision is all well and good, but you need to move and convert the unbelievers!
Much like Neville Wran did, and a far more inclusive, and humble, but equally intelligent leader.
Who not only created an initial landslide victory, but ruled for several terms.
And indeed, the best historical humble living, [working out of an office hardly bigger than the ensuites others now grant themselves,] Labor Leader example of how to lead, and have others want to follow.
Now that's what I call a real Leader!
Rhrosty.

Gough was carpeted over the Kemlani loans affair not because the deals were dodgey but because he had the audacity to borrow from other than a Rothscihild owned central bank. This would have been the US Federal Reserve.This was the main reason he was sacked.

Labor has done far more damage to our economy since with the sale of 4 state Govt banks plus the Commonwealth. They have put us in debt to almost half our GDP and no mention of sackings. Gough was a loose canon who dared to stand up against our ruling oligarchs.

I was conscripted ready to go to Vietnam when Gough pulled the pin on this illegal war. I wish I knew then what I know now. Our system is totally corrupt and shows no signs of correction or contrition.

Thanks Gough , you saved many a young Aussie from the horrors of that filthy dirty war.

Peter
All true enough, but there is as much truth in your omissions. Whitlam appointed Kerr, and he was the last convert on Vietnam. You also misrepresent Rex Connor.

Leslie perhaps Rex Connor was idealistic about nationalising resources then but today Vladimir Putin is not.Putin has nationalised much of Russia's energy and has kicked out the parasitic Rothschild central bankers. This is why the West now demonises Putin.

I don't think Peter Coates is being all that critical of Rex Connor but just acknowledging they acted brashly and did not have a plan. Rex did not have nuclear weapons like Putin to realise his plan.

Arjay
You are on the right track, but you do not have the full story which has not yet been told. Connor did have a plan- not nuclear weapons but nuclear power; and as you say an independent Australia.

Hi Arjay

Thanks for the support. On another matter the US was worried that Gough and his more nationalist mates were threatening the tenancy of the US Bases - not just Pine Gap but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Defense_Facility_Nurrungar . Theories that the US took measures to undermine Gough's Government may not be totally farfetched. Though the methods are probably more like concurring with Murdoch to give Gough bad press than the CIA theory.
--

Hi Leslie

When you say "but there is as much truth in your omissions. Whitlam appointed Kerr," it looks like you overlooked para 6 of the artice "...Sir John Kerr - a Whitlam appointee..."

Cheers

Pete

Whitlam's dismissal did prove there is much truth in the lucky country description of Oz.

God just how lucky were we that we didn't get even longer with an egotistical fool in the lodge?

Arjay, you say "... I was conscripted ready to go to Vietnam when Gough pulled the pin on this illegal war. I wish I knew then what I know now ..."

This is misleading because the decisions to withdraw the last Australian service regulars from Vietnam were taken before the 2/12/72 election. Incidentally, conscripts who objected to being sent were not to be sent.

And now we have the obscenity of a one-party Communist dictatorship lording it over an oppressed humanity - are you happy now? BTW, how do you spell "democracy"?

Gerry of Mentone

The Vietnamese had previously experienced Japanese occupation and millenia of off-again, on-again Chinese domination. They were used to invaders packaging ideological excuses for invasions.

100,000s to millions of Vietnamese died in the attempted French and US invasions and occupations of Vietnam, particularly the "American War" 1955-1975.

French and mainly US foreign policies (thank you Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Kissinger) were the main causes and problems. "Democracy?" I don't think so.

The NATIONALIST Vietnamese reactions to the French and Americans were something any self-respecting country would do.

'morning Planter,

I suppose you are now going to explain just how come the French came to re colonise Vietnam after WWII?

Was it the Americans?

Pete

'Theories that the US took measures to undermine Gough's Government may not be totally farfetched.'

It's a lot more than theory. Pilger's account is probably the most comprehensive, and pulls no punches:

http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-forgotten-coup-and-how-the-godfather-rules-from-canberra-to-kiev

The evidence in Pilger's account seems to explain the way that Whitlam took the big D so eerily quietly - behaviour that was so at odds with his personality and character - and seemed content to spend the rest of his career in toothless-tiger NGOs and foundations. To put it bluntly, he was, as they say in conspiracy circles, 'got at' (the euphemism for 'threatened, big time').

And, as you say, the Murdoch press laid the groundwork for the CIA-ASIO constitutional coup, by setting up and maintaining the scenario that Whitlam was surrounded by a bunch of incompetent financial buffoons.

I remember I was still at school at the time, and I remember hearing people saying over and over again that Whitlam's government had 'screwed up the economy'. Whenever I found the courage to ash 'how' and 'why' did they screw it up, no one could come up with an answer, other than ad hominem attacks on 'idiots' like Al Grassby et al. These 'knowing' commentators were simply regurgitating what they had repeatedly read in the media.

Interestingly, the one MAJOR blot on the Whitlam government's copybook - its acceptance of the East Timor invasion and its cosying up to the mass murderer, Suharto - is rarely ever mentioned, even on the left.

Hi spindoc

Just after WWII the US perceived Vietnam as a French colony that needed to return to French control. The US provided almost all of the weapons (on land, air and sea) for France to attempt to reclaim Vietnam. In backing France the US failed to follow the US's more enlightened policy of self-determination for colonial peoples.
---

Hi Killarney

I'm distrustful of Pilger, not because he's left-wing, but because his views oddly coincide with Russian foreign policy edicts. I don't see Pilger as an expert in anything to do with Australia.

My view on Gough's departure - from the Dismissal (Nov 1975) to his final exit from politics in 1977 - is that Gough had a talent for generating so many enemies in so little time.

I'm saying that Murdoch wanted Gough out by November 1975 and the US White House did as well. Through the Murdoch Press and other US influenced press Whitlam was rightly criticised. No need for intelligence agencies to be part of it.

Regards

Pete

pete

‘I'm saying that Murdoch wanted Gough out by November 1975 and the US White House did as well. Through the Murdoch Press and other US influenced press Whitlam was rightly criticised. No need for intelligence agencies to be part of it.’

I would agree with that, except for one important little word – ‘rightly’.

There was nothing at all ‘rightly’ about the demonisation of the Whitlam government. The big ‘D’ was a Psyops operation designed to rid the global powers-that-be of a potential ‘social democracy’ troublemaker.

Australians can almost feel flattered that the main global players went to so much trouble to get rid of him.

Gerry of mentone you seem to be blaming Gough for this concept of a New World Order. Did Gough understand Agenda 21 which originated in 1968? I doubt it. When the US Federal Reserve was instigated in 1913 Congress had power over it and slowly Congress lost that power. This Agenda 21 would have been presented initially as a benign concept like the US Fed.

Our elite Central Bankers have always financed both sides of a conflict be they Communist or Capitalist. They don't care who is in power so long as they control it. Under our current system the free market is a lie. All the markets are manipulated by derivatives fuelled by our currencies being created as debt. It was Kissenger's idea to take the US $ off the gold standard in 1971 and back the $ with oil and trade. We all had to buy $ to trade. With money printing this will end with a crash far bigger than the Great Depression. See James Rickards' The Death of Money.

It is not simple argument of communist verses capitalist. The present system is a total lie.

Arjay, I agree it is not a Communist:Capitalist dilemma. It's a Repression:Relative Freedom problem. Ref PRC Murder torture and organ selling ex saintly Falun Gong : Singaporean dictatorship.ment The lives of North Koreans : living conditions in South Korea. Moves towards improvement in Burma. The derelict Left applauded the obscenities of Communist oppression against the Vietnamese people, and a morally bankrupt Mainstream Australia still refuses to see the current Atrocities against Humanity of the Chinese Communist Party's Human Organ "harvesting" industry.

The monopolisation of Banking and Finance by private control is rampant and fundamentally wrong. Democrats must reintroduce the rationales for a real state sovereignty over Finance for the common good. Challenging the lies of Wall Street - exposed so starkly by the GFC, and now ignored - would be a start. Starting a local KiwiBank, or an SBCI [Irish] or KfW [Germany] would build some momentum in the community for the proper of the citizen's Government, in opposition to the sectional interests of the powerful. This is fight for the 'hearts and minds' of our neighbours. Only through real industrial and financial strength can Australia defy corrupt international finance.

But we are going the very opposite direction when we have already destroyed local and community Cooperative Credit societies [by both Government action - at whose behest? - and loss of volunteerism]. A determination to chart our course nationally must start locally, and in our homes.

The National Competition environment supports the largest conglomerates' interests against the citizen - 93% of retail to the duopoly/duopsony. That needs to change if we are to withstand the demands the current international finance and banking impose on us.

Gough had excessive hubris (pride, arrogance) that pulled him down especially in an Australia well attuned to putting Messiahs in their place.

Kevin Rudd suffered the same wouldbe Philosopher King complex.

"Australians can almost feel flattered that the main global players went to so much trouble to get rid of him." No Killarney, just damn lucky we had the help.

Yes Plantagenet, I was thinking of the similarities of Rudd & Whitlam. It probably says something about the thinking of Labor that they go these messiah figures, or the simply nasty like Gillard & Latham.

I came to the conclusion that Whitlam was an impatient dreamer, acting on principle. He did what he thought was right, but would not invest the time in looking at the probable unwanted outcomes, & too arrogant to take advice.

Rudd on the other hand did nothing on principle, if he had any, he was simply an opportunist, going off half cocked, trying to get some praise & admiration, & to hell with the downside. He wasn't smart enough to recognise good advice if it hit him in the face.

Both were of course, equally disastrous.

‘morning Planter,

You said << Just after WWII the US perceived Vietnam as a French colony that needed to return to French control. The US provided almost all of the weapons (on land, air and sea) for France to attempt to reclaim Vietnam. In backing France the US failed to follow the US's more enlightened policy of self-determination for colonial peoples>>.

Rubbish!

The USA opposed the return of Vietnam to the French, so did the British but were threatened by de Gaulle that he would align with the post WWII Eastern Block in Europe unless they got France back to colonial status in Vietnam. In the end it was the British that facilitated the French re-colonization of Vietnam by removing British troops with the agreement of China.

Further, the first British military fleet to go to Vietnam post WWII, was to carry French military and equipment to Vietnam, not the US at all.

“March 9, 1945 - Amid rumors of a possible American invasion, Japanese oust the French colonial government which had been operating independently and seize control of Vietnam, installing Bao Dai as their puppet ruler.

During the Potsdam Conference in Germany to plan the post-war world. Vietnam is considered a minor item on the agenda.

In order to disarm the Japanese in Vietnam, the Allies divide the country in half at the 16th parallel. Chinese Nationalists will move in and disarm the Japanese north of the parallel while the British will move in and do the same in the south.

During the conference, representatives from France request the return of all French pre-war colonies in Southeast Asia (Indochina). Their request is granted. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia will once again become French colonies following the removal of the Japanese.

After the Second World War France attempted to re-establish control over Vietnam. In January 1946, Britain agreed to remove her troops and later that year, China left Vietnam in exchange for a promise from France that she would give up her rights to territory in China.

Cont’d

Cont’d

American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and General Joseph Stilwell privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina (modern day Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) after the war was over. Roosevelt in stead offered Chiang Kai-shek to place all of Indochina under Chinese rule. Chiang Kai-shek supposedly replied: "Under no circumstances!".

When the Geneva conference took place in 1954, the United States delegation proposed the name of Ngo Dinh Diem as the new ruler of South Vietnam. The French argued against this claiming that Diem was "not only incapable but mad". However, eventually it was decided that Diem presented the best opportunity to keep South Vietnam from falling under the control of communism.

The French then withdrew and handed the problems they had created in Vietnam to the United States”.

http://spartacus-educational.com/VietnamWar.htm

One has to wonder Planter, what lengths of post modern deconstruction and ideological propaganda you will stoop to in your anti-American rants? I don’t know how, where or if you were ever educated but hey, let us not allow history to get in the way of your proselytized nonsense.

REVENGE TERRORISM IN CANADA?

One a different matter “New Comments” have been closed for my recent article “Are Australia's actions in Iraq boosting revenge terrorism?” http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16698

It’s a chicken and egg problem. Is ISIS’s overseas recruiting alone increasing terrorist threats in Australia or is the willingness of Australia to send troops and airstrikes to the ISIS Iraq-Syria region increasing the terrorist risk at home here?

This closely relates to last night’s events in Canada which have apparently caused the Prime Minister of Canada to agree with the concept and danger of Revenge Terrorism - see
“PM Harper says ‘terrorist’ launched attack in Ottawa, links event to war against ISIS” http://aptn.ca/news/2014/10/22/one-dead-parliament-hill-police-search-others/ It states in part:

“Harper linked the [terrorist attack in Canada’s capital Ottawa] to Canada’s military mission in Iraq to battle ISIS militants attempting to establish an Islamic caliphate in the region…Canada is sending CF-18 fighter jets to Iraq and is also currently supplying weapons to the Kurds battling ISIS.”

Those that have in the past publically agreed with the concept of Revenge Terrorism include the then heads of ASIO, AFP, MI5 and the White House Adviser for Counter-Terrorism – all this is at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16698 .

Unlike AFP Commissioner Keelty in 2004 our security chiefs are publically reluctant to tell Abbott this. (7th paragraph http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16698 )

Basically the cost of Australia’s involvement in Iraq is not only the money and the risk to Australian soldiers but it may well be causing greater INSECURITY at home.

Canada assessed its risk of Islamic terrorism as low-medium before discussion of returning to Iraq occurred.

Pete if there is a terrorist attack on our soil, I'll be looking at intelligence agencies either within Aust or OS as the prime suspects. Real terrorists who want to harm our countries will hit key infrastructure and not the Twin towers that have passed their use by date.

I can think of many ways terrorists can harm our country seriously and yet in OS attacks have chosen not to. These are all indications of Govt false flag events.

If we go into Iraq with troops it will be just like Vietnam. Russia and perhaps China will arm groups like Isil to drive us deeper into economic malaise.

Russia has it's own problems with Muslim extremists which the USA finances. It's all a big game documented in Zibigniew Brezinskis' book The Grand Chessboard.

Hi Arjay

Yes despotic countries like Russia may use false-flag operations to justify the rule of the despot (Putin).

Ex Russian spy Alexander Litvenenko was killed by the Russians for pointing this out.

On Russian intelligence false-flag operations:

"Litvinenko alleged that agents from the (Russian security intelligence) FSB coordinated the 1999 Russian apartment bombings that killed more than 300 people, whereas Russian officials blamed the explosions on Islamic terrorists." see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko#Russian_apartment_bombings

So when looking at the pernicious false-flag operations of Russian intelligence some of what you suspect may be true - of Russia.

China's Mao also notoriously used the Long March in the 1920s to fatally bleed off 90% of his army (and many Party rivals) to strengthen his political power.

Cheers

Pete

CORRECTION Mao's Long March was in the 1930s (October 1934–October 1935)

The bitter struggles of the Long March sealed the personal prestige of Mao. However the true role of Mao in the Long March remains disputed, with many claims that Mao's role was heavily exaggerated and certain events in the Long March entirely fabricated. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March .

I'd say boosting a civil war less for the people and more for personal power rates as "false flag".

Returning to the tragedy in Ottawa, Canada.

A bit too much spin by way of official Canadian Parliamentary cheering for the traditional-security guy who "took down the shooter".

Australia is further from the US's gun culture (thank goodness) in that the cop who had to shoot the jihad guy in Melbourne wasn't gauchily cheered for doing something sad but necessary.

Background see http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-awakens-to-day-after-gunmans-rampage

Pete Putin has a 70% approval rating. He is doing more for Russia than any of our puppet leaders.

If the BRICS allow member countries to create their own credit then I'm all the way with Vladmir Putin.

Yeah Arjay

I reckon if we had more nationalists like Putin, who have loads of nuclear weapons and aggressive conventional military forces that annex neighbouring countries, the world would be a btter place.

I've noticed the lefties of OLO and sundry retards are increasingly positive about the despot Putin. As odd-ball as the liberal-leftists of the 1930s who were impressed with Stalin and the joys of living in mother Russia. Like this Mo-Ron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw#Communism .

You don't want to be an enemy of Putin's regime Arjay. Litvinenko, after all, broke into a Russian reactor, scooped out some Polonium-210 (a deadly poison) and ate it http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19647226

Cheers Comrade and say hello to Snowden

Hail Putin!

It makes me laugh when I read comments from people who hold up Australia as some exalted example of a free and democratic society.

The invasion and occupation of Australia by the Yanks recently was achieved without a shot being fired.

As well, we have a mindless P.M., the only man in Australia without any discernible personality. None! Zero!

He is surrounded by men and women of consummate mediocrity and the Opposition Party is even more pathetic!

Poor fella, my Country!

Tis true David G

Gibbering cretins all. And there'll be a whole talkfest of them at G20 Brissie next month.

Delegate Putin could give a talk to all his OLO lovers - all of them shackled and ready for a boost.

Meanwhile Abbott drives the Holden of State commenting inanely. Meanwhile Shorten gazes through the rear window agreeing like a Bobbing Beagle doll http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/One-Puppy-Dog-Beagle-Dog-Bobbing-Bobble-Head-Doll-Toy-/171091074309

Oh the Horror. The Horror!!

Pete

Pete, even a store dummy has more personality than Shorten. God seriously short-changed Shorten. He pulls up short in every direction.

If Abbott and Shorten both sat in a room together, all the flowers would give up the ghost immediately and even the dog fleas would beat a hasty exit!

What did Australia do to deserve these two boring creeps? It must've been real bad!

Mad as Hell (best show on TV this side of the lovely Good Wife of course) on Abbott http://youtu.be/eLEx-cf6Jdw

and now for Bill Shorten's veneer of "Opposition" http://youtu.be/ZH7QXAM9Aoo

Can someone bring back Rubbery Figures to make politics bearable? http://youtu.be/M-ZUR9ialFc