I see Flint is still portraying those he doesn't like as "the elite", viz "the nation’s elites".

Come off it Flint. What can be more elitist than a hard right monarchist?

My question is, where was David Flint when all this was happening ?

Davo,
This is becoming more than a little boring, lets face the facts Fraser was going to find an excuse, any excuse, to force the Government to the third election in as many years, Kerr only helped to make aqn elected Government seem illegitimate. If the $4 billion were had at the time, and used for the benefit of all Australians, who knows how great this country may have become. As usual you tell half the story, [your half] as if it were the whole story.

Please go back into Allan Jones coat pocket, where you belong, and stop imagineing you have any credability, after your own time in the public spotlight, you should be the last hypocrite lectureing anyone on due process...remember cash for comment Davo...

About all one could expect from Prof. Flint; if you have republican tendencies, ipso facto you must be evil.

Whitlam's government brought about some wonderful changes to government and life in Australia (withdrawal from Vietnam and the outcomes of the Karmel Report spring to mind). Like all governments, however, they were guilty of hubris too, especially towards the end; but Flint's analysis is too heavily skewed by his neo-con bias.

A excellent article, David. As one of the first people to hear of Whitlam's dismissal (by accident), I will always cherish that memory. The failed attempt of Whitlam to stay in office in contempt of the Constitution should be a salutary reminder to all current politicians, but the spin that has been applied to the whole episode just shows the attitude that the current elite have to the Constitution (describing it as "broken") and demonstrates how little democracy or the opinions of the people count when they vary from those of the elite.

What the dismissal still highlights, just as the dismissal of Jack Lang does too, is that we need a vent for political steam, a method by which the slate of incompetence, corruption, and disregard for protocol can be washed clean. It has served us well, handing power directly back to the people, and thanks to a system which plucks someone who served in the hierarchies of our nation to represent our Queen in protecting these institutions and hierarchies.

The USA is in ways too democratic and in other ways too undemocratic. They have an unaccountable executive, yet a populist system of judicial appointment. Those unaccountable to us, such as the Crown in the figure of the Governor-General, have earned their stripes at our two hours of need. We have a long tradition of democracy and regulation of power, and it works perfectly well.

I have nothing meaningfull to add -

But surely David should take up bowls or croquet or something - anything to get him away from a word processor.

He clearly misses the lime light, the odd interview on Late Line or even the notoriety of Media Watch.

Dear Customers,

If you enjoyed 'Head of State' by Sir David Smith you may also enjoy reading:
-- 'Peter and the Magic Pebble'
-- 'The Tall Tail of the Unicorn'
-- 'Hello Duck! Hello Goose!

We have a complete range of other fiction books from which to choose.

"Our man Flint"Dave I gotta hand it to you,you really do have a sense of humour.Were you ever asked to do a stint on the Mavis Bramston Show?You no doubt would have done the best impression of Billy McMahon imaginable.A class act no less.Now Im with you Dave,I know deep in your heart you believe Harold Hold was kidnapped and taken aboard a Chinese submarine during his morning swim at Portsea(was it Portsea ? who cares what's in a name).And I agree,Harold like you deep down loved the communists,and threw his lot in with them and went to work there in a shoe factory.

Now for all those folks out there in forum land,who think your interests only extend to the royal family,and whether her majesty takes one or two lumps of suger in her morning tea,or if the corgi's to indeed fart under the dinning table, or she eats her cucumber sandwhiches with the skin removed,on your latest piece,they have all been evaporated.

Stay tuned folks for our man Flints next fable of fortune"How I tracked down Usama Bin Laden and bored him into commiting suicide in the Snowy Mountains of Australia. ".

Excuse me? Why is this flinty fossil raking up ancient history? I hold no brief for the Whitlam Govt - it was the perversion of the Senate by the Bunton and Field appointments and the duplicity of a doubtless "tired and emotional" John Kerr which outraged me - and it's clear that Gough wd have deservedly gone at a normally scheduled poll (especially after his party's fundraising adventures with the Baathist regime in Iraq came to light). But this is 2006, not 1976. Maybe Prof Flint should reset his calendar.

Good old Flinty, what a goose. Who cares 30 years down the track.Why on earth did OLO print this ludicrous article penned by Alan (i was just doing a wee) Jones',lackey? Is the good Prof. unemployed at the moment?

Aah Davo, wouldn't be without him.

Every self-respecting village needs an idiot to remind its inhabitants of just how lucky they are. Personally, I feel extremely lucky every time OLO publishes one of Davo's contributions.

We are still polarised by this matter. I think it probably represents the polarisation regarding our present government and prime minister. The latter is the true chameleon: 'everyone' purports to dislike him but he remains popular and unassailable.

The issue this article raises in my mind, however, is that discussed recently regarding the views of history. Some (I think conservatives and maybe historians) wrote statements such as 'there are facts and they remain facts' yet here we have the same versions of the same facts used again and again.

So where is the truth of this matter? I rather enjoy Professor Flint writing on matters like this because he reveals so much of himself with every word. But then we all do!

Chainsmoker, i apolagise. You are right, as is the good Prof.
I confess to enjoying the biased claptrap he produces.
Village idiots have an important role in society and have had for centuries.

I have one query about the Whitlam dismissal that I have never been able to have answered, and if David or any of the posters could, I would be most grateful. I happened to hear of the dismissal only a few moments after the news arrived at the Herald, as I was on the phone to Column 8 asking about the senate writs. If you remember Whitlam wanted a half-senate election, which if held would mean the casual vacancies in NSW and Qld would be filled immediately. The theory was that these vacancies would be filled last, and with Labor's likely poor vote, they would get the last places. The question was WHY? Was it the wording of the writ? The most likley result is the NSW and Qld would have refused to issue the writs anyway. It's all academic now, but I would love to know why the casual vacancy was filled last

When Sir John Kerr dismissed the Whitlam Governmnet,did he send in army tanks and soldiers with orders to bayonet Mr. Whitlam and co.?, no he sent them back to the people and they made a judgement,and what was the result of that judgement?, they turfed him out in an absolute landslide and repeated it a few years later.
The same situation was with Premier Lang who was acting totally illegally in refusing to pay the State debts back and Governor Game dismissed him as he felt he could not possibly keep ministers in office who were acting illegally.
Premier Lang was too swept out in an electoral avalanche, so the Governor's decision was backed by the overwhelming majority of voters.

Response to Plerdsus:

Firstly, let me make clear that what I am writing is not based on any research but trying to make an educated guess, based on the original section 15 of the constitution (altered in 1977):

If a half-senate election took place, then any successor seats would be entitled to a three year term. It would make sense that the most popular three candidates be given a six year term and fourth placed candidate the three year term.

How does that sound? Like I said, it's just an educated guess.
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/amendment.asp?amID=15

I fully agree with mr Flint that the Whitlam government was fiscally irresponsible. But elected government's have a right to govern, and the Whitlam government was forced to fight three elections in only three years.

It won it's first election by a landslide, because it was able to present it's policies to the new baby boomer generation as being progressive. It was then forced to fight another election only 18 months later, when the opposition leader Billy Snedden felt that he might win an election. 18 months later and Fraser did exactly the same thing.

No Australian government had ever had to suffer from such challenges to it's right to govern. This was third world politics, Liberal Party style.

For Labor supporters, many of whom were proud of the fact that Whitlam administration had helped to reform State divorce laws, ended conscription, withdrew Australian troops from the disasterous Vienam war, instituted free higher education and attempted to keep Australian mineral assets in the hands of Australians, the Dismissal was rightly seen as a conspiratorial legal coup by powerfull vested interests who would go to any lengths to prevent a government that they did not like from governing.

As such, the Dismissal was a usurpation of the democratic process and it was inimical to the concept of good governance. Opposition leaders should not have the power to call elections every time they percieve that a governemt has become unpopular over some issue, and the opposition leaders think that they have the numbers to win.

The Dismissal left a feeling of great bitterness towards the Liberal/Country Parties, and this contempt was probably instrumental in the support given from the electorate towards the creation of the Hawke/Keating governments.

As someone who has suffered the canonization of the Great God Gough over three years at uni, I can only assume that Frazer, Kerr et.al. should be congratulated as people who elevated a mediocre and fiscally incompetent Prime Minister to something of a martyr.

Free university? Who wouldn’t be popular who takes away the responsibility for someone’s own education and gives them a free ride? I wonder how many would be prepared to give up the gardens, grounds and bars of the university to sit in a brick box for the sake of free education? It is also interesting that those that advocate the Gough legacy are also those that have fought long and hard to maintain the compulsory union fees at uni. I am looking forward the inevitable spin away from hypocrisy for that little gem of a position.

Pulling the troops out of Vietnam? It was already in situ. Whitlam completed what McMahon had already begun. The war was already well and truly lost in the court of public opinion.

Whitlam had great ideals but they are easy for anyone to have. The free rides were always going to cost us dearly and I, for one, am glad that it cost him and not the nation.

It is a sad endictment of the capabilities of the Australian public that even to this day the old egomanic is still getting away with the outright lie that Kerr was the villian. Whitlam tried to be a third world petty dictater and we should be forever thankful that Kerr had more courage then Whitlam had moral accountability.