SA Footy

Most of us on here were of voting age during the Hawke/Keating era. I've been watcing Labor in Power on Fox and it is a fascinating tv series. Last night was episode two 'taxing times'.

Labor had thier 1985 tax summit with Paul Keating doing everything in his power to promote a consumption tax or 'Option C' as it was known. He won over Caucus but it was political poison. Meanwhile, the arse was falling out of our commodoties prices and our balance of trade figures were a disaster which prompted the Labor government to do the most unLabor thing of selling Uranium to France (perhaps the biggest political clanger Hawke made but not as good as 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzie who sold war material to the Japanese a few years before some of it came back in Darwin).

No matter what your stripe is, I can recommend this program.

regards,

REB

REB, what channel is the show on? I haven't heard anything about it.

Dang. I think it is on History channel. Every Monday check your guide.

regards,

REB

Ahh no worries, I haven't got the History channel on but thanks anyway.

Rik E Boy wrote:Most of us on here were of voting age during the Hawke/Keating era.

Not according to the how old are you survey.

wycbloods wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:Most of us on here were of voting age during the Hawke/Keating era.

Not according to the how old are you survey.

You can never trust the polls now can you.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:

wycbloods wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:Most of us on here were of voting age during the Hawke/Keating era.

Not according to the how old are you survey.

You can never trust the polls now can you.

regards,

REB

true good save .

why?

If only there was footage of Keating's memorable spray of former Sports Minister John Brown and Bob Hawke when they were proposing a 110% tax deduction for contributions to a sports foundation...

"Now listen mate [to Brown], you're not getting 110 per cent. You can forget it. This is a f***ing Boulevard Hotel special, this is. The trouble is we are dealing with a sports junkie here [Hawke]. I go out for a p*ss and they pull this one on me. Well that's the last time I leave you two alone. From now on, I'm sticking to you two like s**t to a blanket."
- Paul Keating.

Rik E Boy wrote:You can never trust the polls now can you.
regards,
REB

No, but you may be able to trust bumper stickers.
Late in the Whitlam era there emerged one that read "Fight organised Crime, Ban the ALP."
[I wasn't a member of any party back then, and I had helped vote Gough in in 1972. I helped vote him out in 1975.]

Psyber wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:You can never trust the polls now can you.
regards,
REB

No, but you may be able to trust bumper stickers.
Late in the Whitlam era there emerged one that read "Fight organised Crime, Ban the ALP."
[I wasn't a member of any party back then, and I had helped vote Gough in in 1972. I helped vote him out in 1975.]

I liked 'Shame Fraser Shame' and 'JOHke for PM' much better.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote: I liked 'Shame Fraser Shame' and 'JOHke for PM' much better.
regards,
REB

I never quite got the "Shame Fraser Shame" one because it was the voters who voted Whitlam out.
They could have returned him if enough of them had faith remaining in him, despite Fraser's efforts.
I assumed the idea behind it was that Fraser should not have taken the actions to bring about the situation that gave voters the choice.
Yet the result in November 1975 seemed to vindicate him....
[Certainly I was enthusiastically for Gough in 1972 and deeply disillusioned by 1975.]

Yes, Joh Bjelke-Petersen for PM must have been a JOHke - it couldn't be serious.

The argument that the vote in 1975 vindicated the action taken is nonsensical, IMO.

No Government could have won their third election in 3 years after Kerr's actions.

As for giving voters the choice, they'd aklready chosen in 1972 and 1974, but that didn't suit Fraser.

redandblack wrote:The argument that the vote in 1975 vindicated the action taken is nonsensical, IMO.
No Government could have won their third election in 3 years after Kerr's actions.
As for giving voters the choice, they'd already chosen in 1972 and 1974, but that didn't suit Fraser.

It didn't suit me either - I'd voted Labor in 1972 and 1974, and wanted the chance to compensate for my errors of judgement in 1975 - so apparently did a lot of other voters..
To further my act of contrition I gave out Liberal How to Vote cards at the Crittenden Rd booth in the seat of Hindmarsh in November 1975.
I wasn't a Liberal Party member then - I didn't join until the 1990s.

Psyber wrote:

redandblack wrote:The argument that the vote in 1975 vindicated the action taken is nonsensical, IMO.
No Government could have won their third election in 3 years after Kerr's actions.
As for giving voters the choice, they'd already chosen in 1972 and 1974, but that didn't suit Fraser.

It didn't suit me either - I'd voted Labor in 1972 and 1974, and wanted the chance to compensate for my errors of judgement in 1975 - so apparently did a lot of other voters..
To further my act of contrition I gave out Liberal How to Vote cards at the Crittenden Rd booth in the seat of Hindmarsh in November 1975.
I wasn't a Liberal Party member then - I didn't join until the 1990s.

shame shame shame

Psyber wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote: I liked 'Shame Fraser Shame' and 'JOHke for PM' much better.
regards,
REB

I never quite got the "Shame Fraser Shame" one because it was the voters who voted Whitlam out.
They could have returned him if enough of them had faith remaining in him, despite Fraser's efforts.
I assumed the idea behind it was that Fraser should not have taken the actions to bring about the situation that gave voters the choice.
Yet the result in November 1975 seemed to vindicate him....
[Certainly I was enthusiastically for Gough in 1972 and deeply disillusioned by 1975.]

Yes, Joh Bjelke-Petersen for PM must have been a JOHke - it couldn't be serious.

I think Shame Fraser Shame predated the election that finished off EG Whitlam. I was too young to vote back then but perhaps people got sick of the turmoil, the runaway government expenditure and the rise in unemployment and inflation and turned back to the conservative party that had served them well in better times. I agree with your assumption that (some) people were concerned about the newly politicised role of the Governor General.

regards,

REB

You're right, REB. Shame, Fraser, shame referred to the tactics of Fraser and the Liberals of the time and the actions of Kerr (spit......).

What is not discussed much (and Psyber will confirm), is that the Coalition only had the numbers in the Senate due to 2 Coalition state premiers replacing Labor Senators who had died, with Liberal stooges. One of these had the name Cleaver Bunton, and that tells you all you need to know about him. Without them, it could never have happened.

They threw all conventions out the window.

Rik E Boy wrote: I think Shame Fraser Shame predated the election that finished off EG Whitlam. I was too young to vote back then but perhaps people got sick of the turmoil, the runaway government expenditure and the rise in unemployment and inflation and turned back to the conservative party that had served them well in better times. I agree with your assumption that (some) people were concerned about the newly politicised role of the Governor General.

regards,

REB

Essentially correct REB.
From memory I think the "Shame Fraser Shame" cry may have first emerged either after the blocking of supply, or at least after his going to John Kerr to get the writ for an election.
However, it really hit the streets big time as a bumper sticker after the election was lost by Labor.

Interestingly, Kerr had been a friend of the Whitlam's, and of other Labor leaders in earlier years, and was expected to support them by most of their people.
There were rumours at the time that EG threatened to have Kerr sacked and dismissed without his pension if he did not back Labor in the crisis, when he showed concern and hesitancy about his constitutional obligations, and wanted to seek advice. That threat may have played into Mal Fraser's hands - allowing him to guarantee Kerr's security of office and his pension.

R&B is right about the replacements, which while not conventional, were apparently within the states rights, as they did stand up.
And they too were in the end vindicated by the way the people voted in November 1975.

They had correctly read the building will of the disenchanted people, and after all that is what matters in the end.
EG would have gone on governing on an older "mandate" that was no longer there in spirit - or as history proved in reality - if he could have.

Psyber, you usually argue with conviction, knowledge and judgement, even if I don't agree with you, but to argue that the State Government decisions about replacement senators being justified on the grounds you argue, is nonsense.

redandblack wrote:Psyber, you usually argue with conviction, knowledge and judgement, even if I don't agree with you, but to argue that the State Government decisions about replacement senators being justified on the grounds you argue, is nonsense.

I am not arguing about legally right or wrong here.
My case is simply that the event that lead to an election in 1975 were vindicated in the end by the result.
The actions served what the public wanted - to get rid of the Whitlam government.

As I said above, I voted for Gough in 1972 and 1974.
Very soon after the 1974 election things came out that made me wish I could take back my vote.
I was glad to be given the opportunity in 1975, by any means available.
I could never support an argument that the States, Mal Fraser, or John Kerr, should not have given me the chance to vote again.
[And the result suggested a lot of others felt the same way.]