Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Queen’s Coup

declassifiedaus.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 113 posts

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#4

Post by doctor_eval »

pretendgeneer wrote: post #3
pestatije wrote: post #2

When's the next republic/monarchy vote? I missed the last one and sure want to vote in the next one.

Albanese included a "Assistant Minister for the Republic" in his government so possibly soon.

I believe he also said after the next election. Wants to build political capital first, apparently.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#6

Post by _petronius »

tragomaskhalos wrote: post #5

Crucial to this piece is "blocking of supply"; unfortunately there is no explanation of what this actually means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_and_supply

Confidence = voting for the government in confidence motions (or votes which are not explicit confidence votes but considered to be "matters of confidence"). Supply = voting for the budget (because if the government can't pass a budget, then it is considered to not have the confidence of the house, and has to be replaced).

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#8

Post by EdwardDiego »

The narrative seems to conflate the Palace and the Queen as being one and the same.

The Wikipedia article on this is less... certain, shall we say. [0]

We always knew that there was correspondence between the Governor General and the Palace, because after all, the GG is the representative of the current monarch, when a GG is going to wade in and cause a constitutional crisis, I'd expect there to be such correspondence.

But calling it the "Queen's Coup" is overegging the pudding.

It was very much John Kerr's Coup.

And for fun, there's lots of salacious rumours that the CIA and UK's Foreign Office were encouraging the removal of Whitlam because he was perceived as too friendly to the darn Commies.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#10

Post by jon_adler »

tragomaskhalos wrote: post #5

Crucial to this piece is "blocking of supply"; unfortunately there is no explanation of what this actually means.

In Australia, legislation needs to pass through both lower and upper houses. In this situation, the opposition party was able to block crucial legislation from passing through both houses and into law. If legislation is repeatedly blocked, it may lead to a double dissolution [1] of both houses where all parliamentarians require reelection.

[1] https://www.moadoph.gov.au/blog/double-dissolution-what-is-i...

Post reply on HN