This is an excellent podcast on the same topic:
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-eleventh/id1499296...
The Queen’s Coup
31–40 of 113 posts
Re: The Queen’s Coup
#32Crucial to this piece is "blocking of supply"; unfortunately there is no explanation of what this actually means.
Hardly .. the letters make clear that Kerr was serious about dismissing Whitlam well before supply was blocked: > After decades of speculation, the letters show once and for all that the Queen and Prince Charles, now Australia’s King, knew as early as September 1975 that Kerr was considering dismissing the government, two months before he did so. This timing was damning. > They knew a dismissal was being considered b…
If the supply is only voted on once a year then seeing a problem arising months in advance shouldn't be surprising. The government and opposition weren't going to change over night.
Re: The Queen’s Coup
#33This seems a rather passionately biased take on the - undoubtedly very controversial - constitutional moment, that seems determined to push "blame" onto the late Queen. The title is absurd clickbait.
Reading into the background in less partial news articles it seems that the Royal team were rightly answering the GG's questions in his uncommonly frequent letters and stressing the action should be a last resort.
If the guy was a bad choice, that's ultimately on the Prime Minister who selected him, the one he dismissed...
Re: The Queen’s Coup
#34Food for thought for any Britons that may believe that the Queen/PM weekly meetings were for tea and cookies.
Not cookies, but tea, biscuits, and cake.
Re: The Queen’s Coup
#35Crucial to this piece is "blocking of supply"; unfortunately there is no explanation of what this actually means.
It is analogous to a “government shutdown” in the US - the Senate refuses to pass appropriation bills, which will cause the government to run out of money to operate. While in the US either the House or Senate can do that, in Australia effectively only the Senate can - each “Administration” (we say “government”) gets its power from a majority vote of the House, so if the House votes against the budget, the government…
I'd argue that sacking our executive head-of-state is a lot harder, as the only known process for doing so rhymes with begicide. /s
Re: The Queen’s Coup
#36Crucial to this piece is "blocking of supply"; unfortunately there is no explanation of what this actually means.
It is analogous to a “government shutdown” in the US - the Senate refuses to pass appropriation bills, which will cause the government to run out of money to operate. While in the US either the House or Senate can do that, in Australia effectively only the Senate can - each “Administration” (we say “government”) gets its power from a majority vote of the House, so if the House votes against the budget, the government…
It's not really the case that only the Senate can - it's just that the consequences for the House doing so are unambiguous and well-known, whereas in the case of the Senate convention was that it would not do so, so the consequences were unknown.
The traditional way for a lower house to register a lack of confidence in the government is in fact to amend the appropriation bills to appropriate one additional dollar from the treasury. A government that no longer controls the treasury must resign or call an election.
Re: The Queen’s Coup
#37People may remember that the CIA also had a hand in this sordid episode, documented in the movie The Falcon and the Snowman (based on a real case) where someone working in signals (much like Edward Snowden) watching all the telexes go by realised that the US was taking part in the downfall of another democratic government
Re: The Queen’s Coup
#38Crucial to this piece is "blocking of supply"; unfortunately there is no explanation of what this actually means.
Supply == The Australian Government's budget. Unlike the United States, By law, and by basic common sense, there MUST be a bill passed that contains the budget for the coming year. Otherwise no money is made available to public servants. Any government must be able to secure support for this bill once a year. Otherwise the entire civil service will not be paid. What the Queen established was the precedent that, inste…
It's different than that - calling an election has always been the Queen/Governor General's only real power in this situation, that bit is not new. What's a big deal now is that Kerr and the Queen were going to do it because it COULD happen, not because it WAS happening.
Minority governments, with confidence and supply agreements from minor parties (or not) are not uncommon in the world, but they're obviously not as stable ... but in an English (and commonwealth) parliamentary democracy it takes a loss of confidence (a majority vote of no-confidence in the parliament), or loss of supply (the inability to fund government) for the head of state to force an election
Re: The Queen’s Coup
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In Italy and Greece Governments have been effectively overthrown by the EU (or ECB/IMF) in fairly open ways with technocrats put in charge. How, exactly? I don't recall the EU appointing technocratic governments there, i recall elections and the Greek and Italian people making a choice. Choice in specific circumstances that probably influenced them, but same as any election during a crisis.
Can you please help me remember exactly when the Italians voted in elections for Mario Monti as prime minister? I just can't recall that!
You probably know this, but Italians don't vote for a PM directly, they vote for parliament and president. Monti was invited by the elected president to form a government, and confirmed by the elected parliament, after the previous PM resigned.
Re: The Queen’s Coup
#40No post body was provided.