@@michaelsinger4638 Who? John Kerr? Pretty much. Gough Whitlam was a legend. When I think of the current lightweight idiot from marketing PM of today and compare him to Gough I want to cry and vomit at the same time.
That's an "oversimplyfied" version of the historical events of a tradic war where many brave warriors have fallen to protect there home land. But their sacrifices weren't in vain.😔
@@LOLERXP this is actually the first time I’ve done it😂 I was curious how many likes it would get…but it’s also so true like I can’t stop binging his videos
As an Australian, I was overjoyed to see this video. The Dismissal is one of our most beloved political dumpster fires, along with that time we misplaced a prime minister and the other time we went to war with the emus.
@Sanctus Paulus "daddy issues with Britain" haha perfectly put. I've spoken to people who say Australia is not an independent/sovereign nation cos we're stilled "ruled" by the Queen... To no avail, I attempted explaining the Queen is well queen of many different countries, all separate from one another. If the UK became a republic, we would still have the Queen of Australia.
I'd say two big factors are presidential systems looking terrible, and the Queen and Prince William. Much rather have some nice likeable people in nominal control of the country than have to elect and then suffer a new jerk every four years. Our elected jerks have to answer to at least one higher power so they can't let the ego go too far.
If I remember it correctly, Kerr's plot was even more convoluted and the whole affair more surreal than it appears on this video. Apparently Whitlam went to see Kerr to ask for a partial dissolution of the Senate WHILE the Senate was on session AND about to vote the budget. He had decided to ask Kerr to call an election if, as expected, the Senate voted the budget down. What he didn't know was that Malcolm Fraser, then leader of the opposition, was waiting just outside Kerr's office. Then, Kerr outright dismissed Whitlam before he could ask for a dissolution and, the moment he left, he let Fraser in and asked him if he could pass the budget. Fraser said yes, so he appointed him Prime Minister. That very moment, the members of Fraser's Liberal Party received the order to vote YES and pass the budget, joining the Labour senators that thought Liberals were caving in (not knowing yet that Whitlam had just been dismissed and Fraser was PM). Result: Fraser got the budget passed, which was the sole argument that, in theory, justified Kerr's appointing him Prime Minister.
Not wholly correct. Yes, it was a constitutional ambush, but it was supported in the High Court. As for allowing the supply Bill, Fraser had already offered this to Whitlam in October, in return for calling an election of the lower house. Whitlam rejected this, but I don't know if it was discussed when Whitlam and Fraser met on the morning of the dismissal - I'll bet it was. Clearly, Fraser was not hiding why the supply bill was being blocked. The money would run on out on November 27th, and so the terms of Frasers caretaker Government were "if commissioned Prime Minister, could secure supply, would immediately thereafter advise a double-dissolution election, and would refrain from new policies and investigations of the Whitlam Government pending the election." Both men deny this was agreed before Whitlam was dismissed - Fraser was at Government House when Whitlam arrived because Whitlam was 15 minutes late. I guess the timing will remain moot. Kerr knew why Whitlam had made the appointment, but I don't feel it had any bearing on Kerr's actions. "According to Kerr, he interrupted Whitlam and asked if, as a result of the failure to find a compromise between party leaders, he intended to govern without parliamentary supply, to which the Prime Minister answered, "Yes". In their accounts of their meeting, both men agree that Kerr then told Whitlam about the decision to withdraw his commission as Prime Minister under Section 64 of the Constitution." (as reported by Paul Kelly).
The timeline that I know of is that Whitlam and Fraser met that morning to try and resolve the stalemate, but neither would budge. Fraser had tabled Whitlam going to the polls as a resolution to the deadlock the previous month, and it's my assumption that was still the LCP offer. Whitlam made an appointment with Kerr at 13:00 and indicated it was to propose a half senate election, so Kerr would have been aware why Whitlam was coming. Kerr's office contacted Whitlam's secretary to change the meeting to 12:45, but Whitlam wasn't told. Fraser's appointment was now 13:00, and he arrived early and was told to wait as Whitlam was now fifteen minutes lat from Kerr's POV. The arrival of Fraser's government car soon before Whitlam's ios logged. As Whitlam started to request the half senate election, Kerr interrupted him and asked if he would continue to govern without supply, and Whitlam said yes. The rest is history. Apart from Fraser now having the 13:00 appointment, I'm not sure there is anything particularly nefarious or consulted in the timing of the appointment. I still describe it as a constitutional ambush, and Kerr was a cur. I did not recall the whole timeline correctly, but it was easy to look up.
It was a coup. Plain and simple. The CIA started discussing plans to dismiss Gough months before anything involving the budget due to his intentions to nationalise Australian mines and close down Pine Gap after he found out it was being used to spy on Mao and bomb Cambodia.
For anyone curious about the Belgian constitutional crisis, it occurred over the King, Baudouin, refusing to sign legislation legalizing abortion in Belgium because his Catholic morality condemns abortion in all forms. Because of this a constitutional crisis occurred until the Belgian government and the Royal House reached an agreement where the Government would vote to remove the king, pass the legislation into law, and then immediately reinstate him afterwards to avoid forcing him to sign it and betray his morals.
The whole thing wasn't much of a constitutional crisis tbh, because the king had consulted the prime minister and had agreed to be declared temporarily incapable of ruling. His intention wasn't so much to block the law as it was to avoid signing it.
Wasn't it because he himself with his wife (the queen) weren't able to get kids themselves so it was hard for him to sign a law that allows people to get abortions, and not because he was christian?
As a young Canadian traveller, I happened to pass through Canberra in February 1975. My youth hostel card was stamped there on Feb 23. A day later later I visited the Australian Parliament. I had never seen such a snooze fest and came away doubting that anything interesting ever happened there. Of course, almost the very next day the House erupted, the Speaker resigned and entire book chapters have been written about the events of the day!
3:31 That broken window in the shape of the Federal star...genius. Thanks for covering this. I remember living through it and it was all-consuming at the time.
One day Winton Turnbull, an MP of the Country Party (alluded to at 1:05 in the video), was attacking Labor's policies in a speech in Parliament, and declared, "I'm a Country member!" Whitlam replied, "Yeah, I remember."
@@analcommando1124 there was an easter egg in this video with that caption. it is in reference to that time Australia declared war on a bunch of Emus due to crop devestation .... and lost .... the australian military lost to a flock of Emus all the newspapers in this video have an Emu related topic on it and here at 3:36 you can see the one we're refering to here
@@plarteey1316 Firstly, Australia never declared war on emus. It is a tiny part of Australian history. Australia's greatest historian Manning Clark never wrote about in 7 volumes of Australian history. I'd never heard about it until I saw a video on youtube with millions of views about it and no one I've asked about knows about it. Doing research into it the press and the opposition called it an "emu war" to mock what a stupid idea it was by the government of the day to send people from the military to kill emus. The name was used as a joke. Basically the "emu war" was just a meme before memes were a thing. But historically its not a real thing.
@@analcommando1124 well memes have always been a thing, they don't have to use the internet, and I'm surprised you haven't heard of it, I consider the joke about it a part of my Aussie culture.
@@asneakychicken322 I havent heard about it because it wasn't a major thing in Australian history. As I said, upon investing the media and politicians called it a war as a joke. To mock the stupidity of the idea. Thats why its not in any Australian history book. Its just an internet meme thing. And its a great example how using the internet and things like youtube will distort people's understanding of history. This "emu war" has no historical importance yet you, and many others, seem to think it was this HUGE and important event. You know, up there with Gallipoli or Federation.
The LNP is extremely touchy about their image, especially around this time, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was at their request Or the US still has shady networks in this country that might be exposed, I wouldn't be surprised by that either
Who knows how much they were involved or what they know? One could have no direct involvement but know a lot. We will not know for sure for a long time (you can conspire and potentially be right but not know 100%)
@@elmerofairo it’s a result of ‘five eyes’ in which it’s illegal for the US to spy on its citizens or for australia to spy on its citizens. However, it isn’t illegal for the US to spy on australian citizens and australia to spy on american citizens and trade their collected information for americas. The agreement includes 5 countries, hence the name, and is involved with a ton of controversy because of its literally a bizarre spy ring operation to bypass laws protecting privacy of citizens Based on other ‘information collection activities’ from around. the same time, i’m guessing it’s classified as it would reveal it being much older and expansive than previously thought to be
Well in a weird way he was right. Although his party got decimated at the subsequent election, they still actually scored more votes, just in the wrong places lol
@@antaguana Yep - going into an election you know the rules and have to design your campaign around that. Liberals did an excellent job in that respect and tore Labor a new one
This situation sounds familiar back in Canada during 1926, which is called The King-Byng affair which the Prime Minster at the time wanted to call an election but was declined but the Governor General, which he gave the Prime Minster role to the opposition leader which last for 3 days as a no confidence was called and succeed
Very similar. I believe in Canada the firing of King was allowed at the time but the incident started a precedence for the GG to never interfere. In Australia it is still debated if the firing was legal and if the Queen overstepped.
@@Edmonton-of2ec exactly. The only thing the GG asked was if he had the authority to do so in the first place, but never stated definitively that he was going to do it
"cause Gough was tough 'til he hit the rough Hey, Uncle Sam and Jon were quite enough" It was this Midnight Oil lyric back in the early 80's that led me, as a Canadian, to a deep dive into Aussie politics . From the song "Power and the Passion" released in 1982
@@ChaingunCassidy Do share, elections are coming up soon in Australia and I’ve never really been the biggest fan of Labor. I have my own issues with them on the state level here in Adelaide too
I had to pause this half a dozen times to inspect the details of the frames and then recover from laughing out loud. You have this wonderful collection of stock phrases that you use at exactly the right time for maximum effect, and they're always both expected and unexpected, which is part of what great and memorable entertainment consists of. These videos may last only 3 or 4 minutes but the amount of work is clear in each individual frame. Thank you.
As a Belgian, I'm glad to see my country represented when we're talking about national crisises. But "Stroopwafels zijn heerlijk" is about the least Belgian thing you could have added in the background. Stroopwafels is a Dutch dish and no Belgian ever eats it because, well, we hold a grudge.
From what I could tell, "Stroopwafels zijn heerlijk" means "Syrup waffles are delicious". Thanks for telling us that's an unpopular opinion in Belgium! Is that grudge related to Dutch rule in Belgium from before 1831?
I thought it was a delightful little tongue in cheek thingy: having a french sentence being serious about Belgium; and a dutch/flemish sentence being total nonsense in this context (although it is totally true whenever real stroopwafels are the context). If feels like an exaggerated version of what might really happen in a conversation between a Walloon and a Flemish politician (like: 'We're doing so well together'; 'Yeah, whatever...').
Good summary except you forgot one bit at the end namely that the native people of Easter Island were so impressed with the way Malcolm Fraser resolved the crisis that they erected numerous stone likenesses of Fraser (called Moai) on the island in his honour.
Not sure if your sarcastically avoid this factoid, but I beleive its a reference to the fact the constitution does include New Zealand and their opt in to becoming part of Australia any time they want to. Covered in a previous video.
Actually, it was the King who himself suggested and requested that he should be declared unfit to reign so that the bill can be passed by the Government. The King being a religious Catholic, didn't want to sign the Abortion Law himself so he requested the government to do it for him.
@@petyrbaelish4311 I am Belgian and can confirm it is the true story Belgium has a ton of interesting political deadlocks. Barring the recent ones we are famous from (like years without government), there's also the scholar war (tensions between Catholics and liberal/socialists over de-catholicisation of the schools), the Question Royale (eventual removal of Leopold III because he had been too close to the germans during WW2, but Flemmish wanted him in and Walloons wanted him out), or the flemish movement in the 60s like the split of the leuven university between walloons and flemmish ("wallen buiten").
Malcolm Fraser visited mum's school after being PM. She was about 6 at the time and excitedly ran home to tell my grandfather that she shook hands with the Prime Minister. When she told him he replied "I would have spat on his foot." She didn't understand at the time but does now.
I am Aussie and I had NO idea that this even happened! They don’t teach us Australian history in school but they make us analyse Stan Grant’s speech! Thank you very much for this!
As an Australian history teacher, I can confirm that many teachefs have an ideological bent that isn't helpful. They'll do exactly that and play Stan Grant yet not even teach Gough Whitlam's set of self-determination policies which were far more important in changing the lives of Indigenous Australians for the better. Up until 2013, we used to teach Gough Whitlam in 9-10 but it was basically taught as a Liberal Party ad and it was "Gough Whitlam spent too much, Kerr had to step in"
You didn't get taught about the dismissal? Your social studies teachers did you a disservice! I went to high school in the 80's, barely 10 years after it happened and we were taught about it.
To be fair the man himself denies it happened. Then again, who the hell would admit they shit themselves at a McDonald's after getting drunk at a rugby game?
Well we do have a constitution. Just not one codified in a single place. We have several important documents (magna carta, bill of rights, amongst others) that between them form our constitution
@@reddragon3132 : I would describe that less as a Constitution, and more as a Constitutional Pile. I hope that someone has an actually organized listing somewhere.
Our form of government is "Constitutional Monarchy". We invented parliamentary democracy and yet managed to keep the Monarch while everyone else had revolutions :)
@@nahometesfay1112 which only rule for like a decade until the people said this commonwealth/Republic is stupid and that Richard Cromwell don't want the Lord protectorship title
"The PM could have the Governor General removed by sending a letter to the Queen." Which is literally the first thing Fraser did after he got in to his office.
1:53 A very democratic thing to be said of the country which boasts about it's democracy when it should in fact be switzerland who should boast about their democracy
I don't think anyone things that this was actually what happened, more along the lines that the Americans would "reconsider strategic operations" and so on, basically meaning leaving Australia without US navy support which we certainly then, and to an extent need now to secure the area. Mind you, I don't know that the US would have done that either, since having Australia and New Zealand as wealthy western powers on the edge of the asian pacific is very advantageous. TL;DR was a lot of posturing
As a person who's been mostly blind all of their life. I'm glad that channels like this make videos on history and other things. This channel has made a lot of dots connect in life that didn't at first. I can't get enough of it now. Depending on the topic I will go learn more about a specific conflict. For information purposes. But just to get the jist of a situation. But made sensible, these videos are lovely.
Can we have more topics from the extremely unstable 1970s? There's very little easy to access material on the changes that brought forward modern globalization
Video idea: when did the the southern united States go from democratic dominated to republican dominated and the same with the Northern states just the exact opposite
If I remember right (dude from the us here), it basically happened when party focuses switched. Basically meaning that the 2 groups changed names with each other, and everyone kept the roughly same political beliefs
The answer is "Richard Nixon". Look up the "Southern Strategy" where while running for President in 1968 Nixon courted all the Southern Democrats who were opposed to the Civil Rights Act to vote for him.
These subtexts are too god damn hilarious! 😂 I learn more with history youtube channels than I ever did in school, especially with comedy mixed in! Great work, HM! 👍🏾
I think it's important to point out that Whitlam, in 3 short years, did amazing things for Australia, even without control of the senate - he abolished the death penalty, introduced legal aid (free legal representation for anyone who needs it, in both civil and criminal cases), and most amazingly, made University completely free. The first two are still going strong - unfortunately the conservatives overturned free University, which leaves a particularly sour taste in the mouth of young people now who have government debt for going to uni when those in government didn't pay a cent.
On the federal level, yes. But the death penalty wasn’t abolished in South Australia until 1976, Western Australia until 1984 and in New South Wales for all crimes until 1985
Episode ideas: Why was Europes reaction to Oliver Cromwells republic different to Frances Revolutionary republic? Battle of Brunanburh? Kingdom of Bernicia?
@@Warsie The king was EXECUTED and Cromwell made “Lord protector” of the “Commonwealth” so it was effectively a military dictatorship and de facto republic. Considering the king was executed that should have made the other kings of Europe nervous but when the French Revolution happened the other nations of Europe attacked but they didn’t with Britain so my question is how did the other countries of Europe respond and in what way was it different to their response to the French Revolution?
Pretty much all commonwealth countries allow the head of state to fire the head of government if needed. That's an implied power that the person is expected to have.
@hanako5ever you're implying that the head of state would actually remove the head of government without consenus of the government. Even if the PM of the UK is removed, it has to be done via a resolution passed by the Parliament. And even when removed, the Parliament still nominates the candidates for the successor and the monarch has to choose from within that list. Removing head of government doesn't make the head of state a dictator.
Yeah but they’re represented by a Governor General who can also be removed by request of the Prime Minister by the Monarch So ultimately the Governor General has the power as long as he doesn’t give away the fact that he is looking to dismiss the current prime minister, because the current prime minister can remove the governor general
@@XXXTENTAClON227 The PM can’t actually remove the Governor-General, this is a misconception. The PM can ask the king to remove a Governor-General, but the king doesn’t have to do so, and in the past there have been cases where the queen declined to act upon such advice. In Saint Lucia in 1982, after a constitutional crisis, the PM asked the queen to dismiss Governor-General Boswell Williams. The Queen rejected the advice and didn’t dismiss Williams, seeing the PM’s request to dismiss him as politically motivated. Williams only left office when he voluntarily resigned a few months later. In Tuvalu in 2013, in the middle of a constitutional crisis where the PM was trying to cling to power despite having lost his parliamentary majority, the PM asked the queen to dismiss the GG, who was threatening to dismiss him unless he faced a confidence vote in the house. The queen, once more, declined he advice and did not dismiss the GG, who subsequently dismissed the PM himself after he refused to face a vote of confidence.
@@LordDim1 thanks for the correction. I wasn’t aware of this. The only thing I’d add, is that the monarch themselves has “advisors” who are far more in tune with the situation. They likely relay advice that they’ve gathered from paying close attention (since it’s their job) whereas the monarch remains more detached. Otherwise, they risk getting replaced by an elected president lol
With a friend like John Kerr, Gough Whitlam didn't need enemies. Excellent summary, although I was looking forward to seeing a cameo of Norman Gunston trying to interview Gough. That was significant, being the moment when satire and Australian Politics became indistinguishable from one another. And have been ever since.
Pretty good coverage of the events. A couple of points need clarification though. Firstly, the government did initially make enquiries about borrowing money from abroad to keep things running. This was because the senate, controlled by the opposition, refused to pass Supply bills. Without these, the government could not pay for necessary expenditures, such as civil servants salaries. The crisis was thus deliberately engineered by the opposition in order to regain power. The move to borrow the money was pretty quickly shelved, but unofficial and unapproved moves were made privately by one of Whitlam's cabinet members, Rex Connor. This became known as "The Khemlani Affair", and forced Connor's resignation for misleading the parliament (it should be noted at this point that the conservatives have never done anything other than double down when similarly caught out). Secondly, Whitlam was somewhat naive in believing that civil servants would act impartially in serving the government of the day. In fact, many senior civil servants were partisan conservatives, and actively worked against him.
Wait wait wait... I live in the US (Texas to be exact) and while I am entirely aware of my federal governments penchant for foreign meddling... They made a statement saying they'd make "adjustments"? Bruh that's straight up something a mafioso would say.
What should be mentioned is that the Governor General can sack the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister can sack the Governor General, and while that particular conundrum did not raise itself in the events, it's a conundrum which people have contemplated and continues to cast a shadow over the questions of how the system is supposed to work.
It’s a question often asked, but ultimately not actually very relevant when one considers the singular most important fact: the Prime Minister CANNOT dismiss the Governor-General. The Prime Minister can ask or advise the king to dismiss a Governor-General, but it is only the king who can do so, and in the past there have been instances where the Queen refused to act upon such advice. From the top of my head I can think of at least 2 such instances: Saint Lucia in 1982, and Tuvalu in 2013
@@LordDim1 fair enough, nevertheless it is convention that the king act on the advice of the PM, therefore you'd end up politicising the monarchy which is exactly what the monarchy tries to avoid. And there's still potentially a race to fire each other even though the PM's race has an extra hurdle. Also, last time we had a republic referendum, i don't think this was solved.
@@xpusostomos The “Race to the Palace” scenario (yes, it actually has its own political science term), where the GG and PM try to dismiss each other, was for a long time indeed a big question mark, but it is generally considered that the question of what would happen was resolved by the 2013 Tuvalu crisis. The Queen rejected the PM’s advice to dismiss the Governor-General, owing to the circumstances of it being an overt attempt by the PM to illegally remain in power. Other cases, where perhaps things aren’t as clear cut, have also shown an alternative route for the monarch to act; not acting at all. The king can receive advice and simply not act upon it, rather than outright reject it. In this way, the situation in the ground might move forward in such a way as to make the advice no longer effective (such as if the PM who gave it gets dismissed). And the 1999 Australian republic amendments did actually seek to solve the “race to the palace” question, just in the absolute worst way possible. The proposed 1999 amendments formally gave the Prime Minister the unilateral authority to dismiss the president from office
@@LordDim1 but... Whitlam was hardly seeking to remain in power illegally... in fact didn't we see some royal letters where they urged the gg to find some other solution to dismissal? I mean sure, if the race to the palace happens it will be resolved by the monarch's action or inaction. But nobody is really thrilled by the monarch having to make that judgement, least of all the monarch himself. And what you say about the republic, that's actually not a solution at all, because then truly it's a race to blurt out the words "you're fired". As it is still a race now, but one if subterfuge... the PM must sack and await a reply from the palace before the GG realises what's about to happen. So it's a race where the GG has a head start, albeit he might not hear the starting gun.
@@xpusostomos Yes, the palace did indeed basically tell Kerr to find some other solution to dismissal, the queen herself and her private Secretary were not particularly thrilled when the situation arose. Ultimately, the current system has some kinks but largely works mostly find, allowing the GG to act as a check on the PM. The proposed 1999 republic amendments were hilariously awful
@@deprogramm It still blows my mind that the US government essentially staged a coup on an allied nation to protect its bottom line. Australia was one of the few countries to follow them into Vietnam, and that was their thanks.
I am glad a video was made on this topic. Call me crazy or a liar, but all his videos are things I've thought of beforehand, and then he makes a video on it.
'Crash through, or crash!' - E. G Whitlam. Yes! Finally, my pet subject! The Dismissal! Missing some important nuance RE: Whitlam's actual government (the oil crisis, et al.), but largely very good.
2:42 Kerr, the governor general of Australia, was NOT a great friend of Whitlam, the prime minister. Nor was he greatly concerned about the deadlock in government. Kerr was concerned with big-noting himself, and being an active player in the dramatic events of the time. There was some seriously dodgy stuff done by some members of the government, and worse acts by some members of the major party in opposition. However, even worse / more significant than those committed by Fraser, the opposition leader, were the acts by the Queen's representatives themselves - both in the palace in England, and over here in Canberra. FWIW, some years after leaving politics, Malcolm Fraser turned a corner and became a totally admirable bloke. He eventually became friends with Whitlam, the man he so mercilessly pursued to remove from the prime-ministership. (Both towering intellects.) He spent many years as a leading advocate for refugees and asylum seekers across the world, and for suffering minorities across Australian society. He later resigned his membership of the Liberal (conservative) party, when it reached an all-time low. (It's since gone even lower.)
The Queen’s private Secretary really did nothing wrong at all. The release of the correspondence between Kerr and the palace roved that. Kerr made no indication of what he was planning to do; he simply asked the palace whether he theoretically had the power to do it, which he indeed did under the Australian constitution, which is what the palace answered. Nothing more
If you are wondering, essentially it's called a double dissolution in the Australian Constitution. Where the senate blocks the legislation maybe two or three times and then the governor-general calls a re-election for all members of parliament in the HOR and Senate, it just so happens that the re-elected government was Malcolm Fraser. The way I understood it, I did not think that the governor-general directly elected Malcolm. After this happened, issue with the legislation still wasn't sorted, so they had to have the two houses of parliament sitting together, which was the first and only time in Australia's history. Was just studying this in Australian public law, so really good timing!
NO. Gough Whitlam was involved in a double dissolution but that is not how Malcolm Fraser became PM. John Kerr appointed Fraser Prime Minister on November 11 1975. The following double dissolution was called *by prime minister Malcolm Fraser*, which he won in a landslide.
“Ladies and gentlemen, well may we say 'God Save the Queen', because nothing will save the Governor-General.” - Gough Whitlam
69 likes niiic3
@@roolphthenorge5660 I am more entertained by the fact it now has 254 likes.
Well he did spend pretty much the rest of his live hated and being taunted wherever he went.
@@michaelsinger4638 Who? John Kerr? Pretty much. Gough Whitlam was a legend. When I think of the current lightweight idiot from marketing PM of today and compare him to Gough I want to cry and vomit at the same time.
One of my favourite quotes.
"Emus seize Perth"
*at least I got a feather hat*
*Gasp*
Uhh did I say feather hat? I meant together chat
suspicious level 10
That's an "oversimplyfied" version of the historical events of a tradic war where many brave warriors have fallen to protect there home land. But their sacrifices weren't in vain.😔
You are a man of culture
History Matters, the king of answering questions or bringing up topics you probably have never thought about in an entertaining and educative way
Yeah okay, we don't need this comment under all his new videos.
@@LOLERXP this is actually the first time I’ve done it😂 I was curious how many likes it would get…but it’s also so true like I can’t stop binging his videos
What a witty remark that’s totally original and not commented on every single one of his videos
Jeez, I’ve seen this comment so many times.
“One times funny two times it’s fucking annoying”
As an Australian, I was overjoyed to see this video. The Dismissal is one of our most beloved political dumpster fires, along with that time we misplaced a prime minister and the other time we went to war with the emus.
Hasn't Australia gone very Republican since? In Canada people have talked for decades and the post hasn't moved since 1982.
@Sanctus Paulus "daddy issues with Britain" haha perfectly put.
I've spoken to people who say Australia is not an independent/sovereign nation cos we're stilled "ruled" by the Queen... To no avail, I attempted explaining the Queen is well queen of many different countries, all separate from one another. If the UK became a republic, we would still have the Queen of Australia.
I'd say two big factors are presidential systems looking terrible, and the Queen and Prince William.
Much rather have some nice likeable people in nominal control of the country than have to elect and then suffer a new jerk every four years. Our elected jerks have to answer to at least one higher power so they can't let the ego go too far.
Don't forget the past decade of Prime Ministers being backstabbed and replaced more often than a season of Game of Thrones.
@@OniGanon including the republican
If I remember it correctly, Kerr's plot was even more convoluted and the whole affair more surreal than it appears on this video. Apparently Whitlam went to see Kerr to ask for a partial dissolution of the Senate WHILE the Senate was on session AND about to vote the budget. He had decided to ask Kerr to call an election if, as expected, the Senate voted the budget down. What he didn't know was that Malcolm Fraser, then leader of the opposition, was waiting just outside Kerr's office. Then, Kerr outright dismissed Whitlam before he could ask for a dissolution and, the moment he left, he let Fraser in and asked him if he could pass the budget. Fraser said yes, so he appointed him Prime Minister. That very moment, the members of Fraser's Liberal Party received the order to vote YES and pass the budget, joining the Labour senators that thought Liberals were caving in (not knowing yet that Whitlam had just been dismissed and Fraser was PM). Result: Fraser got the budget passed, which was the sole argument that, in theory, justified Kerr's appointing him Prime Minister.
Not wholly correct. Yes, it was a constitutional ambush, but it was supported in the High Court. As for allowing the supply Bill, Fraser had already offered this to Whitlam in October, in return for calling an election of the lower house. Whitlam rejected this, but I don't know if it was discussed when Whitlam and Fraser met on the morning of the dismissal - I'll bet it was. Clearly, Fraser was not hiding why the supply bill was being blocked.
The money would run on out on November 27th, and so the terms of Frasers caretaker Government were "if commissioned Prime Minister, could secure supply, would immediately thereafter advise a double-dissolution election, and would refrain from new policies and investigations of the Whitlam Government pending the election." Both men deny this was agreed before Whitlam was dismissed - Fraser was at Government House when Whitlam arrived because Whitlam was 15 minutes late. I guess the timing will remain moot.
Kerr knew why Whitlam had made the appointment, but I don't feel it had any bearing on Kerr's actions. "According to Kerr, he interrupted Whitlam and asked if, as a result of the failure to find a compromise between party leaders, he intended to govern without parliamentary supply, to which the Prime Minister answered, "Yes". In their accounts of their meeting, both men agree that Kerr then told Whitlam about the decision to withdraw his commission as Prime Minister under Section 64 of the Constitution." (as reported by Paul Kelly).
Sounds like favoritism.
The timeline that I know of is that Whitlam and Fraser met that morning to try and resolve the stalemate, but neither would budge. Fraser had tabled Whitlam going to the polls as a resolution to the deadlock the previous month, and it's my assumption that was still the LCP offer.
Whitlam made an appointment with Kerr at 13:00 and indicated it was to propose a half senate election, so Kerr would have been aware why Whitlam was coming. Kerr's office contacted Whitlam's secretary to change the meeting to 12:45, but Whitlam wasn't told. Fraser's appointment was now 13:00, and he arrived early and was told to wait as Whitlam was now fifteen minutes lat from Kerr's POV. The arrival of Fraser's government car soon before Whitlam's ios logged.
As Whitlam started to request the half senate election, Kerr interrupted him and asked if he would continue to govern without supply, and Whitlam said yes. The rest is history. Apart from Fraser now having the 13:00 appointment, I'm not sure there is anything particularly nefarious or consulted in the timing of the appointment. I still describe it as a constitutional ambush, and Kerr was a cur.
I did not recall the whole timeline correctly, but it was easy to look up.
So shit was fucked pretty much
It was a coup. Plain and simple. The CIA started discussing plans to dismiss Gough months before anything involving the budget due to his intentions to nationalise Australian mines and close down Pine Gap after he found out it was being used to spy on Mao and bomb Cambodia.
For anyone curious about the Belgian constitutional crisis, it occurred over the King, Baudouin, refusing to sign legislation legalizing abortion in Belgium because his Catholic morality condemns abortion in all forms. Because of this a constitutional crisis occurred until the Belgian government and the Royal House reached an agreement where the Government would vote to remove the king, pass the legislation into law, and then immediately reinstate him afterwards to avoid forcing him to sign it and betray his morals.
so basically they went republic for a sec then changed their minds to get a law passed
@@hockeysong 1000000 iq move
Based King of Belgium vs Spineless Politicians
The whole thing wasn't much of a constitutional crisis tbh, because the king had consulted the prime minister and had agreed to be declared temporarily incapable of ruling. His intention wasn't so much to block the law as it was to avoid signing it.
Wasn't it because he himself with his wife (the queen) weren't able to get kids themselves so it was hard for him to sign a law that allows people to get abortions, and not because he was christian?
As a young Canadian traveller, I happened to pass through Canberra in February 1975. My youth hostel card was stamped there on Feb 23.
A day later later I visited the Australian Parliament. I had never seen such a snooze fest and came away doubting that anything interesting ever happened there. Of course, almost the very next day the House erupted, the Speaker resigned and entire book chapters have been written about the events of the day!
Not just chapters, but entire books as well as a TV series!
3:31 That broken window in the shape of the Federal star...genius. Thanks for covering this. I remember living through it and it was all-consuming at the time.
One day Winton Turnbull, an MP of the Country Party (alluded to at 1:05 in the video), was attacking Labor's policies in a speech in Parliament, and declared, "I'm a Country member!" Whitlam replied, "Yeah, I remember."
I don't understand?
He was making fun of him from representing a rural populace?
@@TheBoshy Read "i'm a country member" out loud real slowly
Whitlam chose to interpret Turnbull's words as "I'm a c**t, remember".
🔹SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE HISTORIC CONTENT LIKE HISTORY MATTERS
@@aratirao9007 the fuck?
Please make t-shirts of your “Sneaky Bois” and “Earth Goes here” logos for the CIA and UN! 😂
I’d happily buy any “sideways running through a field” merch too, I can’t get enough of these ongoing references
Oh yes
Fuck that, make t-shirts of james bizonette.
♦️SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE HISTORIC CONTENT LIKE HISTORY MATTERS
@@aratirao9007 no
"Emus willing to run government" -spokesbird
Love the Emu War nods ^_^
wtf do emus have to do with this?
@@analcommando1124 there was an easter egg in this video with that caption. it is in reference to that time Australia declared war on a bunch of Emus due to crop devestation .... and lost .... the australian military lost to a flock of Emus
all the newspapers in this video have an Emu related topic on it and here at 3:36 you can see the one we're refering to here
@@plarteey1316 Firstly, Australia never declared war on emus. It is a tiny part of Australian history. Australia's greatest historian Manning Clark never wrote about in 7 volumes of Australian history.
I'd never heard about it until I saw a video on youtube with millions of views about it and no one I've asked about knows about it.
Doing research into it the press and the opposition called it an "emu war" to mock what a stupid idea it was by the government of the day to send people from the military to kill emus. The name was used as a joke.
Basically the "emu war" was just a meme before memes were a thing.
But historically its not a real thing.
@@analcommando1124 well memes have always been a thing, they don't have to use the internet, and I'm surprised you haven't heard of it, I consider the joke about it a part of my Aussie culture.
@@asneakychicken322 I havent heard about it because it wasn't a major thing in Australian history.
As I said, upon investing the media and politicians called it a war as a joke. To mock the stupidity of the idea.
Thats why its not in any Australian history book.
Its just an internet meme thing.
And its a great example how using the internet and things like youtube will distort people's understanding of history.
This "emu war" has no historical importance yet you, and many others, seem to think it was this HUGE and important event. You know, up there with Gallipoli or Federation.
The papers around US and UK involvement have just been reclassified so they’re still exempt from “Freedom of Information” access for press and public.
I think that probably says a lot about their involvement.
The LNP is extremely touchy about their image, especially around this time, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was at their request
Or the US still has shady networks in this country that might be exposed, I wouldn't be surprised by that either
That's what the emus want you to think....
Who knows how much they were involved or what they know? One could have no direct involvement but know a lot. We will not know for sure for a long time (you can conspire and potentially be right but not know 100%)
@@elmerofairo it’s a result of ‘five eyes’ in which it’s illegal for the US to spy on its citizens or for australia to spy on its citizens. However, it isn’t illegal for the US to spy on australian citizens and australia to spy on american citizens and trade their collected information for americas. The agreement includes 5 countries, hence the name, and is involved with a ton of controversy because of its literally a bizarre spy ring operation to bypass laws protecting privacy of citizens
Based on other ‘information collection activities’ from around. the same time, i’m guessing it’s classified as it would reveal it being much older and expansive than previously thought to be
“I didn’t lose! I merely failed to win!” - Gough Whitlam, 1975.
Well in a weird way he was right. Although his party got decimated at the subsequent election, they still actually scored more votes, just in the wrong places lol
That's what losing means
@@glenchapman3899 good old democracy hey?
@@antaguana Yep - going into an election you know the rules and have to design your campaign around that. Liberals did an excellent job in that respect and tore Labor a new one
Emmanuel Macron also
3:16 the queen look just mildly annoyed with politician trying to kill each other
“Ugh these colonial peasants”
She's seen worse remember she's immortal
"Gentlemen, must you really attempt this here? I suggest you settle this in the front yard, there will be much more room for such activities there"
I could almost see a facial expression on her face, rare occasion.
Princess Anne was literally almost kidnapped as gunpoint, the British royals are not pussies.
The "and by good I mean bad" gag will never get old
Let's be honest here. Emus could seize Perth and Sydney's response would be "we don't care"
Emus would seize it during the away game of Origin and hold teddy & val holmes hostage, those birds arent dumb
As Australian I agree
Sydney can do their own thing, as long as they don't infect Perth with the delta variant
Koalas could sieze Sydney and Western Australians + Queenslanders response would be "lol who cares about easterners/southerners"
Actually, I wonder, just HOW much of Australia would need to be seized by emus before Sydney actually cared?
"Emus'up to something"... I just can't
Booooo unfunny joke. Stop beating the dead emu
@@FirstNameLastName-ig2im boooo to your comment then.
The evolution of the emu state with each new news release was awesome
This situation sounds familiar back in Canada during 1926, which is called The King-Byng affair which the Prime Minster at the time wanted to call an election but was declined but the Governor General, which he gave the Prime Minster role to the opposition leader which last for 3 days as a no confidence was called and succeed
Very similar. I believe in Canada the firing of King was allowed at the time but the incident started a precedence for the GG to never interfere. In Australia it is still debated if the firing was legal and if the Queen overstepped.
@@andrewwyatt8445 yeah it was state in the statute of Westminster 1931 as it removed the ability for the Governor General to do that
@@andrewwyatt8445 No it isn't.
The reserve powers of the G-G weren't in doubt and still aren't
@@andrewwyatt8445 Buddy, the Queen didn’t *do* anything. Hell, the GG never even told her what he was going to do until he went and did it
@@Edmonton-of2ec exactly. The only thing the GG asked was if he had the authority to do so in the first place, but never stated definitively that he was going to do it
"cause Gough was tough 'til he hit the rough
Hey, Uncle Sam and Jon were quite enough"
It was this Midnight Oil lyric back in the early 80's that led me, as a Canadian, to a deep dive into Aussie politics . From the song "Power and the Passion" released in 1982
Another good song is Gough by The Whitlams, a Sydney band who named themselves after him.
The singer of midnight oil actually ran for office too and was the minister for education for some time (if memory serves)
@@kieranwalsh2058 Yes I know, I was extremely let down by one thing in particular he did while education minister.
@@ChaingunCassidy Do share, elections are coming up soon in Australia and I’ve never really been the biggest fan of Labor. I have my own issues with them on the state level here in Adelaide too
I had to pause this half a dozen times to inspect the details of the frames and then recover from laughing out loud. You have this wonderful collection of stock phrases that you use at exactly the right time for maximum effect, and they're always both expected and unexpected, which is part of what great and memorable entertainment consists of. These videos may last only 3 or 4 minutes but the amount of work is clear in each individual frame. Thank you.
As a Belgian, I'm glad to see my country represented when we're talking about national crisises. But "Stroopwafels zijn heerlijk" is about the least Belgian thing you could have added in the background. Stroopwafels is a Dutch dish and no Belgian ever eats it because, well, we hold a grudge.
and fries are french ;)
From what I could tell, "Stroopwafels zijn heerlijk" means "Syrup waffles are delicious". Thanks for telling us that's an unpopular opinion in Belgium! Is that grudge related to Dutch rule in Belgium from before 1831?
KOM VECHTEN DAN
I thought it was a delightful little tongue in cheek thingy: having a french sentence being serious about Belgium; and a dutch/flemish sentence being total nonsense in this context (although it is totally true whenever real stroopwafels are the context). If feels like an exaggerated version of what might really happen in a conversation between a Walloon and a Flemish politician (like: 'We're doing so well together'; 'Yeah, whatever...').
@@Hand-in-Shot_Productions nah. Dutch people are just a tad arrogant. It's not a serious grudge. Just a friendly rivalry.
Good summary except you forgot one bit at the end namely that the native people of Easter Island were so impressed with the way Malcolm Fraser resolved the crisis that they erected numerous stone likenesses of Fraser (called Moai) on the island in his honour.
2:24 "Emus seize Perth"
Nothing of value was lost.
"Emus seize Perth" love it
I do agree, Stroopwafels zijn inderdaad heerlijk, Mr. History Matters!
Great little fun thingy there; made me rewind to read the french counterpart and that made me smile even more :-)
But stroopwafels are Dutch, not Belgian. :p
@@anthonyfarshaw8619 That’s what a Dutch person would say.
@@anthonyfarshaw8619 but Belgium w/o Walloon is South Netherlands tho...
I love all the little references to Australian culture hidden in the cartoon, things someone not from Aus probably wouldn't pick up on
2:12 - he should've tried to borrow money from James Bissonette instead.
The Federation Star as the broken window is a great touch - well done.
You'd think i'd get tired of watching these, but, fun fact: no
@@aratirao9007 Shut up
Australian Constitution: Includes New Zealand
New Zealand: *TRIGGERED*
We don't care tbh, it's funny if anything.
@Insert Name Here Australia already gets half of their team from Fiji and New Zealand, Quade Cooper still can't get Australian citizenship.
It's interpreted as an offer rather than a claim.
Not sure if your sarcastically avoid this factoid, but I beleive its a reference to the fact the constitution does include New Zealand and their opt in to becoming part of Australia any time they want to. Covered in a previous video.
@@Cryten0 how is he trying to avoid it? He's directly saying that NZ is mentioned in the Australian constitution.
Belgian King: I do not agree with this law
Belgian goverment: and I do not agree You are capable of making decisions
Actually, it was the King who himself suggested and requested that he should be declared unfit to reign so that the bill can be passed by the Government. The King being a religious Catholic, didn't want to sign the Abortion Law himself so he requested the government to do it for him.
King: I don’t agree with your law
Belgium: I don’t agree with your You
@@petyrbaelish4311 I am Belgian and can confirm it is the true story
Belgium has a ton of interesting political deadlocks. Barring the recent ones we are famous from (like years without government), there's also the scholar war (tensions between Catholics and liberal/socialists over de-catholicisation of the schools), the Question Royale (eventual removal of Leopold III because he had been too close to the germans during WW2, but Flemmish wanted him in and Walloons wanted him out), or the flemish movement in the 60s like the split of the leuven university between walloons and flemmish ("wallen buiten").
@@evoluxman9935 don't forget all that terrible shit they did to Africans. Chopping off body parts and whatnot.
@@petyrbaelish4311 Religious people are so stupid. So he believed he did nothing wrong because he effectively got other people to pass the law?
FINALLY someone simplified this event for me to understand what was up
Malcolm Fraser visited mum's school after being PM. She was about 6 at the time and excitedly ran home to tell my grandfather that she shook hands with the Prime Minister. When she told him he replied "I would have spat on his foot." She didn't understand at the time but does now.
'Adjustments' has the same vibe as 'altering the deal'.
I am Aussie and I had NO idea that this even happened! They don’t teach us Australian history in school but they make us analyse Stan Grant’s speech! Thank you very much for this!
As an Australian history teacher, I can confirm that many teachefs have an ideological bent that isn't helpful. They'll do exactly that and play Stan Grant yet not even teach Gough Whitlam's set of self-determination policies which were far more important in changing the lives of Indigenous Australians for the better.
Up until 2013, we used to teach Gough Whitlam in 9-10 but it was basically taught as a Liberal Party ad and it was "Gough Whitlam spent too much, Kerr had to step in"
They conveniently gloss over such figures as Jack Lang and Gough Whitlam, lest the people start getting ideas.
You didn't get taught about the dismissal? Your social studies teachers did you a disservice! I went to high school in the 80's, barely 10 years after it happened and we were taught about it.
Okay, now talk about the time one of their prime ministers crapped himself at a McDonald's.
And the follow up in Parliament House.
To be fair the man himself denies it happened. Then again, who the hell would admit they shit themselves at a McDonald's after getting drunk at a rugby game?
◻️SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE HISTORIC CONTENT LIKE HISTORY MATTERS
@@aratirao9007 shut up
We've got a good thing going with our politics.
"Countries have constitutions."
The UK sitting in the corner like "mhmm yup definitely".
Well we do have a constitution. Just not one codified in a single place. We have several important documents (magna carta, bill of rights, amongst others) that between them form our constitution
@@reddragon3132 : I would describe that less as a Constitution, and more as a Constitutional Pile. I hope that someone has an actually organized listing somewhere.
Our form of government is "Constitutional Monarchy". We invented parliamentary democracy and yet managed to keep the Monarch while everyone else had revolutions :)
@@cazza358 but you did have a revolution... You know Oliver Cromwell and all
@@nahometesfay1112 which only rule for like a decade until the people said this commonwealth/Republic is stupid and that Richard Cromwell don't want the Lord protectorship title
The King-Byng Affair (Canada) could be another addition to the constitutional crisis series (also affectionately known as the King-Byng thing)!
"The PM could have the Governor General removed by sending a letter to the Queen." Which is literally the first thing Fraser did after he got in to his office.
🔶SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE HISTORIC CONTENT LIKE HISTORY MATTERS
Completely untrue. Kerr served for another 2 years until the end of 1977 when he resigned.
What are you talking about? Kerr served for two more years and retired.
Incorrect.
@@CtrlDPredator
That's a pity.
2:49 "Welcome to Genious Town, Population: You" Please, never leave this kind of humor, is just gold.
Mr. Prime Minister, I guarantee our secret intelligence hasn't found any involvement of Emus in this crisis.
1:53 A very democratic thing to be said of the country which boasts about it's democracy when it should in fact be switzerland who should boast about their democracy
Love that you cought the little base in the middle of australia.
THIS CHANNEL has quickly become one of my faves
🔸SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE HISTORIC CONTENT LIKE HISTORY MATTERS
USA: Either tell your Prime Minister to stop talking shit about us or we will make "Adjustments" to your parliament.
Australia: *nervous sweat*
I don't think anyone things that this was actually what happened, more along the lines that the Americans would "reconsider strategic operations" and so on, basically meaning leaving Australia without US navy support which we certainly then, and to an extent need now to secure the area. Mind you, I don't know that the US would have done that either, since having Australia and New Zealand as wealthy western powers on the edge of the asian pacific is very advantageous. TL;DR was a lot of posturing
@@Musikur except for the fact the CIA literally had a part in Whitlam's removal.
Thanks for another episode of „question's i never asked before, but are interesting”.XD
🔵SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE HISTORIC CONTENT LIKE HISTORY MATTERS
Emus "are up somthing"
Emus seize Perth
Shocking.
They're nice enough to run the government. How's that been going?
🟢SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE HISTORIC CONTENT LIKE HISTORY MATTERS
Emus might as well be running Perth for all the rest of Australia knows...
@@201bio The emus have done an alright job with the pandemic. No restrictions, no masks, no community infections in Perth
@@perthdude21 heh maybe we should put the emus in charge here in Sydney then hahaha
@@201bio Well, if they come knocking at your door, embrace your emu overlords hahaha
When America finds out a Labour Party wins in a democratic country:”someone is a bout to get liberated”.
As an Aussie I’m glad they did
@@lordpolish2727 leave
I'm surprised that this one didn't involve the military like in Latin America
@@lordpolish2727 have fun with no super, medicare, ndis, and general workers rights numbnuts.
@@mat2000100 it would be too obvious if they did this in australia
As a person who's been mostly blind all of their life. I'm glad that channels like this make videos on history and other things. This channel has made a lot of dots connect in life that didn't at first. I can't get enough of it now. Depending on the topic I will go learn more about a specific conflict. For information purposes. But just to get the jist of a situation. But made sensible, these videos are lovely.
0:11 Belgium in 1990 didn't look like that, those are the pre-WW1 borders
Can we have more topics from the extremely unstable 1970s?
There's very little easy to access material on the changes that brought forward modern globalization
I agree.
⬜SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE HISTORIC CONTENT LIKE HISTORY MATTERS
1970s was a bad year for many countries including uk and usa
Thank you for the simple meme 2:49
»Turns out Yuh Huh« was the funniest part
Oh my god excellent, I've always hoped for more Australia content!
Another similar, albeit less dramatic, situation like this happened in Canada in 1926 with the King/Byng affair.
Video idea:
when did the the southern united States go from democratic dominated to republican dominated and the same with the Northern states just the exact opposite
Didn’t the parties just flip ideologies?
When the industry moved South.
If I remember right (dude from the us here), it basically happened when party focuses switched. Basically meaning that the 2 groups changed names with each other, and everyone kept the roughly same political beliefs
@@ArcticTemper Which industry are you talking about?
The answer is "Richard Nixon".
Look up the "Southern Strategy" where while running for President in 1968 Nixon courted all the Southern Democrats who were opposed to the Civil Rights Act to vote for him.
Love that you pick these semi obscure questions! Every single video you post is interesting, my man. Keep it up!
These subtexts are too god damn hilarious! 😂 I learn more with history youtube channels than I ever did in school, especially with comedy mixed in! Great work, HM! 👍🏾
Ahh Australia, where a prime minister goes for a swim and never comes back.
Then we name a swimming pool after him.
I enjoyed the sneaky references to the dreaded Emu Wars.
I recommend watching the Dismissal a dramatisation of this consitutional crisis its on youtube
"Emus 'willing to run government' - Spokesbird" lol
I think it's important to point out that Whitlam, in 3 short years, did amazing things for Australia, even without control of the senate - he abolished the death penalty, introduced legal aid (free legal representation for anyone who needs it, in both civil and criminal cases), and most amazingly, made University completely free. The first two are still going strong - unfortunately the conservatives overturned free University, which leaves a particularly sour taste in the mouth of young people now who have government debt for going to uni when those in government didn't pay a cent.
The 1st and 3rd points are actually bad.
On the federal level, yes. But the death penalty wasn’t abolished in South Australia until 1976, Western Australia until 1984 and in New South Wales for all crimes until 1985
Hang on, let me go find my world's smallest violin..
Whitlam introduced Medibank too, probably his finest achievement.
Gough was the best PM we've ever had.
I can’t believe how well you nailed the 70’s fuzzy hair. Hats off to you sir.
Im really happy about this. I really love the how and why question videos but i missed the videos on specific historical events. Glad these are back.
Episode ideas: Why was Europes reaction to Oliver Cromwells republic different to Frances Revolutionary republic?
Battle of Brunanburh?
Kingdom of Bernicia?
Cromwell's state wasn't a declared republic was it? The King position was temporarily vacant or something
@@Warsie The king was EXECUTED and Cromwell made “Lord protector” of the “Commonwealth” so it was effectively a military dictatorship and de facto republic.
Considering the king was executed that should have made the other kings of Europe nervous but when the French Revolution happened the other nations of Europe attacked but they didn’t with Britain so my question is how did the other countries of Europe respond and in what way was it different to their response to the French Revolution?
The first question is pertinent and something interesting that I didn't totally thought about
@@victorhugofranciscon7899 Thanks. 👍
Pretty much all commonwealth countries allow the head of state to fire the head of government if needed.
That's an implied power that the person is expected to have.
@hanako5ever you're implying that the head of state would actually remove the head of government without consenus of the government. Even if the PM of the UK is removed, it has to be done via a resolution passed by the Parliament.
And even when removed, the Parliament still nominates the candidates for the successor and the monarch has to choose from within that list.
Removing head of government doesn't make the head of state a dictator.
Yeah but they’re represented by a Governor General who can also be removed by request of the Prime Minister by the Monarch
So ultimately the Governor General has the power as long as he doesn’t give away the fact that he is looking to dismiss the current prime minister, because the current prime minister can remove the governor general
@@XXXTENTAClON227 The PM can’t actually remove the Governor-General, this is a misconception. The PM can ask the king to remove a Governor-General, but the king doesn’t have to do so, and in the past there have been cases where the queen declined to act upon such advice.
In Saint Lucia in 1982, after a constitutional crisis, the PM asked the queen to dismiss Governor-General Boswell Williams. The Queen rejected the advice and didn’t dismiss Williams, seeing the PM’s request to dismiss him as politically motivated. Williams only left office when he voluntarily resigned a few months later.
In Tuvalu in 2013, in the middle of a constitutional crisis where the PM was trying to cling to power despite having lost his parliamentary majority, the PM asked the queen to dismiss the GG, who was threatening to dismiss him unless he faced a confidence vote in the house. The queen, once more, declined he advice and did not dismiss the GG, who subsequently dismissed the PM himself after he refused to face a vote of confidence.
@@LordDim1 thanks for the correction. I wasn’t aware of this.
The only thing I’d add, is that the monarch themselves has “advisors” who are far more in tune with the situation. They likely relay advice that they’ve gathered from paying close attention (since it’s their job) whereas the monarch remains more detached. Otherwise, they risk getting replaced by an elected president lol
hay history matters could you do a video on the eureka stockade and you could call the video Australia's revolution.
With a friend like John Kerr, Gough Whitlam didn't need enemies. Excellent summary, although I was looking forward to seeing a cameo of Norman Gunston trying to interview Gough. That was significant, being the moment when satire and Australian Politics became indistinguishable from one another. And have been ever since.
I like how the shape of the shattered glass at 3:32 is the same shape as the star on the Australian flag
0:29 CIA and British Intelligence are collectively known as "SNEAY BOIS"
3:36 "More like John Cur, amirite?"
Funny though, since there's a PM with that as his name plus three more letters.
Fun fact: The sign in Dutch says 'Stoop waffles are delicious ' 😂
This is one of the more confusing yet in depth videos History Matters has ever done.
The Emus seized Perth in just 1 day? (2:22)
EDIT: it seems they were quite successful in their campaign in the long run (3:36)
"Adjustments" Yep that totally sounds like Something America would do.
This reminds me of your old explanation videos and I love it! Keep up the good work!
_The Worst Thing You Can Lose In Battle Is Not Family, But The Only Will To Fight It. -Sun Tzu, The Art Of War._
USA: I know we’re allies and all but if you don’t stop throwing shade there’ll be… “adjustments.”
Legit threat from Cold War America lol
Honestly, we should just have James Bisonette write the Australian Constitution.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to have a wealthy elite write the constitution, even if they are an upstanding citizen and good patron of the arts.
Pretty good coverage of the events. A couple of points need clarification though. Firstly, the government did initially make enquiries about borrowing money from abroad to keep things running. This was because the senate, controlled by the opposition, refused to pass Supply bills. Without these, the government could not pay for necessary expenditures, such as civil servants salaries. The crisis was thus deliberately engineered by the opposition in order to regain power. The move to borrow the money was pretty quickly shelved, but unofficial and unapproved moves were made privately by one of Whitlam's cabinet members, Rex Connor. This became known as "The Khemlani Affair", and forced Connor's resignation for misleading the parliament (it should be noted at this point that the conservatives have never done anything other than double down when similarly caught out). Secondly, Whitlam was somewhat naive in believing that civil servants would act impartially in serving the government of the day. In fact, many senior civil servants were partisan conservatives, and actively worked against him.
0:25
Prime minister? You mean CEO, right? ;)
Wait wait wait... I live in the US (Texas to be exact) and while I am entirely aware of my federal governments penchant for foreign meddling... They made a statement saying they'd make "adjustments"?
Bruh that's straight up something a mafioso would say.
it is astonishing how much your cartoon version of Gough Whitlam reminds me of Bob Hawke. Make of that what you will 😂
What should be mentioned is that the Governor General can sack the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister can sack the Governor General, and while that particular conundrum did not raise itself in the events, it's a conundrum which people have contemplated and continues to cast a shadow over the questions of how the system is supposed to work.
It’s a question often asked, but ultimately not actually very relevant when one considers the singular most important fact: the Prime Minister CANNOT dismiss the Governor-General. The Prime Minister can ask or advise the king to dismiss a Governor-General, but it is only the king who can do so, and in the past there have been instances where the Queen refused to act upon such advice. From the top of my head I can think of at least 2 such instances: Saint Lucia in 1982, and Tuvalu in 2013
@@LordDim1 fair enough, nevertheless it is convention that the king act on the advice of the PM, therefore you'd end up politicising the monarchy which is exactly what the monarchy tries to avoid. And there's still potentially a race to fire each other even though the PM's race has an extra hurdle. Also, last time we had a republic referendum, i don't think this was solved.
@@xpusostomos The “Race to the Palace” scenario (yes, it actually has its own political science term), where the GG and PM try to dismiss each other, was for a long time indeed a big question mark, but it is generally considered that the question of what would happen was resolved by the 2013 Tuvalu crisis. The Queen rejected the PM’s advice to dismiss the Governor-General, owing to the circumstances of it being an overt attempt by the PM to illegally remain in power. Other cases, where perhaps things aren’t as clear cut, have also shown an alternative route for the monarch to act; not acting at all. The king can receive advice and simply not act upon it, rather than outright reject it. In this way, the situation in the ground might move forward in such a way as to make the advice no longer effective (such as if the PM who gave it gets dismissed).
And the 1999 Australian republic amendments did actually seek to solve the “race to the palace” question, just in the absolute worst way possible. The proposed 1999 amendments formally gave the Prime Minister the unilateral authority to dismiss the president from office
@@LordDim1 but... Whitlam was hardly seeking to remain in power illegally... in fact didn't we see some royal letters where they urged the gg to find some other solution to dismissal? I mean sure, if the race to the palace happens it will be resolved by the monarch's action or inaction. But nobody is really thrilled by the monarch having to make that judgement, least of all the monarch himself. And what you say about the republic, that's actually not a solution at all, because then truly it's a race to blurt out the words "you're fired". As it is still a race now, but one if subterfuge... the PM must sack and await a reply from the palace before the GG realises what's about to happen. So it's a race where the GG has a head start, albeit he might not hear the starting gun.
@@xpusostomos Yes, the palace did indeed basically tell Kerr to find some other solution to dismissal, the queen herself and her private Secretary were not particularly thrilled when the situation arose. Ultimately, the current system has some kinks but largely works mostly find, allowing the GG to act as a check on the PM. The proposed 1999 republic amendments were hilariously awful
Once HM reaches 1M Subscribers we need one video voiced by James Bizonett
Australia: We're friends right?
America: Sure buddy...
...Now, be a good friend, and get my CIA a coffee, and also do absolutely everything else I want without making a fuss about it.
@@domsjuk or
Australia: We should make our own money off our own natural resources.
America: I'm about to end Gough Whitlams whole career.
@@needbettername8583 well in the end that happened
@@deprogramm It still blows my mind that the US government essentially staged a coup on an allied nation to protect its bottom line. Australia was one of the few countries to follow them into Vietnam, and that was their thanks.
I am glad a video was made on this topic. Call me crazy or a liar, but all his videos are things I've thought of beforehand, and then he makes a video on it.
"out the window", as in Australian Defenestration (while holding a can of beer in hand since it's Australia)
"Well may we say God save the Queen.... because nothing will Save the Governor-General!"
Turns out: Yuh huh
Love these newspapers and signs, awesome.
Just so everyone knows Gough Willem was a pretty cool dude and he made healthcare free and did other cool politician things
"make adjustments"
yeah ok bro, try and mess with a colony of the largest and most powerful empire this world has ever seen
'Crash through, or crash!' - E. G Whitlam.
Yes! Finally, my pet subject! The Dismissal! Missing some important nuance RE: Whitlam's actual government (the oil crisis, et al.), but largely very good.
Maybe you could do a video about the Soviet-Afghan war someday?
Could you maybe do a video on what was the world‘s reaction to the election of the Funny moustache man? It‘s something very often not talked about.
2:42 Kerr, the governor general of Australia, was NOT a great friend of Whitlam, the prime minister. Nor was he greatly concerned about the deadlock in government. Kerr was concerned with big-noting himself, and being an active player in the dramatic events of the time. There was some seriously dodgy stuff done by some members of the government, and worse acts by some members of the major party in opposition. However, even worse / more significant than those committed by Fraser, the opposition leader, were the acts by the Queen's representatives themselves - both in the palace in England, and over here in Canberra.
FWIW, some years after leaving politics, Malcolm Fraser turned a corner and became a totally admirable bloke. He eventually became friends with Whitlam, the man he so mercilessly pursued to remove from the prime-ministership. (Both towering intellects.) He spent many years as a leading advocate for refugees and asylum seekers across the world, and for suffering minorities across Australian society. He later resigned his membership of the Liberal (conservative) party, when it reached an all-time low. (It's since gone even lower.)
The Queen’s private Secretary really did nothing wrong at all. The release of the correspondence between Kerr and the palace roved that. Kerr made no indication of what he was planning to do; he simply asked the palace whether he theoretically had the power to do it, which he indeed did under the Australian constitution, which is what the palace answered. Nothing more
If you are wondering, essentially it's called a double dissolution in the Australian Constitution. Where the senate blocks the legislation maybe two or three times and then the governor-general calls a re-election for all members of parliament in the HOR and Senate, it just so happens that the re-elected government was Malcolm Fraser. The way I understood it, I did not think that the governor-general directly elected Malcolm. After this happened, issue with the legislation still wasn't sorted, so they had to have the two houses of parliament sitting together, which was the first and only time in Australia's history. Was just studying this in Australian public law, so really good timing!
NO. Gough Whitlam was involved in a double dissolution but that is not how Malcolm Fraser became PM. John Kerr appointed Fraser Prime Minister on November 11 1975. The following double dissolution was called *by prime minister Malcolm Fraser*, which he won in a landslide.
The video needs a stinger "The conservatives were happy with this... and promptly changed the rules so it couldn't happen to them"