Speaking of assimilation and England, if anyone has been to England, there is no England anymore, people arent nice because of the melting pot created by this multiculturalism and assimilation, everyone holds everyone in contempt

For a long time Australia was another England (before its melting pot phase), but it looks like we're headed in that direction too.

Good save.

-PB

This is what happens when you have an outdated constitutional arrangement where the Governor-General's powers are not clearly stated, and where they can only be dismissed by the King or Queen of England (albeit on the written advice of the PM):

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/new-revelations-about-the-dismissal-continue-to-emerge-after-40-years-20151023-gkhb1a.html

New revelations about the Dismissal continue to emerge after 40 years

John Kerr decided to remove Gough Whitlam in the week before the Dismissal and was in secret discussion about this with Malcolm Fraser.

This is the most explosive revelation of a new book that throws in doubt the 40-year-old claim that the Governor-General acted alone.

Monash University political scientist JennyHocking said new research showed Kerr acted with the foreknowledge and implied consent of the Queen, and with the knowledge of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia Sir Garfield Barwick​, High Court justice Sir Anthony Mason and the Leader of the Opposition to oust a democratically elected government.

She said the West Australian Liberal senator Reg Withers had left a posthumous record of communications between Kerr and Fraser in a previously unpublished interview conducted two decades after the dismissal and embargoed until after his death.

"Withers reveals that not only had Kerr decided to act against Whitlam in the week before 11 November 1975, but that both he and Fraser knew this," Professor Hocking said.

"Withers confirms that the Governor-General and the Leader of the Opposition were in secret telephone contact, using their secure private numbers.

"Withers recounts that he was in Fraser's office in early November when Kerr contacted Fraser, using the private number for the Leader of the Opposition's parliamentary office.

"'Nobody knew what his private number was except Tamie'," Withers said.

"Fraser told the caller that he could be contacted on that number at any time ... Fraser then asked the caller for their number, repeating as he wrote it down, 'I can also ring you on his number?.... As Fraser hung up he said to Withers. 'You never heard this conversation'."

Professor Hocking said the secret communication was the most serious possible breach of the central constitutional and political relationship in a parliamentary democracy that the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, not the Opposition Leader.

Whitlam died a year ago last Wednesday, Fraser last March, and Professor Hocking's book, The Dismissal Dossier: Everything You Were Never Meant To Know About November 1975 comes out on the eve of the 40th anniversary of what many people still believe to be the biggest political crisis in Australian history.

In another revelation from a long-embargoed interview, Fraser challenges our fundamental understanding of the dismissal of the Whitlam government in relation to the question of Supply.

"It now appears that the very basis of Whitlam's dismissal, and Fraser's appointment, as Prime Minister – the need to secure Supply – was a constitutional and political charade," Professor Hocking said.

"In this previously unpublished interview Fraser makes the extraordinary claim that the provision of Supply was not in fact a condition of his appointment as Prime Minister at all." Fraser makes this devastating admission in his interview conducted in 1987 with former Labor Minister Clyde Cameron for the National Library of Australia that has only recently been made available. "Asked specifically whether the provision of Supply was a condition of his appointment as Prime Minister, Fraser replied without any hesitation, 'No, it wasn't'.

"In a further dramatic historical unravelling Fraser then revealed that, even had he not secured Supply through the Senate on the afternoon of 11 November 1975, Kerr would not have dismissed him as Prime Minister and that he would have gone to the 1975 election as Prime Minister, without Supply. A shocked Clyde Cameron drew out the implications of this startling exchange in his immediate response to Fraser: 'You would have gone to an election without Supply, and you would have been in breach of one of the conditions that Kerr had laid down.' Fraser did not disagree with this, suggesting that the Coalition might even have won a few more seats had he done so.

"Despite Kerr's insistence that securing Supply was at the heart of the dismissal, Fraser maintained that his own failure to secure Supply would not have led to his dismissal and that Kerr would not have dismissed him for a denial of Supply as he had dismissed Whitlam: 'I don't think the Governor-General would have had much other course … I think it would have been a little difficult sacking a second (laughing) Prime Minister and re-appointing the first one sacked'."

Professor Hocking said that Kerr's private papers clearly show that the Palace knew that Kerr was considering the dismissal months before it happened. The Palace did not counsel Kerr against the dismissal scenario, did not advise him to warn Whitlam of the possibility of dismissal and, most significantly, did not themselves alert Whitlam to the fact that the matter had been raised by the Governor-General.

She said the Queen's private secretary Martin Charteris had also written to Kerr establishing a "secret arrangement" between the Palace and Yarralumla to delay acting on the advice of the Prime Minister to recall the Governor-General, should Whitlam have decided to remove Kerr.

"This extraordinary vice-regal manoeuvring presents Whitlam as a political ingenue, utterly unaware that among those he considered nothing more than post-colonial monarchal relics, his future was being determined with all the calculated anti-democratic sentiment of monarchs through the ages," she said.

In her 2012 book, Gough Whitlam: His Time, Professor Hocking revealed the critical document in Kerr's private papers describing the pivotal role that High Court Justice Sir Anthony Mason had played in advising Kerr over several months prior to the dismissal, although he remained a shadowy presence in the political crisis for four decades.

In response, Sir Anthony has said he told Kerr he should warn Whitlam before terminating his commission and the first he knew that Whitlam had not been warned was when he read the news reports on November 11.

I just re-emphasise:

"Professor Hocking said that Kerr's private papers clearly show that the Palace knew that Kerr was considering the dismissal months before it happened. The Palace did not counsel Kerr against the dismissal scenario, did not advise him to warn Whitlam of the possibility of dismissal and, most significantly, did not themselves alert Whitlam to the fact that the matter had been raised by the Governor-General".

"Everyone holds everyone in contempt"? Surely you jest.

Ridiculous comment.

When was the last time you went to a place like Birmingham or north London? Not the most friendly places in the world.

Yes.

I would point the finger to the economic effects of long-term industrial decline in many formerly economically strong cities, rather than blaming "multiculturalism".

When I was in Birmingham there was a lot of Muslim vs. non-Muslim tension. Whilst I know where you're coming from I think economics wasn't the major issue.

proximate cause vs root cause

Birmingham was never a nice place. Always has been filled with yobbos with issues about stabbing people

Of course but now they've stopped stabbing their neighbours, unless their neighbours are muslims, then they go hard ;)

The aircraft that had a bomb blow up onboard over Egypt looks increasingly likely to be the work of IS according to the US...I'd be interested to hear if Murdochs rags thinks its just another case of a lunatic onboard and nothing to do with religion.

Maybe it's not ISIS at all, and it's just another case of 'Monarchists vs Republics?' :oops:

According to us media. The white house has stated they have no idea as the egyptians are leading this one

To be honest if that was the case, I don't think Russia should act to surprised given their ramped up activities in Syria.

-PB

If it was a bomb look out ISIS.

Don't think Russia will be taking a softly softly approach here.

It would show up those punk kids who fly over to join isis (disaffected and thinking how cool) how insignificant that puny organisation really is

Yeah Putin will go in hard if it really was ISIS.

I think you are missing the wider geo-political perspectives here. Russia sees ISIS as an American problem. They have an interest in keeping Assad in charge, they have been bombing the Syrian rebels 80% of the time, not ISIS.

If you have noticed, Putin has said nothing about the bombing other than "The US & Britain are jumping to conclusions".

https://news.vice.com/article/russia-now-has-4000-people-in-syria-and-theyre-not-in-a-rush-to-fight-the-islamic-state?utm_source=vicenewsfb

While the US and it's allies have made fighting the Islamic State a major priority in Syria, Russia is less concerned with the militant group. So far, around 80 percent of their strikes have hit non-Islamic State rebels fighting the Assad regime, according to open-source analysis conducted by Reuters.

That fits with Russia's overall view of the conflict, said Kofman.

"The Islamic State is an American problem, it's not a Russian problem," he said.

Russia intervened initially because other rebel groups, like the Al-Qaeda aligned Nusra Front, and smaller rebel groups backed by the CIA, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey were threatening Assad-held territory.

"The Islamic State is too far to the east to really be an immediate threat to Assad," Kofman explained. "For Russia they are.... a third order problem."


Edited by AzzaMarch: 6/11/2015 11:29:59 AM

Russia are doing the right thing here, we created ISIS and they're just cleaning up our mess. Good on 'em.

And Vice :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Edited by 433: 6/11/2015 11:59:49 AM

if it was Obama he would give them a slap on the wrist

Oh god, are you really that simplistic???

Its not a matter of who is "harder".

The issue is that the west is reticent to do anything that strengthens Assad, so they have taken on a policy of containment.

Russia couldn't care less about having a democracy in Syria - Assad is their man. So they are happy to bomb the rebels.

There is plenty you can critique about the approach of the US, but simplistic chest thrusting is the wrong approach to take.

But they aren't targeting ISIS - Russia have been bombing the Syrian rebels mainly, not ISIS.

According to whom?

And does it matter if they are? They're all foreign terrorists anyway.

Edited by 433: 6/11/2015 02:55:55 PM

Who gives a shit if they have democracy or not?

The best part is that within 100 years time, there will be so few conservatives left in the country that we can put them all on Tasmania and just turn them into a 24 hour reality TV show, "Life in the 18th century".

ISIS and Boko have killed more muslims than any other religious group haven't they?

Im not saying he should have gone harder....neither here or there...Im just saying what Obama would've done in response.