Edited 22 Jun 2019 17:20, 2 years ago, edited by Valvegear

So in summary

1) Kerr sacked Whitlam for running an incompetent govt and invited Fraser to be the PM

2) There was an election shortly after

3) Fraser won by the so called landslide thus the people rubber stamped Kerr

4) Many union leaders and others didn't accept that the people's vote didn't support Kerr and took their vengeance out on Kerr personally and he was forced to leave the country for which the should have equally taken to the airport and told to leave.

Kerr could not sack Whitlam on the grounds of a so-called incompetent government. Kerr's only Constitutional reason was that the government could not guarantee supply. This was still speculation, because supply had not run out, and the Senate had not voted on the Appropriation Bills. Kerr should have exercised his prerogative and requested ( he could not demand) that the Senate bring the Bills to a vote.

Then, what followed was a landslide to Fraser due to two factors; (a) Yes; voters were fed up with the Labor government which did make silly mistakes. It was also hamstrung by a hostile Senate in which Senator Reg Withers ( aka The Toecutter) made no bones about about trying any means to get the ALP out, and (b) many people expressed the view that the government "must have done something wrong" for Kerr to dismiss it. This latter point is not speculation; I heard it and read it everywhere.

The affair was a triumph for Kerr, Fraser and Withers. It was also no secret that the US Ambassador and some of his colleagues in Washington, desperately wanted Whitlam out.

The bottom line was that Fraser knew how to handle Kerr, and Whitlam didn't. Kerr was a very vain man, and was consumed with the importance of his office which he regarded as powerful rather than ceremonial. He expressed this view to many foreign leaders in various visits to him or by him. Whitlam continually expressed the view, in public, that the Governor General must act upon the advice of his Ministers, and this got vertically up Kerr's nose. On the other hand, Fraser knew how to scratch Kerr's back.

It is significant that Fraser took office in November 1975, and Kerr's tenure finished on 8 December 1977. In other words, Kerr was not offered a second term. Fraser wasn't stupid; he used Kerr but he sure wouldn't trust him.
Instead, the office was taken up by an excellent choice; Sir Zelman Cowen, the universally respected former Dean of the Faculty of Law in the University of Melbourne.

Kerr was also widely known to give the Scotch bottle a good work out pretty frequently. There is one recorded instance of him wandering out of Admiralty House in the dead of night, and bashing on the door of Kirribilli House next door, looking for more booze. His final performance was the 1977 Melbourne Cup where he was to present the cup to the winner. He was as full as a boarding house pisspot, and the presentation was a farce. He departed the scene a month later and nobody from either side of politics was sorry to see him go.

Edited 22 Jun 2019 17:05, 2 years ago, edited by Valvegear

So in summary

1) Kerr sacked Whitlam for running an incompetent govt and invited Fraser to be the PM

2) There was an election shortly after

3) Fraser won by the so called landslide thus the people rubber stamped Kerr

4) Many union leaders and others didn't accept that the people's vote didn't support Kerr and took their vengeance out on Kerr personally and he was forced to leave the country for which the should have equally taken to the airport and told to leave.

Kerr could not sack Whitlam on the grounds of a so-called incompetent government. Kerr's only Constitutional reason was that the government could not guarantee supply. This was still speculation, because supply had not run out, and the Senate had not voted on the Appropriation Bills. Kerr should have exercised his prerogative and requested ( he could not demand) that the Senate bring the Bills to a vote.

Then, what followed was a landslide to Fraser due to two factors; (a) Yes; voters were fed up with the Labor government which did make silly mistakes. It was also hamstrung by a hostile Senate in which Senator Reg Withers ( aka The Toecutter) made no bones about about trying any means to get the ALP out, and (b) many people expressed the view that the government "must have done something wrong" for Kerr to dismiss it. This latter point is not speculation; I heard it and read it everywhere.

The affair was a triumph for Kerr, Fraser and Withers. It was also no secret that the US Ambassador and some of his colleagues in Washington, desperately wanted Whitlam out.

The bottom line was that Fraser knew how to handle Kerr, and Whitlam didn't. Kerr was a very vain man, and was consumed with the importance of his office which he regarded as powerful rather than ceremonial. He expressed this view to many foreign leaders in various visits to him or by him. Whitlam continually expressed the view, in public, that the Governor General must act upon the advice of his Ministers, and this got vertically up Kerr's nose. On the other hand, Fraser knew how to scratch Kerr's back.

It is significant that Fraser took office in November 1975, and Kerr's tenure finished on 8 December 1977. In other words, Kerr was not offered a second term. Fraser wasn't stupid; he used Kerr but he sure wouldn't trust him.
instead, the office was taken up by an excellent choice; Sir Zelman Cowen, the universally respected former Dean of the Faculty of Law in the University of Melbourne.

Kerr was widely known to give the Scotch bottle a good work out pretty frequently. There is one recorded instance of him wandering out of Admiralty House in the dead of night, and bashing on the door of Kirribilli House next door, looking for more booze. His final performance was the 1977 Melbourne Cup where he was to present the cup to the winner. He was as full as a boarding house pisspot, and the presentation was a farce. He departed the scene a month later and nobody from either side of politics was sorry to see him go.

Edited 22 Jun 2019 17:01, 2 years ago, edited by Valvegear

So in summary

1) Kerr sacked Whitlam for running an incompetent govt and invited Fraser to be the PM

2) There was an election shortly after

3) Fraser won by the so called landslide thus the people rubber stamped Kerr

4) Many union leaders and others didn't accept that the people's vote didn't support Kerr and took their vengeance out on Kerr personally and he was forced to leave the country for which the should have equally taken to the airport and told to leave.

Kerr could not sack Whitlam on the grounds of a so-called incompetent government. Kerr's only Constitutional reason was that the government could not guarantee supply. This was still speculation, because supply had not run out, and the Senate had not voted on the Appropriation Bills. Kerr should have exercised his prerogative and requested ( he could not demand) that the Senate bring the Bills to a vote.

Then, what followed was a landslide to Fraser due to two factors; (a) Yes; voters were fed up with the Labor government which did make silly mistakes. It was also hamstrung by a hostile Senate in which Senator Reg Withers ( aka The Toecutter) made no bones about about trying any means to get the ALP out, and (b) many people expressed the view that the government "must have done something wrong" for Kerr to dismiss it. This latter point is not speculation; I heard it and read it everywhere.

The affair was a triumph for Kerr, Fraser and Withers. It was also no secret that the US Ambassador and some of his colleagues in Washington, desperately wanted Whitlam out.

The bottom line was that Fraser knew how to handle Kerr, and Whitlam didn't. Kerr was a very vain man, and was consumed with the importance of his office which he regarded as powerful rather than ceremonial. He expressed this view to many foreign leaders in various visits to him or by him. Whitlam continually expressed the view, in public, that the Governor General must act upon the advice of his Ministers, and this got vertically up Kerr's nose. On the other hand, Fraser knew how to scratch Kerr's back.

It is significant that Fraser took office in November 1975, and Kerr's tenure finished on 8 December 1977. In other words, Kerr was not offered a second term. Fraser wasn't stupid; he used Kerr but he sure wouldn't trust him. instead, the office was taken up by and excellent choice; Sir Zelman Cowen, the universally respected former Dean of the Faculty of Law in the University of Melbourne.

Edited 22 Jun 2019 16:52, 2 years ago, edited by Valvegear

So in summary

1) Kerr sacked Whitlam for running an incompetent govt and invited Fraser to be the PM

2) There was an election shortly after

3) Fraser won by the so called landslide thus the people rubber stamped Kerr

4) Many union leaders and others didn't accept that the people's vote didn't support Kerr and took their vengeance out on Kerr personally and he was forced to leave the country for which the should have equally taken to the airport and told to leave.

Kerr could not sack Whitlam on the grounds of a so-called incompetent government. Kerr's only Constitutional reason was that the government could not guarantee supply. This was still speculation, because supply had not run out, and the Senate had not voted on the Appropriation Bills. Kerr should have exercised his prerogative and requested ( he could not demand) that the Senate bring the Bills to a vote.

Then, what followed was a landslide to Fraser due to two factors; (a) Yes; voters were fed up with the Labor government which did make silly mistakes. It was also hamstrung by a hostile Senate in which Senator Reg Withers ( aka The Toecutter) made no bones about about trying any means to get the ALP out, and (b) many people expressed the view that the government "must have done something wrong" for Kerr to dismiss it. This latter point is not speculation; I heard it and read it everywhere.

The affair was a triumph for Kerr, Fraser and Withers. It was also no secret that the US Ambassador and some of his colleagues in Washington, desperately wanted Whitlam out.

The bottom line was that Fraser knew how to handle Kerr, and Whitlam didn't. Kerr was a very vain man, and was consumed with the importance of his office which he regarded as powerful rather than ceremonial. He expressed this view to many foreign leaders in various visits to him or by him. Whitlam continually expressed the view, in public, that the Governor General must act upon the advice of his Ministers, and this got vertically up Kerr's nose. On the other hand, Fraser knew how to scratch Kerr's back.