Palestinians long search for justice. A short history about a very long struggle.

This is a very short history of a very long and ongoing  problem.

The current humanitarian crisis in Gaza is the result of many questionable and often deceitful actions by individuals and western governments over many years. In fact, it all started nearly four thousand years ago when Moses led the Israelites out of their captivity in Egypt. After forty years wandering in the wilderness, Moses finally arrived in the land of Canaan and told his people that God had given them this land. It was their “Promised Land.” Over several  Milenia Canaan became Palestine.

There was no Jewish invasion or dispossession of the indigenous people of Canaan. The Israelis just set up homes in that area and tended their farm animals and crops and mingled with the people already living there. They flourished. In time the Israelis became a dominant social and religious force in that area.

Then the Romans came and ruled over their land, leading to much unrest and finally revolt. Eventually, in 70 AD, the Romans destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem became a Roman city. The great Jewish diaspora began, spreading the Jewish people throughout Europe.

The first World War of 1914-18 had a huge influence on subsequent Jewish/Palestinian history. In 1916, Britain and France signed the secret Sykes-Picoult Treaty (with Russian approval). This treaty was a mutual agreement to divide the Arab lands between Britain and France when the war ended.

At the same time, Britain wanted to defeat the Ottoman Empire, centred in Turkey, that had joined Germany in the Great War. In an effort to get Arab leaders to join the allies in fighting the Ottoman Empire, Britain told them that after the war they would be given national sovereignty.

In 1917, to get British banks to support the war effort, Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour wrote to powerful British Banker, Lord Rothschild, telling him, among other things, that when the war was over Palestine could be “a national home for the Jewish people.”

Did someone say, “Perfidious Albion?”

Between the WW1 and WW2 efforts continued to find a Jewish homeland. In 1939 there was even an attempt to purchase 7 million acres of land in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. The state premier, John Willcock, was keen. So was the Durack family which owned the land. Discussions were conducted before newly appointed Prime Minister, John Curtin, skittled the idea.

In the Holocaust of World War 2, the Jewish people suffered unspeakable misery and death as the Nazis attempted to exterminate them. People in many countries were sympathetic to Jewish refugees as long as they did nor settler in their country. In 1946, Jewish refugees throughout Europe were seeking a new homeland. Palestine seemed the most likely place. After all, God had given it to them over three thousand years ago. They flooded in to Palestine through the port of Haifa. 

 Aneurin Bevan was the British Foreign Minister charged with the administration of  British mandated Palestine. Two years after the end of WW2, Bevan, along with the British people, was frustrated and angry that British soldiers were being killed in Palestine by Jewish activists and terrorist organisations such as the Stern Gang. Frustrated,  Bevan eventually said he would not allow any more Jewish refugees to land at Haifa. At the same time, US President, Harry Truman, was saying that a Jewish homeland in Palestine seemed like a good idea.

Far away in the Kremlin, Josef Stalin noted this apparent rift between his two implacable enemies. Stalin had previously not allowed anyone, including Jews, to migrate out of Russia. Stalin's view was that you worked for Mother Russia or you died. However, Stalin saw a great opportunity to force a wedge between  his two enemies, the UK and the USA. He allowed over 700 000 Jews to migrate to Palestine. Not only that, through Czechoslovakia he provided arms and ammunition to the refugees. Israel successfully used these weapons  in fighting to establish an Israeli state and in the subsequent 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war.

After two thousand years, Jews from all over Europe flooded it to their “promised land.” With huge numbers of Jewish refugees now pouring in to Palestine, the UK told the United Nations that it could use a part Palestine to establish a Jewish Free State. (The Balfour Declaration). This was very generous of the Britain, considering Palestine was not Britain's to give. However, western governments   deemed it  to be a very satisfactory situation  because it gave the homeless Jews a homeland. Naturally, Paslestinians were not happy because the Jewish homeland had been their homeland for thousands of years.

In 1948 the United Nations partitioned Palestine, giving 56% of it to the Jews to form the free state of Irael, populated by people from all around the globe. Their ancestors had not lived on that land since biblical times but they were happy to claim it as their land. The State of Israel gave civil rights to Jews. Unfortunately, there were no such rights for the Palestinians who now found themselves in living in their homeland which had suddenly become a foreign country. Palestinians protested but their land was given away. A fundamental mistake was made 80 years ago  when  the United Nations did not establish  a Palestinian Free State at the same time as Israel was founded.

In 1948, 750 000 Palestinians were forced to leave their former homeland, leaving their property and possessions behind.  The 1948/9 Arab/Israeli war enabled Israel to acquire 78% of Palestine. In the war of 1967 Israel acquired the West Bank, The Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. It gave the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt in 1979. Today Israel, in contravention of United Nations rulings,  controls just about 100% of what was Palestine and has established Jewish settlements on those occupied land.

Naturally, the Palestinian people who, over the last 100 years, have been lied to, tricked, cheated and dispossessed of their homeland, are angry at the way they have been treated. As if they have no rights o the land they have always lived on. Understandably they do not place much trust in western powers in their quest for Justice. 

At present Israel is attacking Hamas because of the atrocities it commited in October 2024 and because Hamas till holds Jewish hostages. In waging war on Hamas, Israel has almost obliterated Gaza, the last Palestinian territory which is now a heaving sea of human despair. There are some who believe the Israeli government would be quite happy if all the Palestinians left Gaza and went to live somewhere else. Indeed, two Israeli government ministers have stated that is their objective.                                      It would a most unjust outcome for Palestinians who had more than half of the homeland taken from them and then suffered the loss of the rest of it. Justice is not delivered by the philosophy of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." As somebody once said that philosophy will only lead to a land of blind and toothless people.

The past is the past and cannot easily be undone.  There must be justice for the Palestinians who have been treated shamefully. Because of that shameful treatment, some Palestinians  have also behaved shamefully. The retaliation must cease on both sides and Justice must be given to the Palestinians.

 Justice will only come if the Palestinians and the Arab states recognise Israel as a fait accompli, despite its unnatural birth and the displacement of the indigenous Palestinians. Justice will only come if Israel surrenders the occupied territories  on which it has built many illegal settlements.. Perhaps the Israelis could remember that the Palestinians lost  56% of their land in 1948. It may give Israelis a greater understanding as to why most Palestinians are still aggrieved at the loss of their homeland. The illegal Jewish settlements on this currently occupied land will be a huge obstacle. But it could be solved if the State of Israel and a new State of  Palestine had constitutions not based on religious beliefs but on the premise that all citizens are equal. It's not a new concept!

The day I sang at the Burswood Resort.

The day I sang at the Burswood Resort.

The Burswood Resort Hotel and Crown Casino is a world class recreation and entertainment centre in Perth. In August 2000, I appeared on the stage of the Burswood Resort’s large theatre. In fact, I appeared  on that stage and also in the very spacious Ballroom One for three days. It was in that very large ballroom that I sang to about 400 hundred people.

How did it happen? Well, it’s a short story. However, you know me. Why tell a short story when you can make it much, much  longer. I developed this “short story into long story” habit when I was writing articles for newspapers. They paid by the word, so I would turn a 700 word story into a 1200 word story and wait for the cheque to arrive. Unfortunately, the Features Editor would turn my 1200 word story into a 600 word story with a cheque to match, But, Of course, that’s another story.

 In April 2000, I was Principal at Doubleview Primary School. I was also a member of the Western Australian Primary Principals’ Association. I had been a member of WAPPA since 1982. I also used to write articles for WAPPA’s quarterly magazine, which was rather blandly titled WORDS. Some of my stories were of an educational nature but others were fanciful and whimsical observations of life. At least I thought so!

I was also the Chairman of the Swanbourne Chapter of the Primary Principals’ Association. I was proud of this because, without boasting too much, I had been responsible for establishing the first metropolitan chapter of WAPPA. It was actually the Scarborough Chapter when it was first formed but one day the District Director phoned and said Doubleview School was now in the Swanbourne District. It was quite a moving experience, even though I stayed sitting in my chair in Doubleview on the end of a phone call.

Co-incidentally, the very first chapter of WAPPA was established in Albany a few years earlier by a principal named Noel Strickland, who had been young student at Tranby Primary School when I was teaching there in the late 1960s.  I am not absolutely certain, but there are now about 30 WAPPA Chapters in metropolitan and rural areas. So, it is true! From little things, big things grow.

Moving on. In April 2000, I received a phone call from a fellow primary principal, Alan Beard. Alan told me he was on the WAPPA Conference Committee and said the committee wanted to know if I would be available to be the  MC at WAPPA’s annual conference at the Burswood Resort Hotel in August.

Wow! The WAPPA Conference was huge! I had written several stories for WAPPA . I had even been the featured speaker at two WAPPA Welcoming Dinners, which in those days were held at the South of Perth Yacht Club at the beginning of each year to welcome Principals new to the metropolitan area to WAPPA. But MC at a three-day WAPPA Conference? That was a giant leap for me. I asked if I could speak with  the committee and talk about it. Alan said that was a good idea and I attended the committee’s May meeting.

Despite my misgivings, the organising committee felt I was the person for the job. I must point out that since its inception in the early 1970s, the MC duties the Annual WAPPA Conference had usually been performed by the president of the association. Early conferences were held in places like the Belmont Racecourse function room, Mt Lawley Teachers College Hall and a large function hall at the University of WA. However, as WAPPA’s membership grew it became financially viable in the early 1990s to hold conferences in the Sheraton Hotel. Conferences became bigger and bigger. In order to free up the WAPPA president for the many of duties and tasks that came his way during conference, it was decided that each year the committee would appoint a primary principal to do the job. It seems that in 2000 it was my turn. When I asked what my job was, I was told that I would introduce each key speaker and at the conclusion of their presentation I would thank them very much and make some brief references to their witty, wise, informative, educational, instructive or illuminating contribution. No mention of how to respond to a deadly dull and boring presentation.                                                                                    The theme of the 2000 Conference was “Worth Fighting For”. Everyone at that conference agreed that primary education was worth fighting for. I accepted the position of Conference MC based on the committee’s confidence that I could do the job

Which how I came to be on the stage of the Burswood Hotel Resort one day in August introducing The Honourable Colin Barnett, the Minister for Education and later Premier of Westen Australia. One thing I quickly learned at this conference was that I had to stay alert and mindful of what each speaker was saying because, when it ended, I had to give a concise, erudite and, if possible, witty response. Being alert and mindful a conference was not my usual Modus Operandi.

Responding to Minister Barnett was easy because he was so well informed about his education portfolio and a very experienced speaker with an interesting delivery. The following speaker, however, was a different kettle of fish. This speaker, whom I shall call Mr Smith because that is definitely not his name, was the owner of a large manufacturing business and one of the sponsors of the conference. Obviously, when he asked if he could make a presentation the committee readily agreed. Why risk a sponsor’s substantial financial contribution.

From the outset, Mr Smith announced that he was not a public speaker but he had a great interest in education. He also said that he knew some  people would not understand his message and he would not be offended if they left the theatre during his talk. I should have left straight away.  

I did not really follow all of Mr Smith’s arguments but the gist of it seemed to be that being a school principal was a very important and exceedingly  arduous task. No doubt the theatre full of principals agreed with him. However, after that he launched into a lengthy narrative about his own life and the difficulties he encountered along the way and every day. Some people were leaving the theatre. As Mr Smith started talking about all of the problems other people have in a whole variety of jobs, more and more people started leaving.

Eventually, Mr Smith concluded his talk and it was my task to succinctly summarise what he had said. I did not really have any idea what he had said. I thanked Mr Smith for his contribution and told the remaining principals that Mr Smith’s presentation reminded me of a game of golf I had played a few years ago. With two friends, I was about to hit off on the first tee when a gentleman approached. He asked if we could make it a foursome rather than he playing by himself after we had teed off. We reluctantly agreed and then hit our balls down the fairway. The gentleman stepped up, addressed the ball and took an almighty swing. He missed the ball but the wind from  his swing  dislodged it and it dribbled bout 20 centimetres from of the tee. Unabashed, he picked the ball up, placed it on the tee and had another go. He topped the ball. It bounced and rolled about thirty metres before stopping just a few metres in front of the  Ladies’ Tee. The four of us set off and then waited while the stranger took out a fairway wood and addressed the ball. This time he made good contact. The ball went straight down the fairway for fifty metres and then sliced sharply to the right and disappeared into the well wooded rough. As we set off to try and find his missing ball the stranger slammed his fairway wood back into his golf bag and said, “Gee, this is one of the toughest golf courses I’ve ever played on.” A few people laughed, The others were either not golfers or were fast asleep.

I am very happy to say that the rest  of the conference, in my opinion at least, went quite well. However, by Day Three, having to concentrate on each keynote speaker’s every word  had made me quite weary. At lunch on that final day, I gave some thought as to  how I would conclude my conference career. I had a joke I thought I could use but it was, shall we say, a trifle delicate in mixed company, as it mentioned the word Penis.

However, during that final afternoon session one of the speakers dropped the word penis into his presentation. OK. I thought, if the distinguished professor can say it, so can I. And an about ninety minutes later I did!

So, after about 1500 words, we finally approach my fifteen minutes of fame  at Burswood Crown Casino Resort. “Ladies and gentlemen,” I proclaimed, “we are coming to end of a wonderful conference that showed us that Primary Education really is worth fighting for! However, before I hand over to the President of WAPPA for his closing remarks, I would like to share just a few thoughts of my own. I was not going to make these remarks because they use the word penis. However, as one of our wonderful keynote speakers has used this word today, I feel free to carry on.

“I want to tell you about a man who was sitting eating his breakfast. He worked in the local pickle factory. His wife was busy at the sink when he said, “You know, sometimes at work I get as great urge to put my penis into the pickle slicer.”

“ ‘You what?’ exclaimed his wife. “ ‘You’re sick. You should see a therapist.’”

“ ‘Oh, no need for that, ’” he replied. “’ I have very strong self-control. It will never happen.’”

“A week later, his wife returned home from the shopping at about 11-30 am and, to her great surprise, she  found her husband slumped in a lounge room chair. He looked stunned and shell shocked.”

“What’s wrong? Why are you home so early? Are you ill?’” asked his concerned wife.

“ ‘I don’t know how it happened. I couldn’t help myself.’” He replied. “ ‘I put my penis in the pickle slicer.’”

“ ‘You what?’” cried his wife. “Well, what happened then?’”

  “’They gave me the sack.’”                         

“ ‘Gave you the sack. But…but…she stammered as she  pointed to her lower abdomen, “‘But…but, what about the business with the pickler slicer?’”

“’ Oh, they gave her the sack, too.’”

This joke was well received. I told the audience that  my  story showed that whether we are at a conference, talking with colleagues or our staff or the parents at school, or even our spouses, we must try very hard to make sure that when someone is telling  us something we should make sure what we think they are telling  to us is  actually the same thing as what they think they are telling us.

I then informed the conference that I was going to sing my closing remarks. Before there was any clamour for me to rethink, I hastened to add that I had once sung in the Paris Opera House, “Yes,” I said reassuringly. “ Two years ago, my wife and I took the opportunity, one afternoon, to wander through the Paris Opera House. There was no performance and when we were on the balcony of the Dress Circle, I noticed that there were no other people in the place. I leaned forward over the balcony railing and sang, “Do Mi So Doh.” The Tonic Solfa!                            The only clapping was my wife clapping her arms around me and dragging me away from the balcony rail.

My conference audience, suitably impressed, or perhaps stunned, remained silent.                                “My song to close this conference came to me in a flash of inspiration during lunch today. At least the words did. The music is by the American composer Stephen Foster, called “Beautiful Dreamer” which if you will pardon me for saying so, often reminds me of Slim Dusty’s Pub With Know Beer. After taking a very deep breath I launched into:-

“Wonderful conference, we have enjoyed, by various speakers we’ve been uplifted and buoyed.                 But now it's time, as our conference ends, for us to say sadly, ‘Farewell’ to old friends.'                             Wonderful conference, Oh thank you, WAP-PA. We’re going back to places, near and far.                          At least when we get there, we’ll know what’s worth fighting for.                                                                Wonderful conference, we thank you once more.                                                                                          Wonderful conference, Oh thank you, WAP-PA.”

I stepped down from the stage to spontaneous applause. To this day there are some who argue that  fifty per cent of those present were not applauding my singing but the fact that I had stopped.

The Aftermath. I can say that I was the very last primary principal ever to be asked to be the  MC an Annual WAPPA Conference. In 2001, the conference committee, in its wisdom, paid for a professional presenter to be the MC. His name was Glen Capelli. He was excellent. Not only that, he was an ex-pupil of Doubleview Primary School and spoke with great affection of his school days at that school. As do I. 

This is the second Blog story I have written about the WAPPA Conference. My earlier story was titled  Red Wine is a Health Hazard. By clicking on the link you may find out why I found it much more fun being a conference delegate rather a conference MC. Although I am rather  proud of the fact that I was the last Primary Principal to perform that role. After me, they broke the mould.

Leadership is not the use of bullying force!

The Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, expressed his admiration for Donald Trump’s leadership after  Trump's  sneak bombing raid on Iran.. No doubt Mr Rutte also admires Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and  Admiral Yamamoto, all of whom were well practised in art of the sneak attacks. 

Rutte gushed that Trump's strong action was "Truly extraordinary" and added that it "makes us all safer". He then qualified himself for the Brown Nosed, Obsequious Sychophant Gold Medal for 2025 with his pitiful, "Daddy uses strong language" when referring to Trump's F Bomb outburst at a press conference. He had earlier referred to Trump as Daddy saying that like a good Daddy, Trump had watched two little  boys fighting, had let them fight for a while and then stepped in to stop the fight. 

This cringe worthy comment from the Secretary general of NATO is appalling. Does Mr Ruppe not understand that his "two boys fighting" analogy actually caused the deaths of many thousands of men, women and totally innocent children.

NATO's Secretary General was probably very well briefed that the only way the speak to Trump is by being effusively sychophantic. He did so to perfection...or was that to the point of nausea?

Rutte's gushing flattery of Trump was certainly taken up worldwide bthe Murdoch's rancid media and  other right wing newspaper. The editor of the conservative West Australian newspaper, Christophe Dore,  even suggested that Australia's Prime Minister , Anthony Albanese, should adopt similar obsequious language to  obtain a visit with President Trump. Most Australians are appalled at Trump's off hand and disrespectful behaviour towards Australia. We  al lwant Mr Albanerse to steer well clear of Trump for as long as possible.

To cite Trump's sneak attack on Iran as a highpoint in political leadership is absurd. Leadership is not only the ability to use massive force. Leadership requires wisdom and a great deal of courage.

In October, 1962, President Kennedy was confronted by his National Security Advisor, McGeorge Bundy, and the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, Curtis Le May. They showed Kennedy pictures of missile silos being  erected in Cuba by Russian Premier, Nikita Khruschev.

LeMay, a well-known hardliner, enthusiastically urged the president to act swiftly, saying that that he could have US fighter aircraft over Cuba in fifteen minutes and completely obliterating the missile sites.

President Kennedy, who had fought with distinction in World War 2,  replied, “Are there any other options?” Le May was astounded and angry that Kennedy did not order an immediate bombing attack.

History tells us that there were other options. Thanks to the leadership of a courageous and wise US President, a major world nuclear conflict, which could have been the end of civilisation as we know it, was avoided. Not a bomb was dropped, not a life was lost. That is leadership!

 

Murdoch's media loses potency. Oh, How Sweet It Is?

Is the Murdoch Media Empire in Decline? If so, how sweet it is. Murdoch and other very conservative media slammed Anthony Albanese and the Labor Party for 12 months prior to the Federal election. At the same time they massaged Peter Dutton and the LNP Opposition.

Result! A resounding victory for Albanese and the  Labor Party and a crushing defeat for the Liberal Party and its leader Peter Dutton, who lost his own seat in the debacle.                                                      Is it the beginning of the end of a crumbling Murdoch media empire?

Nicole Chvasta, writing online in The Politics, has taken a scalpel to the Murdoch Media and its major role in almost destroying the Liberal Party which was soundly thrashed by labor in the may 3rd Federal Election. 

Here is just one memorable quote from her forensic analysis of the toxic Murdoch media.

"Remarkably, after cheer leading the Liberals to disaster on May 3, The Australian national newspaper  leapt back up onto its feet to brush off its flesh wound and lecture the Coalition on “missing the warnings”

Nicole  quotes a paragraph from The Australian following Albanese's monumental election victory.         "Of all the mistakes that led to this result, one was fatal: the untested assumption that Labor was out of touch and unaligned with the mainstream values of Australians. There can be no other interpretation that that this is fundamentally wrong.”

Nicole then adds, "This from the paper that tells us pretty much every day that Labor is out of touch and unaligned with the mainstream values of Australians." Like Pontius Pilate, Murdoch's media is washing its hands of the huge LNP  defeat even though it never once during the campaign highlighted any of "the messages" Dutton was missing.

In Western Australia we had the same slanted message from our only daily newspaper, the Kerry Stokes owned West Australian. For the last 18 months, the West's editor, Christopher Dore, has been telling us that Australians think Albanese is on the nose, that Peter Dutton is  a strong leader with a nuclear vision for Australia's energy future. 

Could Saturday's thumping victory  for Labor be the start of the decline of Murdoch and Stokes' power to influence voters? Let us hope so. Murdoch and Stokes have dominated public opinion for many years with their  heavy bias towards the Liberal/National Party Coalition. Not just in their editorials. Many journalists are obviously instructed by their editors to praise the Right and bag the Left. Their Letters to the Editor pages are always filled with Anti Labor messages from a coterie of regular conservative correspondents.

Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating was not expected to win the 1993 federal election. He did so quite comfortably. Late in the evening on Polling Day, Keating mounted the stage at Labor Party headquarters, looked straight at the camera and said,  "This is the sweetest victory of all."The crowd went wild. As you do when you enjoy an unexpected win. Perhaps  Mr Albanese, after the unexpected and  massive landslide victory, could copy a line from Jackie Gleason who kept telling us all "How sweet it is!"

On May 3rd, opinions were divided as to the result.. The Murdoch/Stokes media were constantly telling us Anthony Albanese was a weak leader and on the nose with voters. .Peter Dutton, the right wing media told us, was a strong leader of the Liberal/National coalition  and had all the answers to inflation, cost of living pressures and an energy programme to combat fossil fuel emissions with his nuclear energy plan. Albeit, that nuclear energy plan was not going to come on stream for about twenty years.

Albanese and Dutton had four TV debates. In each of these Peter Dutton ridiculed Albanese for being weak, a liar and unfit to be Prime Minister. Albanese, taking a leaf out of arch conservative, Margaret Thatcher's debating tips, refused to engage in personal vilification. He told Dutton that resorting to personal insults was not what the voters wanted to hear. They wanted information on policies and what the future was going to look like. That was very good advice which Dutton ignored. Albanese also gave us one of the few memorable quotes of the campaign, "Kindness is not a weakness." No, sir. Sometimes, it takes real courage to show kindness.

According to the earlier polls, Dutton would have won a federal election held 12 months ago. However, as the election loomed ever closer, the polls began to say that Albanese and Labor were now more likely to win. Most people said Labor would win the most seats but not enough to govern  in its own right. It would be a Hung Parliament and labor would have to negotiate with minor parties on the crossbench in order to govern.

It is fair to say everyone thought the May 3rd poll would be close. Listening  to ABC Radio of the morning of the election, the radio presenter introduced Karen Middleton as a senior journalist who had covered many elections.The presenter asked Karen how she thought the voting would go. Well Karen is an experienced journalist but like almost everybody, including the two party leaders, she did not have clue. She told the ABC presenter and the listening audience, that it was possible that Labor could win the most seats but in a hung parliament. Then she added that Labor may win  a majority of seats and be able to form a government in its own right.  Just to cover all the options, Karen then said that it was also possible that Peter Dutton could win a majority of seats in a hung parliament. I was waiting for her to say 'And the cow could jump over the Moon". but the presenter thanked her and switched to another topic.

Well, as we now know, the result was an absolute triumph for Labor. Despite Murdoch and Stokes' media's  low  opinions of Anthony Albanese, he was not on the nose with Australian voters. Quite the reverse . 

It is usual for a party going for its second election to to lose a few seats. Albanese's Labor party s won more than double the seats of its main opposition. An unprecedented electoral victory in which the main Labor opponents, Peter Dutton (Liberal leader) and Adam Bant (Greens leader) both lost their seats.

Given the Murdoch/Stokes media's wholehearted support for Peter Dutton and their  pointed barbs directed at Labor and Albanese, perhaps we can at last say that the Murdoch/Stokes Media monopoly is no longer a powerful force in forming voters' opinions.

As I watched the count and saw Labor winning more and more seats I thought of my late cousins, Raymond and Maurie Carr, and my great friend, the late Sean Walsh. In earlier Labor triumphs in years gone by, I had been on the phone to them or at their houses, luxuriating in a political rarity in Australia, a Labor Party electoral victory.

I also thought fondly of Gough Whitlam, the reforming. progressive Prime Minister, who in three short years gave us so many of things we enjoy in Australia today. From 1972, Whitlam had to battle  an LNP conytrolled senate that had been elected three years or more before. These conservative senators thought reform and modernisation was tantamount to treason. They also believed that the Liberal National Party Coalition had a God given right to govern and were Born to Rule."                                                          They blocked Whitlam's election agenda. After eighteen months, Whitlam called a Double Dissolution of both houses. He won the election and as allowed by the Constitution, held  a joint sitting of both houses to pass bills like Universal Health Care, Equal Pay for Equal Work, One Vote-One Value, No fee Universities. No Fault Divorce, Cheaper Daycare. He got those and other bills passed but the Senate still refused to pass his newer legislation. It made no difference to the  LNP  senate that Whitlam had just won a second election that endorsed his policies.The LNP Senate dominace by the way came about because in defiance of all parliamentary conventions since Federation, state LNP governments replaced retiring Labor Senators with non Labor people.

At the same time The  Governor General, John Kerr, who was constitutionally required to take advice only from the Prime Minister, started taking advice from  two justices of the High Court, from  Michael Heseltine,  the Queen's Private Secretary and even from  a malevelent Malcolm Fraser, who was now leading the LNP opposition on an all out war to get rid of Whitlam and his government.

To make matters worse, News media mogul Rupert Murdoch turned against Whitlam. Murdoch had supported Whitlam in 1972. However, when Whitlam refused to appoint Murdoch as Australia's High Commissioner to Great Britain, Murdoch was furious. He instructed his various editors to "Kill Whitlam", Murdoch's media spread vicious, sensational and untrue stories about various ministers in the Whitlam government.                                                                                                                                    When the Senate blocked Supply, Whitlam went to the Governor Genral to request a half senate election to break the deadlock. Before Whitlam could make this request, Kerr, on the advice of his many Liberal Party  advisers, sacked him. He then appointed Malcom Fraser as the caretaker Prime Minister, even though Fraser did not have a majority in the House.                                                                                        Whitlam had been stabbed in the back by a derelict and egotistical Governor General and a tough as nails opposition leader who had not the slightest trouble breaking all sorts of Parliamentary conventions in order to gain political power. Fraser easily won that political power at the next election. Voter were turned of Whitlam,  thanks mainly to the poisonous media of Rupert Murdoch and because they had  tired of the frenetic political scene of the past three years.                                                                            I am certain that wherever he is today, Gough Whitlam gleefully watched Labor's annihilation of the Liberal Party and the impotence of the Murdoch/Stokes media to influence voter's opinions.                    No doubt Gough  proclaimed in imperious tones, "Men and Women of Australia! How sweet it is".          Oh, yes indeed!