It would be interesting to see a list of Western governments that are generally agreed to have been effective after, say, their tenth year in office. I suspect it would be a fairly short one. But there are indications that the problem might fix itself. Fewer and fewer voters are 'rusted on' to a particular party any longer: more and more are showing themselves willing to make a rational assessment of the alternatives at election time. Faster turnover of governments may become the norm.

Personally I was appalled at the results of the NSW election. Who were the idiots who voted 19 Labor MPs back in?

yes JonJ, what are these people thinking, voting in anyone from the ALP after what has been done to the state. 19! Talk about rusted on voters, what on earth do they expect them to do, apart from poisoning each other.

Perhaps we should check before each election, are parties running because they have a plan for the state or country, or for themselves.

If there is nothing beyond winning an election apart from having a job as an MP, and nothing else - then we should not be voting for these people.

That's what we have now in the federal arena, a party who is government for themselves, not for the country 0 they have no plan never did have, beyond being in power, for power's sake.

I wonder if the opposition boycotted parliament, whether there would be any difference in the bile and vitriol they spew in the chamber, except I suspect they would start to attack each other. The coalition can be nasty too, but nothing like the hypocrisy and bitterness of the ALP.

I agree with the author, if the parties, particularly the ALP do not give up the news day driven management, they are useless to us - they are just a circus with no point, and occasionally even accidentally do something for the country, amongst the self interest driven debacles.

"are parties running because they have a plan for the state or country, or for themselves."

The ones without grand vision may be the less dangerous. It's the reformers who think they know how others lives should be lived who do the real damage. The others don't do as much damage, if we could curb the tendency to increase costs and to be seen to be doing something we might all have more peaceful lives.

Some people want government to govern, to reshape society (normally someone else's part of society though), to bring in grand visions (at someone else's expense), me I'd rather then do the least we can get away with and let the rest of us get on with it.

The track record of government getting it right is not all that impressive. The saying goes something like this - the scariest words in the english language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

Governments seem to be hell bent on outsourcing a lot of the big stuff that's traditionally been seen as their role so the real need for them becomes less and less.

R0bert

I'm with Jon J. Who are those fools? Anywho, what I find truly interesting about this article is the notion that courageous government is almost always put to the sword by the deep seated desire to hang onto power, at least until the travel gold card and pension is assured!

Human nature is obviously the root cause.

Parliamentary democracy permits all the shenanigans that give rise to this problem, though as we've seen last weekend it also provides the mechanism to end it fairly emphatically.

So, no real solution exists apart from what happens when people get truly annoyed with an incumbent government.

Compelling TV but all a bit tragic for the governed.

I'm with you RObert, the last thing we want is pollys with a vision. Those visions are always so bright they blind their owners to any & everything else they should see.

What I want is an inveterate brain picker. The only thing they need is enough common sense & savvy to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. You know the type, the one who can smell bull S at five miles, but will have a little listen to the "ratbag" who says that stomach ulcers are not caused by stress.

Just watching Tony I have seen him moderate some previous statements, which shows he's listening to advice, & picking up the points he believes are correct. I have hope for him.

I believe we gain nothing by leaving the same party in power for long periods of time. History shows that both parties suffer when this happens. After Mr. Menzies there were years of unstable government, the same as Mr. Howard left.

In NSW, the reason for Labor's long term was unattractive Oppositions. I have not seen any great love for Mr. O'Farrell, but if was impossible to vote one more time for Labor.

The Americans have it right on allowing a President only two terms.

Mr. Whitlam, the much maligned PM, faced two elections, economical downturn and hostile senate in three years. Many of the changes he introduced have stood the test of time. He probably bought more changes to our culture, beliefs and way of life than any other PM. Definitely more that Mr. Menzies did over his, I think sixteen years.

There are so many articles and threads going through the entrails of the NSW ALP at the moment, all seemingly offering different excuses or perspectives, which is good.

I only have one perspective and I intend posting it to all similar threads.

I cannot identify a single difference between the way the NSW ALP and the Federal Government operate. This fills my heart with joy as we will probably end up with the same result. Until then there is no upside.

Maybe when we mature as voters, we might be able to enhance our democracy. It would be wonderful if we reached the stage where we voted in a party that convinced us they had better policies than one that sets out to destroy their opponents.

We should be able to choose between the better of two options, not the lesser of two evils as today.

So JonJ wants a dictatorship.

A government looses not the opposition wins.

The labor only lasted as long as they did in NSW because the opposition was not up to the task, is it now? and will they run rough shod?

We can only have an effective government if there is a good and strong opposition.

There should be a limit on the numbers of times someone can stand for parliament say a few terms only otherwise we get members who may have never worked in the real world.

No. This author is just another labor love struck spinner.

He totally overlooks Howards 12 years and that he only lost because levvy kevvy lied about being 'howard light' and an economic conservative. The Liberal Government left office with a tremendous record and with things very much better off than when they arrived.

He overlooks the Menzies/Holt/Gorton/McMahon 23 years, which lost because of the 'It's time' factor and had Governed credibly and internal bickering was the principle cause. Again the country was much better off for their tenure.

He overlooks Qld and the Joh years, almost 20, and longer for the Coalition. And no one doubtd the achievements of thatmost effective group.

Sadly the Labor Party since Chifley hasn't any sort of record it can point to with pride, anywhere and usually they are dumped in a shellacking for poor preformances after a few short years in office.

sheeesh talk about rewriting history.

keith I wasn't around for the oldest of those governments but was around for Joh. They left office with some serious concerns to their main body of supporters. Joh had started only listening to his kitchen cabinet and ignoring voices that questioned decisions (it was not always like that). There was corruption that he wasn't willing to deal with for whatever reasons.

Howard went for Workchoices without taking it to an election and there were some genuine concerns about his willingness to deal responsibly with the AGW issue and other matters (saying sorry). It wasn't all good.

R0bert

RObert and it is my collection that Menzies done little for his long tenure in power. All I remember is what a recall as a stop go economy which led to years of stagnation. His greatest claim to glory was the length of time he remained in government.

Do not forget it was the post war years where many countries were going ahead in leaps and bounds with the post war rebuilding. We had record wool prices. Joh years ended in corruption, with him being lucky to avoid prison.

I believe that most governments do all the good they have to contribute in their first term. The second term is for bedding down. As time goes on the situation changes to all the energy being used to stay in power.

Long terms in government are not good in a democracy.

Flo,

Joh left a great legacy for Queenslanders and that has far outlived any taint of corruption which, in hindsight was really quite limited.

Robert,

Joh lost Brisbane, when the Liberals deserted the state coalition. Had that not have happened Joh would still be Premier. When the coalition win in Brisbane they win Queensland.

Both,

The Menzies/Holt/Gorton/ McMahon Government left a great legacy as did the Hawke/Keating Government, as did the Howard Government.

All were long-term governments ... that renewed.

It is hard to see how the same will be said about the Carr/Iemma, Rees/ Kennealy Labor Government.

Good article
It should be mandatory that parties can only do a maximum of two terms I agree with the previous blogger. That way pollies can concentrate on governing and not waste time on setting themselves up for another win.
Maybe we should rotate them at every election eh!