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.