it’s not. and it can’t be- the people aren’t up to it.

i don’t think it’s genetic, there are flashes of democratic character,

but growing up in a society that has always been ruled from above, has never

managed itself, shapes the mind and character, so that most can not conceive

of the possibility of self-rule, or even the advantages that might accrue.

constructing a new constitution? did you get howard’s permission? mate,

substantive changes in fundamental law happen when the current alpha male

wants them, or through revolution. not done here, either one.

Simply not true. I was censored explicitly on that infamous thread just before cs spat the dummy.

Sure.

Are we in general on the cusp of some very new substantial developments

We may be. In terms of recognition for constitutional change the last period like this was the 1850s. Queensland formalised their constitution into a single document in 2001 (though with no innovations). South Australia held a constitutional convention a couple of years ago and the republican referendum sprouted a round of conventions and discussion on constitutionalism too.

The second half of the 20thC has seen the parties get more efficient in their operations, particularly holding onto power, and that has gone hand in hand with centralising power. The size of government and a party’s control over government has also increased in that time – so their is more money to be politicised and more government that can meet a political end.

I don’t think those conditions will change anytime soon. If anything it appears that the a unitary national government will dominate and the states will be abolished. All the parties at the federal level support it.

But to share this before the end-play fact – that is, as developments occur – serves to throw considerable light on further issues as they develop. That perspective is immensely valuable. It indeed serves to enlighten. Many thanks to all involved, in this important year.

Would you consider taking the bull by the horns and posing the pros and cons of a gubernatorial system as you see it?

Perhaps in time ahead that could be melded into a discussion regarding federalism, overall.

Still, the NSW election is really quite interesting juxtaposed with our upcoming federal election. ..So many years in power, struck through with failings of incumbency, strong desire that much of it not remain the same, similar urgency to not rock the boat at the same time that such rocking would be worse, uninspired players relegated to participants – that is, no real as required leadership – and a system which promulgates all of that. And a heap more besides.

It’s fascinating in your charts to see which leaders stayed on and which got the boothing boot. I wonder if what we also need is a line graph – but one to be written. Would it be of value to also bring up the notion that the ’system’ has evolved in workings otherwise: ie, media ownership, news grabs, internet, marketing in its considerably different forms, such that the graph of boothing history in leadership wins and losses itself is about to change. That is, the the graph is about to take a plunge or a hike, throwing all things into a whole new perspective?

Are we in general on the cusp of some very new substantial developments or is it that history is to repeat itself, with but a new way of doing so? New developments and new channels changing the nature and power of the voice, or same old.. and ever changing delivery as it always was?

Dunno. I’m often torn by how history repeats itself, and how it shoves forth to write itself anew.

Great stuff, apposite, to throw up NSW in the way you have.

Sam, if you don’t like Chris Sheil’s writing then don’t read his posts. Try going over to Tim Blair’s blog and see how far you get complaining that he is a Liberal party spin doctor (as he manifestly is). Your comment would be censored into the bin by Andrea Harris before it even hit the deck. No-one is lassooing your eyeballs AFAIK. I think it’s good to have a diversity of approaches, opinions and styles. Chris obviously has a different style from me or Nicholas etc, but I’m really pleased that he’s back and blogging occasionally. Clearly lots of people agree, because his posts are generating lots of comments. The comment threads may well contain much more heat than light, but it seems that lots of people just want the opportunity for a bit of tub thumping.

A lot of it has to do with the subject matter of a post too. If you blog about the hot political issue of the day (in this case Rudd/Burke) as cs tends to do, then the comment thread is inevitably going to be fairly polarised, heated and not always especially noteworthy for thoughtful, considered discussion. That’s even more true on LP or Catallaxy or Blair, because they tend to attract (to a great extent deliberately) people who are very much of the same mind. That still isn’t true of Troppo, and hopefully never will be. As Chris Lloyd observed, whyisitso, Joe Cambria, Yobbo, Currency Lad, Kevin Schnaper and many other right-leaning commenters contribute here regularly without any censorhip or moderation whatever. I draw the line at whathisface Bird, because he seems incapable of avoiding continual unpleasant personal abuse, but I can’t recall a single occasion in the more than 4 years this blog has been operating (in one guise or another) when any person has been censored or moderated because of the content of their opinion (as opposed to because the comment was excessively abusive, defamatory, grossly repetitive, or grossly off-topic).

Why do you allow your blog to be used by a Labor spin doctor who belittles any of your readers who don’t agree with him?

The last time he blogged here he destroyed this blog. Nothing is going to different this time it seems.

You talk of corruption but the corruption in the US puts ours in the shade (even in Qld) and the main reason would be our strong parties.

Hey if you guys need to gain some credibility, I can point you to a site where you can steal copyrighted photographs of Japanese models…