“But there’s also something sinister to it, especially with more states opting for longer, four-year terms. It’s this: never have so many voters been represented by leaders they’ve never checked or chosen. Is this democracy?”

I agree with his broader thesis that parties – the Labor party more specially given it is the only party to have held State government recently – do simulate change to freshen up their electoral appeal.

However, in asking rhetorically whether this is still democracy he ignores the fact that in all Australia states there is no direct election of a premier but rather the election of individual members who decide amongst themselves – more accurately amongst the members of the party with the majority of members in the upper house – who will be Premier.

No leader has been checked or chosen by the electors in a State as only those in the leader’s electorate can vote for him or her. So far all replacement leaders have already been members of parliament and so, therefore, have undergone the same scrutinty as the person they replace: elected by their local electorate.

Re: Unslowness – 3x fixed speed cameras in one weekend = The guys an unapologetic idiot looking for a pole to wrap himself around. Tosser

Andy: But a new technique for clinging to office is now embedded in our politics. Governments know they must give voters all the change once offered almost exclusively by Oppositions. They must change flagging leaders, so voters won’t change parties.

But there’s also something sinister to it, especially with more states opting for longer, four-year terms. It’s this: never have so many voters been represented by leaders they’ve never checked or chosen. Is this democracy?

As Andy admits in the same column: He was an advocate for swapping Howard for Costello to change the Lib’s fortunes.

When it’s Andy’s idea, it’s two thumbs up.

Of course, Andy makes the usual assumption that he’s a bit of a smarty pants and no ordinary voter is able to see through this little ruse.

yep and haven’t the sheep pushed that whole “your australian” line instead of acknowleging ethnic differences.

the thing about andy (and timmy) pushing the whole palin sliming by the left is they did exactly the same to hilary clinton back when she was still running. bolt had a posts that were kind of saying ‘vote for clinton or your sexist’ or words to that effect.

opinion or commentary is one thing. but proven lying is completely different. his blog on those agw graphs proves it with posts from actual scientist and others who point to his misrepresentation. and then he posts exactly the same the next day or a coupla days later. LIES. this is surely a misuse of his publication?!

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/obama_digs_a_hole_with_his_mouth/P40/

It’s attributed to Jack Wheeler.

Is there any way that this can be mistaken for anything other than a racist attack?

And hasn’t racism taken a strange little twisted reversal in recent decades. The approach is similar to that Bolt uses regularly in relation to Aboriginal affairs: It runs along the line that, people that identify themselves with a non-mainstream ethnicity, race (or even religion) are racist or “separatist”) for claiming that identity.

It’s a bit like that classic line from an ex-President of Collingwood that went something like: “We don’t mind Aborginals, so long as they act like us white folks.”

12.41pm: “I’m just your average hocky mum who signed up for the PTA.” The difference between a hockey mum and a put bull? Lipstick.”

“Did they not notice that the sentence immediately before was about John McCain? Are they not aware that the lipstick phrase is one that has been commonly used in US politics, including by John McCain in reference to Hillary Clinton?”

Heh – I’ve heard the phrase in the excellent HBO/BBC collaboration ‘Deadwood” and that’s set in the times of the gold rush.. LOL – I’m sure Cy Toliver wasn’t referring to Sarah Palin..