2. Apparently the Chinese didn't like the Mongols as they were ethnically discriminative and the southern song came out the bottom. The Mongols also followed hereditary traditions in the military and court, which was in opposition to the Chinese method of testing (merit). Interesting.

3. Caretaker mode of government as a stressful time on the public service:

I've only read the intro so far, but during the 2004 campaign Howard and so on did four ungentlemanly things:

-Posted ministerial press releases and transcripts on departmental websites [which technically weren't theirs to be posting on],

-Failed to brief or consult with Latham over a decision that needed making [which was dismissed on the grounds that a prime minister can't be expected to spend all his time explaining things to the opposition],

-Continued pork barrelling [even though technically they had no control over the money] and, you'll be ever so pleased to hear,

-Kept up some government ad campaigns [because the people needed to be alert but not alarmed election or not].

The Howard Government is wedded to power (I think this is corruption with being in executive government too long). More so than I can remember recent governments being. There is an absence of policy and any respect for the constitution. They have effectively given up good governance and traded it for power at all costs.

4. Washington has a caretaker convention too. When the Republicans lost Congress they did the right thing and didn't pass any legislation, instead waiting for the new Democratic majority to take over. They got panned in the media for not doing their job. Bad show from the media and bloggers there.

5. Caretaker conventions are a fragile thing even when explicitly laid out in a constitution. The Bangladeshi President usurped the constitution and initially took power, but later stepped down and put the country into an executive state of emergency instead. This is still not resolved in Bangladesh.

6. Israel is getting near to completing a constitution. But, they are looking to mix government and religion. Not good practice. In fact it is probably the worse thing a constitution could do.

7. I wont be voting in the November 24th election in Australia as I am disenfranchised. Apparently there are half a million diasporans in a similar situation to me.

The diaspora is actually quite wealthy and is becoming gold collar rather than white collar. The best known gold collar Australian Diasporan is Rupert Murdoch - and he is politically active, not scared to throw his money behind a venture that has political ramifications.

I am not Rupert Murdoch but I gave money in the last election to a candidate. And I will this year too. The Irish diaspora, especially those in the US threw their money around in political ventures too. One was to rescue Irish political prisoners from Australia. The Jewish diaspora has a similar history in that respect.

I wonder if the Australian Diaspora will try to influence elections with money.

8. Practicality has an excellent rundown of the Australian election as an objective voter:

I'm an Aussie voter. I also have a strong view on one particular issue, which influences my vote - but I'll leave that to last.

Firstly, the Australian electorate doesn't see one party being better than the other on economic management. The foundations of deregulation, floating the dollar, et al, were Hawke/Keating Labor reforms NOT coalition ones.

Some of us remember Howard as the treasurer in the Fraser gov - and that gov was not a shining star of economic management or ideas (Keating/Hawke in contrast were far better).

And, last election, a big issue was (mostly mortgage) interest rates, and the coalition line was they would stay low under them, 5 rises in a row has somewhat put paid to that argument, and in large part their credibility.

Second. 'Workchoices', which a significant portion of the workforce feel very uneasy about - if not for themselves, for their children, unskilled spouse, etc. Reform is good, but it perhaps went too far too fast.

Third. Howard is seen as a 'my way or the highway' sort of operator. Party discipline is iron-clad (unlike, say, US representative votes on issues).

Personally, I would usually be a coalition voter. But that one particular issue I mentioned is the '96 Howard gun laws. I'm a 'sporting shooter'. At least one factor that is not on the radar, but still very much out there is that alienating ~1.5 million voters is not going to help you, sooner or later.

I agree. I am ambivalent on the sporting shooter issue, but see no reason to deprive him of his sport. Guns are actually a state issue, not a federal one and Howard went infront of a group of sports shooters with a bullet proof vest on. Which showed his contempt IMO and willingness to whip up fear as a political tool.

The parties in Australia are decent on governance. They usually start off well, initiate some policies that are from their party background, etc, but for the most part economic management, as in the western world, is based on expert consensus and most of those tools are now in the hands of independent bodies such as the Reserve.

The two main parties are interchangable at the federal and state level. The issue in Australia is the incumbent advantage which means governments get past the post more often than they should (usually through a mix of corruption and contempt). They tend to have more trouble at the state level with bodies like ICAC and the Fitzgerald Inquiry which make corruption public. But even so, they can be turfed out regularly without the 'government' changing radically. IMO it is best to turf them out every six years as corruption has started to set in by eight years (if ICAC is anything to go by as an inadvertent term limiting body which has chased two Premiers out). Howard's problem is that he is well past the six, and almost into twelve. It is showing.