Well the sideshow that is Australian politics took a twist last night when Malcolm Turnbull defeated Tony Abbott 54-44 in a party leadership spill to became the 29th Prime Minister of Australia & our 5th Prime Minister in 8 years.

Kevin Rudd-2007 to 2010
Julia Gillard-2010 to 2013
Kevin Rudd-2013
Tony Abbott-2013 to 2015
Malcolm Turnbull-2015

I cannot see Turnbull lasting long, either...

Why is there such a turnover for Prime Minister?



I'd say this is probably true no matter where you live.

I guess so Dave, but Oz appears to be trying to make it an art form!

I'd be happy to have 'someone' who can actually govern.
Long gone in most cases but I miss The Statesman, the representative that actually had a career and life before politics and understood how the world works. Walked among the people they represented and listened and formed ideas and opinions and pushed to support them.

Yes, many are self serving but career politicians are definitely so entitled!

One person who claimed credit for the demise of Rudd - Gillard - Rudd was Tony Abbott himself.

Hopefully no more budgie smugglers all over the front pages of our newspapers.

I was listening to an interesting theory about this and it does seem to have some merit. Over the last decade (perhaps longer), Aussie politics on both sides of the political divide have been focusing more on the cult of personality of the leader as a critical part of their electoral appeal. Somewhat in line with what happens with the President in the USA. Of course there is the huge difference that the Australian electorate vote for their party of choice through their local candidates (or sometimes an independent member) rather than for the party leader. The Prime Minister is determined by the elected members of his/her party and hence is PM at the whim of these members rather than being directly elected by the Aussie voters. Hence there is no legislative or legal barrier to the PM being toppled. It just requires a 'spill motion' by the elected members. I think that the only way to remove a US President is through impeachment? (I'm sure I'll be corrected if this is wrong! I know they also lose office if they die (obviously) or resign) Hence current political unpopularity at the opinion polls does not provide a mechanism for ousting a president.

These leadership coups make for interesting media fodder but poor governance.

Thanks for your insight, Mike.

Impeachment does not remove a President or any member alone. Bill Clinton was impeached in December 1998, but was not removed from office, as it only takes a simple majority to impeach in the House (a 218-217 vote will impeach), but a 2/3 majority to remove in the Senate (a 66-34 vote keeps the official in office, but 67-33 removes).

Amen to that!
The 'Twittersphere' and the media who use it as an source of information (!) have way too much influence. Much of the media is biased in one direction or other. That I don't mind as everyone has opinions, but what they relate must be factual (as news) and based on fact for opinion pieces. When they only report one side of a story or leave out crucial facts, I tend to see a mild shade of red. There was once a delightful but tough as nails journalist who very sadly died at a youngish age about 20 years ago. His colleagues and friends of many years never knew which way he voted as he was tough on everyone he interviewed. It never mattered what side of politics the interviewee was on - he picked their arguments apart and never let them get away with a throwaway line. That's something I'd like to see more - all sides of politics need scrutiny.

Let's hope the revolving door at The Lodge as been jammed shut for a while so we can be governed rather than having the playground play out their dramas in parliament for the media. *crosses fingers*

...... And yet the Aussies carry on, life goes on and the economy and the machinery of government keep running.
Government Leaders are really over rated when they can be replaced so easily!