Reading the thread, "Time for Blair to go?" or something of the like, got me thinking. When I studied USA Politics in Year 11, I thought that not allowing the President to serve more than two terms was a bit stupid, as you could well be denying yourself the best candidate to run the country, and if after such a long time in power he (or she) still has the support of the people, they should be able to continue to go on for so long.
But looking at the current UK and Australian governments, the idea has got more credit in my eyes. Both administrations have had their fair share of controversies recently, and I think it'd be fair to put a lot of it down to complancency in government. I also look at the ALP government in Victoria, where they've been pretty ordinary in recent times too.
You can argue that there isn't sufficient pressure being put on by the Opposition, but a lot of this has to do with the spin put on it by the media. The only time that Labor in Australia looked threatening was when the media gave Latham a ride.
There are merits for both sides of the argument, and at the moment I'm really not sure as to which is the more beneficial.