Mega Thread All things Tony Abbott

[Demonic Ascent]

Australian politics is pathetic.

I don't like Tony Abbott, but if he is knifed that will make it three democratically elected Prime Ministers in a row that have been knifed for an unelected leader. I don't think that should be able to happen unless under extreme circumstances. If you want to change leader there should be an election. The first time it was funny, now it has gone beyond a joke. Both the liberal and labour parties are pathetic.

You don't vote for a leader in this country you vote for a local member and hence a party to govern. This idea that Australia is a US Presidential style government really needs to be knocked on the head.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Wrong. Plus, the last thing Australia needs is the type of government you are advocating. Everyone would be on the dole bludging if that was the case.

I think it has been shown demonstrably that the sorts of policies advocated by the Tea Party movement (and similar types) don't work as advertised. Those who actually still believe in them are dwindling in number. I think the mainstream is looking for real solutions, not an ideology that has already had it's day. I used to believe in such things once.

 

[Crawb]

The fact that all signs point to a party room meeting being held on Tuesday instead of Monday just shows how politically inept Abbott is. I mean seriously. Letting this negative speculation now drag over a weekend, let alone a QT Monday is mind boggling.

 

[Pie eyed]

Australian politics is pathetic.

I don't like Tony Abbott, but if he is knifed that will make it three democratically elected Prime Ministers in a row that have been knifed for an unelected leader. I don't think that should be able to happen unless under extreme circumstances. If you want to change leader there should be an election. The first time it was funny, now it has gone beyond a joke. Both the liberal and labour parties are pathetic.

It should not happen, but none of our recent leaders had the guts to simply call an election when challenged.
Rudd's party knifed him, Abbott will be lucky to keep his citizenship...big difference. He is an extremely poor PM, hated but most of the voting public, heading an incompetent government who the voters have lost faith in. Libs are on the nose with the electorate...nothing will save them.

 

[carnthemlions]

Despite all the gloom about debt and deficit, Labor Party, Leaners and Lifter, Age of Entitlement over, the budget etc, Australia is doing well.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/shares-in-longest-ever-winning-streak-20150206-137zpp.html

The Australian sharemarket's S&P/ASX200 index has shaken off a cut to growth forecasts and fresh political instability to chalk up its longest winning streak of all time as the global hunt for yield lifts the price of bank stocks even higher.

The Reserve Bank of Australia, after cutting rates to 2.25 per cent on Tuesday, reduced its 2015 economic growth forecasts but delivered a more upbeat account of the outlook in its highly anticipated statement on monetary policy pointing to a rebound in the second-half.
Who needs politicians, just leave it to treasury.
Abbott stated that they are not Labor, he is right, their worse.

Pfffft. Who needs the public servants? It's not like they keep the country running or anything. Sack em all, I say.

If you go back and look at Turnbull's history it's pretty clear he is not spineless. I think even Packer admitted that he was a little scared of him. His political judgment is a different matter though.

I would've agreed with you once. Not so much now.
He'll have a tough job uniting the party while winning back the voters who've been driven away by the Abbott fiasco. The Liberal party hates Malcolm, he's not really one of them (a bit like Rudd). Hard to see the ever increasing number of ultra-conservative types giving him too much room to move.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

He isn't my leader. I vote for the Coalition because they are more aligned with my views. Labor are further away and the Greens are extremists determined to see us live like Third World countries.
The Coalition isn't right wing enough for my liking. We need a Tea Party in Australia.

It's funny I have the complete opposite view. The Greens are the closest to my views though obviously not completely in sync, ALP are further away the LNP are determined to see us live like a Third World dictatorship or military junta.

 

[sherb]

Wrong. Plus, the last thing Australia needs is the type of government you are advocating. Everyone would be on the dole bludging if that was the case.

Anyone who wants to live any sort of existence would struggle to survive on the dole, let alone bludge off it.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Wrong. Plus, the last thing Australia needs is the type of government you are advocating. Everyone would be on the dole bludging if that was the case.

It's hilarious how right whingers always paint the dole as some lucrative lifestyle. If it's so glamorous to live on a couple of hundred bucks a week feel free to try.

 

[pjcrows]

Wrong. Plus, the last thing Australia needs is the type of government you are advocating. Everyone would be on the dole bludging if that was the case.

Explain why it's wrong.

 

[sherb]

It's hilarious how right whingers always paint the dole as some lucrative lifestyle. If it's so glamorous to live on a couple of hundred bucks a week feel free to try.

Yeah, they just don't get the reality of it.

 

[Eagle87]

The aim of not for profits is still a monetary return for stakeholders. A university is an institution not a not for profit business .

Well, depending on ones definition, an institution can also be a business, no?

I mean banks have been described as institutions.

A university may well be an institution, but whether it is also a business may be independent of such classification.

Whether institutions should operates as public benevolent entities our whether they are better structured as centres run along business lines is a core issue that cast simply be glossed over by classifying them as institutions surely? Or am I missing your point?

 

[Eagle87]

By the way a monetary return for stakeholders would eliminate one from the definition of "not for profit". Assuming the stakeholders includes members of said not for profit ....

One of the definitions is that members specifically cannot benefit financially.

But that's likely an argument about semantics.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Well, depending on ones definition, an institution can also be a business, no?

I mean banks have been described as institutions.

A university may well be an institution, but whether it is also a business may be independent of such classification.

Whether institutions should operates as public benevolent entities our whether they are better structured as centres run along business lines is a core issue that cast simply be glossed over by classifying them as institutions surely? Or am I missing your point?

No and I agree to an extent, but public universities have never been defined as businesses, nor would I expect a single senior administrator would define them as such.

They generate revenue through narrowly defined federally regulated criteria, with the sole aim being to supplement the shortfall on government expenditure. Their purpose is to provide a social service, not generate fiscal return for stakeholders, so at odds with the very crux of what makes a business a business

 

[Eagle87]

No and I agree to an extent, but public universities have never been defined as businesses, nor would I expect a single senior administrator would define them as such.

They generate revenue through narrowly defined federally regulated criteria, with the sole aim being to supplement the shortfall on government expenditure. Their purpose is to provide a social service, not generate fiscal return for stakeholders, so at odds with the very crux of what makes a business a business

I think that may be a simplistic view of universities. A few years ago I got involved in some advice for a business unit within the University of WA. That involved us examining a number of entities within the broader university.

There were lots and lots of entities and they were variously described as business units and they had profit targets and ran under various different governing instruments. A day at the university might involve interacting with as many as 10 different entities, although a student wouldn't necessarily notice that.

They have some quite sophisticated financial management and managers within the various units. And then they have some antiquated, almost quaint operational practices between entities.

They seemed to me, on limited exposure sure, to be trapped between some quite proactive businesses and business operators and some old school "education institution" ways of doing things.

This would naturally lead to some tension and some inefficiency.

But my take is that there are definitely businesses within the broad Operation of the UWA (i.e the broad group of entities operating various things on campus).

It's a topic that interests me, because organisations with entirely different goals and focus within the one group is often a recipe for chaos within any group.

I'm by no means expert in universities or their Operation, I'd like to understand them better...

 

[Power Raid]

The aim of not for profits is still a monetary return for stakeholders. A university is an institution not a not for profit business .

that is why it is on the list

 

[geelong_boy]

Actually not so sure. One of the commentators said that years ago there was about a 40/40 split along party lines with 20% swinging voters.
He believed that the 20% has increased to 40% with a 30/30 split. I am inclined to believe it.

I'm pretty sure I heard John Howard say the exact same thing.

 

[Pie eyed]

run through the question yourself but remember substance over form is usually a good rule as you do it


I sense you might be confusing profit motives and structure rather than looking at the operations

Time to learn the difference between a business and a public institution.

 

[Play by Numbers]

By the way a monetary return for stakeholders would eliminate one from the definition of "not for profit". Assuming the stakeholders includes members of said not for profit ....

One of the definitions is that members specifically cannot benefit financially.

But that's likely an argument about semantics.

It depends how you define stakeholders. In the case of a charity I would say the organisation and intended recipients, where the two cannot be seperated.

However, charities are independant private bodies, that have autonomy both in terms of formation, direction and fiscal management (within legal guidelines). Public universities have only quasi operational independance, are state mandated and still are bound by many broad but strict fiscal guidelines.

 

[Pie eyed]

Turns out Bishops' support is not so strong like Abbott would have us believe.

Bronwyn, Julie or both?

 

[Pie eyed]

S

You don't vote for a leader in this country you vote for a local member and hence a party to govern. This idea that Australia is a US Presidential style government really needs to be knocked on the head.

So true.
Abbott was never elected as PM by the people.

 

[geelong_boy]

The electorate are no longer buying trickle-down type economic polices as the solution.

The leadership is the chance for a change in policy, not merely a change in personalities. If thy just switch personalities and keep the same policy approach then there will be no improvement in their standing in the electorate. Mark my words.

You're right, but will Turnbull be able to do that or will they let him?

 

[Play by Numbers]

I think that may be a simplistic view of universities. A few years ago I got involved in some advice for a business unit within the University of WA. That involved us examining a number of entities within the broader university.

There were lots and lots of entities and they were variously described as business units and they had profit targets and ran under various different governing instruments. A day at the university might involve interacting with as many as 10 different entities, although a student wouldn't necessarily notice that.

They have some quite sophisticated financial management and managers within the various units. And then they have some antiquated, almost quaint operational practices between entities.

They seemed to me, on limited exposure sure, to be trapped between some quite proactive businesses and business operators and some old school "education institution" ways of doing things.

This would naturally lead to some tension and some inefficiency.

But my take is that there are definitely businesses within the broad Operation of the UWA (i.e the broad group of entities operating various things on campus).

It's a topic that interests me, because organisations with entirely different goals and focus within the one group is often a recipe for chaos within any group.

I'm by no means expert in universities or their Operation, I'd like to understand them better...

Again I agree, however more broadly they still have not made that transition which is what deregulation is about.

It is aimed at giving universities the ability to set price, so they may become financially independant of government, thus making an argument for them to become operationally independant. However this is a fundamental shift in intent, being that the profit motive not social utility becomes the main driver.

Quite different from the US where private universities are more heavilly subsidised than Australian universities, and inhabit a quasi market based grey area.

I think the ideological demarcation line between university and not for profit is that a charity raises money, to give to a cause of choice, whereas a public university is provided taxpayer funding and is the cause.

 

[Number37]

Whether a University is a business or not is a semantic argument.

What the current government proposes is that all Universities should be businesses, whether they want to be or not.

 

[Lethality]

Australian politics is pathetic.

I don't like Tony Abbott, but if he is knifed that will make it three democratically elected Prime Ministers in a row that have been knifed for an unelected leader. I don't think that should be able to happen unless under extreme circumstances. If you want to change leader there should be an election. The first time it was funny, now it has gone beyond a joke. Both the liberal and labour parties are pathetic.

Abbott is the common denominator in all of these cases. Once he is removed the taint is gone and we can resume normal government.

 

[Power Raid]

Time to learn the difference between a business and a public institution.

time to learn public institutions can carry out business activities