Yes. Let's.
A Government is accountable to people like we are to shareholders.
A Government should run a country to sound investment and spend it's people's money like we do.
A Government should have the best people in place to run the country no matter their gender or race, just like we do.

Sigh.
Don't they compare poorly....

... wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 9:37pm:

female is biological.

Put down your "Economics for Dummies -1960" book.

A company has several objectives both financial and social - enshrined within its mission statement and then waterfalled by way of corporate and personal goal objectives.

Our company - a typical US listed entity - had the aim to be a good social citizen.
To provide advancement of its employees, to make the world a cleaner place, to continue to advance sourcing of cleaner energy and making people more attached and closer to
Energy.

We have a profit objective too.

A Government should also want the best for its people like we do and make the world a cleaner safer place like we do.
A government should also invest wisely to ensure it builds a surplus after investing where it needs to stimulate growth - like we do.

You can tell which of us works in strategic finance in the real world eh?

Your opinion of companies objectives is borne out of outdated nonsense which tends to be the case if you get your info from outdated nonsense.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 9:58pm:


Does your company look at everything through the cost benefit binoculars?  Then forget the mission statements and "Our Values" because these only count if they cost a little and lead to maximised profit.  Would you company ever say, "We'll lose this much money but it will result in us fullfilling a value of ours?"  Doubt it very much.   If an initiative to ensure advancement of its employees led your company to lose money, would they do it? Doubt it!

Whereas in government, you CAN"T ALWAYS look at things through a cost benefit binocoluar.  Why? BEcause that's when social cohesion falls over.  And governemnt should never look at a budget at a "profit" POV.  Sometimes ensuring strength in society and economy means a red bottom line.  But your company would NEVER do that.

Christmas Parties. Cost $20,000 on average and we hold loads all around the world.

Company ball. Held in California and over 100 employees flown to it in business class flights and hotel stay.

None of which have a profit objective, cost a lot of money and are all about a rejuvenated employee group and corporate buy in.

We are happy to spend capital if it achieves objectives. My point is not all objectives are financial, they are also social. The problem is you are looking at it from a very outdated, cynical view of companies which is no longer true.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 2:57pm:


No - but I think he just figures that women of calibre don't outdo men of calibre, and that nobody should get a job on affirmative action any more.

Personally I think the whole lot in Canberra are a waste of time - men and women - and I hardly think his choice of A Man Named Vanstone, Maggie 'Ding-Dong' Thatcher Wannabe of the South seas, is of any value in any way and the whole 'commission of audit' is just a waste of time and a chance to fling the likes of her some easy dollars again - you see - I come from a tough environment where results count - and based on results none of that lot are worth feeding.

Funny how the lecties are going on about a lack of women in the government and the appointments made by the government, yet they were mocking, and gloating over the defeat of, a woman who was going to be a Cabinet Minister, had she not been cheated out of her rural Victotian seat.

Also white a bit of sexism and misogyny displayed by the left there again when that happened.

As usual, the moral flexibility of the left rears its ugly head.

Rider wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 6:43am:



Blahahahaha
Maybe we are a sexist society. If so, the political parties better learn to adapt or they are f^^ked.
No one in suburbia liked being lectured by gillard or milne or SHY.
No one likes being lectured by Eva cox or Fran kelly or the million other aggro females.
Female voters probably dont like it either. They want women to be nurturing, not all bent, snarly and vicious like julia's "I will not be lectured by this man"
As per usual, sigh, the elites are just out of touch.
People watch neighbours and home and away. Pick a female politician like madge from neighbours or marge simpson from the simpsons.  Not some angry intellectual the "man and the woman  in the street" cant relate to