It has been well documented in management circles the difference between leading and managing relates to transactional and transformational principles. Leadership occurs at all levels of an organisation, unfortunately all too often an ineffective manager stifles the work of a subordinate with the worker needing to manage their manager to get the job done efficiently.

This bottom-up approach to leadership is in direct contrast to the top-down approach employed at most organisations, yet it is proving to be more effective in many circumstances. The role of the manager is for you to perform your job efficiently, their role is to allocate resources you require to succeed, to make decisions based on metrics and to secure support to perform the task.

If success was measured exclusively on how well you do your job, there would be no requirement to manage your boss, this unfortunately is rarely the case. This requires you to identify their prime motivations, support their success by understanding their weaknesses and reacting accordingly and finally bring them solutions – not problems.

The manager works for the worker, not the other way around – the manager is a direct cost to the business whereas the worker is a productive resource. With a greater level of training and development the classic roles of management of planning, organising, leading and controlling are known – understood and practiced by workers. There is an old adage, you don’t leave jobs, you leave managers – this rings true again.

Do people know the difference between a figurative and literal statement? Figurative is described as departing from a literal use of words and metaphorical where literal could be described as taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration. Is Abbott going going to physically shirtfront Putin? No, of course not, absolutely not in a literal sense. Lets look in a figurative sense, will Abbott hit up Putin behind closed doors in private discussions? He should and he must, however, he should not have stated that in such a public arena.

Abbott was stupid to make such a public and aggressive statement, yes, he needs to have a frank and open discussion with Putin; a leader of a powerful country who is carefully stage-managed as an outdoor macho man. By using such blatant and aggressive terminology, Abbott has backed himself into a diplomatic corner. As Putin’s image is at stake from such colourful language, there won’t be much to be gained here and there is plenty to lose – not a great diplomatic move.

“I’m a female Foreign Minister, yeah, get over it.” That was quite a response from Julie Bishop; keeping the theatrics to a minimum when answering press questions. She is pretty direct at times, she was a good operator though.

I like her attitude, it appears she is all about getting on with the job and not pandering to special interest groups or playing the victim with responses like “Don’t call me a feminist, it is not in my lexicom.”

She is doing an excellent job representing the country and is certainly taken seriously in international diplomacy circles. Bishop is not the first woman to enter politics or hold a high political position such as Prime Minister or Governor General, she does however not want to make gender an issue.

The government led by Gough Whitlam was a failure – there is no other way to describe it, to spin it, to believe it. Yet, the myth perpetrated by the Labor movement was that he was a great man leading a great government is laughable at best and just plain dangerous at worst.

The left intelligentsia clearly blame Rupert Murdoch, the apparent secret leader of the CIA that conspired against the highly competent Whitlam government – well, nothing could be further from the truth. Gough Whitlam made Labor electable after 23 years in the political wilderness, after 3 years of government, he then made them unelectable again until Bob Hawke came along almost a decade later.

He promised the world and then failed to deliver, just the manner of his dismissal added to his mythology. The real kick to the nards of any true believer of socialism was the highly competent Hawke government campaigned on policy that was directly opposite to Whitlam – ouch. Since WWII, Labor government failures (with the notable exception of the Hawke government) were Chifley, Whitlam, Keating, Rudd, Gillard and Rudd again.

A disturbing trend appearing on Facebook is post and newsfeed censorship. For some time now, Facebook has been deciding which posts appear on newsfeeds by screening posts and linked comments. They have rightly received widespread condemnation for manipulating the individual newsfeeds in a pathetic attempt to modify moods of its users.

Now posts including bullying, racism, inciting violence, religious persecution, sexual harassment and other abuse should not be tolerated. In such a case, moderation of posts is not only warranted, it should also be encouraged, there is however a limit. There needs to be a clear code of conduct that users have the choice of accepting or declining to access the network, criticism of the US government should not encroach on personal liberties. Are Facebook denying people the right to protest?

People have the right to criticise government agencies that are not serving the public interest, my criticism of the American agency, the TSA, that is the Transportation Safety Authority was immediately removed from my Facebook feed as soon as it was posted. One would suppose Facebook has software that scans for key words such as TSA automatically removing such posts as it was removed almost immediately.

This is akin to censorship on the internet, that is pretty much considered taboo. Consumers are considered competent enough to be able to discern between reliable information and propaganda. Me, I’m not so sure, although the tenants of free speech must stand contrary to my personal beliefs of good taste and decorum. Personal freedom must be upheld at all costs.

The G20 summit will be hosted in Australia in November; concerns of stalled world economic growth will dominate the agenda. Australian treasurer Joe Hockey will put forward an infrastructure investment platform with public and private sector funding.

It is somewhat convenient for PM Abbott and Treasurer Hockey to outline their global ambitions mirroring domestic political aims. The Abbott government’s message to G20 counterparts is to follow the Australian lead. That is privatisation of inefficient state assets, investing the proceeds of asset sales in new public works infrastructure with public/private partnerships managing risk with commercial operators sharing the risk/return of the project.

I can’t say I have ever been much of a fan of Joe Hockey, so far, he has done a lousy job of selling his first budget even though the majority of bills have eventually passed through the senate. Chomping on cigars created an image problem for the government and ultimately, his first budget should have been tougher, second year budget a little less tough and his third budget an election year budget – let’s see how this plays out.

As an official document, the passport is the ticket to freedom, there are not too many official government documents that offer such romance, such freedom or such worldly pleasure. Normally an official government document reminds us of bureaucracy, the lack of freedom and the perceived abolishment and erosion of citizen’s rights – but not so the passport.

The stamped pages of your passport are the evidence of the freedom of travel, a confirmation of adventure – they are the record of your trip abroad. I must admit, I have kept my two previous passports and have flicked through the pages on occasions to check when I have visited certain countries when referencing past trips.

Visa stamps may be viewed as a form of travel snobbery detailing exotic locations, cultures and experiences. Anyone can go out and get a passport but you still need to fill the pages full of new and interesting adventures. 

As for me, I love these new smart passports with their electronic chip; no longer do you need to wait in line to return to Australia. I can quickly waltz through immigration at Perth International Airport quickly picking up my bags and be clear of the building in near record time. As we all know, the Perth International Terminal and Perth Domestic for that matter are not the most conductive airports for passenger flows.

A visa at the gate is a further hassle you and cost don’t need. I fully understand the requirement for a visa in certain circumstances when you register online ahead of time. This gives the authorities sufficient time to check your credentials to see if you are a risk to their country or listed on Interpol or terrorism watch sites. However, a visa at the gate when you pass through immigration is a blatant rip-off of between $25 – $100 of hard earned cash for something they were already doing.

Why is global warming now called climate change? Am I a climate change denier? Don’t think so, I certainly believe in science, yet I am compelled to challenge the orthodox view. Not just believing exactly what I am told without firstly researching both views trying to pick holes in their arguments is the basis of critical thinking and deductive reasoning. Scientists are receiving large sums in research grants to study such effects. Their funding may hinge on providing research fitting the widely held view, are they in fact compromised?

So it is with much interest I note the change in title from global warming to climate change. Research is indicating a 15 or so year lull in global warming, is this a momentary lull, a change in direction or a long term change? I have noticed changes in the Perth climate as both a child and teenager, wind patterns, rainfall and temperatures have differed during that time, is this a 10, 30 or 100 year recurring cycle?

There is no doubt the industrial world of the last two hundred years is pumping emissions into the atmosphere, there is little doubt deforestation is affecting local environments. However, how long has humanity been keeping accurate records? Is this all part of a longer cycle, we have had ice ages and rewarming in the past, there is no evidence of industrialisation during the mesozoic period. 

The lightweight sharpie is a controlled class performance dingy sailed by a crew of three, a forward hand is connected to the trapeze with the sheet-hand with the skipper using toe straps to increase power through leveraging weight over the side.

The older style lightweight sharpies I began sailing on in the early 1980s were of plywood construction, with no lowers, a non-adjustable rig and a fixed mast preventer. As I progressed through a number of boats throughout the 80s and into the 90s, hull construction changed little but advances in rig set-ups and sail design kept the class contemporary. 

The hull has changed since the 1960s when the lightweight variant was released, a number of successful boats returned to plywood sandwich construction after the full fiberglass phase, a new hull is extremely expensive but picking up a secondhand yacht is a very cost effective method. The three-quarter balloon type spinnaker is hoisted from a chute in the deck; The main, jib and spinnaker are consistent in measurements, although sail shape is hotly contested. 

An aluminium mast with no backstay rounds out the rig; spreader length is set to class rules although the degree of spreader position (forward or aft) assists with mast stiffness, sidestay tension is adjusted to conditions with boom vang and cunningham controlling mast rake to de-power the rig in stronger conditions. Initial mast rake is set via foerstay tension, the base of the mast is stiffened with adjustable lowers and a mast preventer stops the foot of the mast breaking on downwind runs.

The fleet is very competitive, these days 40 odd boats line up at the National series, held in various locations throughout the country between the Christmas and New Year period. I remember fleets of 80 to 90 boats on the start line at national carnivals – very exciting. A stamp in circulation in 1981, the lightweight sharpie was a prominent class, a number of new classes is taking the mantle of leading performance dingy. The lightweight sharpie is an older controlled class, cost effective in many ways and extremely competitive to sail at the top level.

John Howard was Australia’s second longest serving Prime Minister of nearly 12 years after Sir Robert Menzies 16 years, serving slightly longer than Bob Hawke’s 9 years. If longevity as Prime Minister is a measure, Howard sits behind only Menzies as the greatest PM to serve the country. Menzies predecessor, John Curtin rated highly in my opinion, despite his short term in the top job, so longevity isn’t the only measure. Menzies, Howard and Hawke is a pretty good line-up by any determination.

Howard was never a popular figure in the way that Hawke was; Howard was short, bald, a four eyes and deaf in one ear. Yet, despite his lack of charisma and Hawke like popularity, he led a government that made necessary decisions that aren’t always popular. Howard never chased opinion polls like Hawke, instead deciding to ride out unpopular decisions, the polling generally looked after itself.

Unlike Hawke, Costello never challenged Howard for the top job as Keating challenged Hawke, failing once and succeeding on the second occasion. Just look at the Gillard/Rudd and Rudd/Gillard infighting of the lost six years – the years of instability.  Neither Keating or Costello were friendly outside of professional duties with their respective Prime Minister; however, Costello never let his personal ambitions cloud his judgement. It could also be argued Costello never had the numbers to challenge Howard for the leadership.

Howard was a conviction leader, he didn’t always make the popular decision but in my opinion, he got it right more often than not. The economic credibility of his government was their strongest virtue, paying off the 96 billion debt left by the previous government only for it to be increased to well over 300 billion under 6 years of Labor incompetence.