Lytton

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@GrahamY Jobs guarantee is hardly appropriate policy but in an expanding operation it’s little more than cunning window dressing.

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@McnairMira @PeterPerthWA Connection, mainly, as the ultimate fallback. But what is reasonable for this charge?

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@Kate3015 @FootnotesGuy Might help against tunnel costs…just a little tiny bit. All very complicated for taxpayers.

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@Elaine_EnvLaw Overstated. It’s a legal technicality which will be dealt with.

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@macsween_prue Just change the legislation. It’s just a technical legal issue not some high level policy decision.

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@GrahamY And ‘consider’ is no more than that. Add to the process but answer can be the same if ‘consider’ takes place.

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@GrahamY Change the Act…matter for NSW GOVERNMENT urgently!

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@Katherine_deves Q1: answer…yes!

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@BenFordhamLive What was negotiated by our chief negotiator?

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@FootnotesGuy Of course it’s all a nonsense. ‘Consider’ has a limited legal meaning and the local impact of one mine here against total global emissions is infinitesimal. So, perhaps another page of statistics in the final document! Or is it more devious than that? Or change the law?

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@News24Aust Didn’t want to look even more of an idiot!

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@Ryandally08 There I was thinking tidal movements could be understood even by politicians. Wrong again!

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@QuentinDempster @JulianHillMP Maybe but numbers need to be sorted out! What are your detailed preferences, or just let it rip? What about the housing problem? Don’t care? Nothing easy here except biases.

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@Mon4Kooyong @Justabogan Sure but numbers need to be sorted out! What are your detailed preferences, or just let it rip? What about the housing problem? Don’t care?

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@DavidPocock However the effect of one mine, against the enormous global total, means no real problem! Do the sums. Beyond that it’s a legal argument.

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@DrCraigEmerson A very selective argument which has been rebutted. Medical areas to be given soecial attention.

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@GrahamY Of course it’s all a nonsense. ‘Consider’ has a limited legal meaning and the local impact of one mine here against total global emissions is infinitesimal. So, perhaps another page of statistics in the final document! Or is it more devious than that? Or change the law?

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@blowingtom2 “
Chalmers said “Underlying inflation remained stable.” What? Inflation is a measure of the rate of growth of prices. That comment suggests the rate of growth is stable…simply, prices will keep going up at 3.5-4% per year. No wonder the RBA jumped in with a rate increase.

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@FootnotesGuy Chalmers said “Underlying inflation remained stable.” What? Inflation is a measure of the rate of growth of prices. That comment suggests the rate of growth is stable…simply, prices will keep going up at 3.5-4% per year. No wonder the RBA jumped in with a rate increase.

[Lytton @ivesden10]

@JulianHillMP “Underlying inflation remained stable.” What? Inflation is a measure of the rate of growth of prices. That comment suggests the rate of growth is stable…simply, prices will keep going up at 3.5-4% per year. Great. Hardly stable! No wonder the RBA jumped in with a rate increase.