Diary of our stinking Govt.

[boris1gary]

As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed.  The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.

This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.

and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598

Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says

The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.

Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).

But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.

"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.

[monman12]

D9275:       "anyone looking at your chart and your post would think that the Chinese economy was racing full steam ahead. Which in reality, is not the case."

The Shanghai Composite Index?   "No, not that chart"

"I don't know why you can't work out that I was talking about your graph and post 14034, nope, no mention of the Nasdaq in that one"

Certainly no mention of the NASDAQ in my 14034  graph (below) and no mention of the Chinese economy either

 To summarise (help)  I have mentioned::

ASX:XAO    Australian

NASDAQ    USA

SHCOMP   Chinese

They are different exchanges/indices.

[myoclon1cjerk]

I've just sacked Eric Abetz,by SMS 🙂

[crosbystills]

I've set a target of 100% reduction in Abbott by 2016. 

[myoclon1cjerk]

Looks like the libs will vote against same sex marriage.Another captains pick with a bit of support from the Clampetts (Nats).

[iapetus_rocks]

"Why we're right to maintain the entitlements rage.

. . . Australian politicians are some of the best paid in the world.

The base salary for a MP starts at $195,000 per annum, with Tony Abbott receiving (before entitlements) a salary of half a million each year (more than Barack Obama or David Cameron).

On top of that, many parliamentarians are already independently wealthy: Joe Hockey, for instance, lives in a $6 million Sydney mansion, owns a beachside home in south Sydney, cattle properties in Queensland, and, when in Canberra, stays in a family property worth another $2 million. Indeed, in the midst of a housing affordability crisis, cabinet minsters own, on average, 2.55 properties each, while the shadow cabinet members owns 2.47.

That's the context for Jason Murphy's revelation in Crikey that, on top of their salaries, Australian politicians are spending a staggering half a billion dollars in entitlements each year. Yes, that's right. Half a billion dollars, each and every year.

To see the consequences of the social gulf between the political class and the rest of the country, you only have to turn from the discussion of parliamentary entitlements to the treatment of welfare recipients, a shift from matters affecting some of the nation's wealthiest people to its very poorest."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-11/sparrow-why-were-right-to-maintain-the-entitlements-rage/66872...

[debra9275]

---

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
I've just sacked Eric Abetz,by SMS 🙂

---

Michaelia Cash too I hope 

[monman12]

Gosh a 2nd devaluation of the Yuan, the effect on the HSI:

HANG SENG INDEX (^HSI)-HKSE

24,118.77 - 379.44(1.55%)

That is the Chinese index, not to be confused with the  ^IXIC (US),   or the  ^AORD (AUS) !

[monman12]

IR: "Don't worry about posting a 10 year version . . . just return to post us the graph which reflects CBA's status next week when they release their annual profit report."

. . . "The lack of enthusiasm from big institutional investors, and a surprise increase in bad debt provisions, were behind today's (ANZ) plunge." (wrong, dilution effect mainly)

The Commonwealth Bank was also down almost 4 per cent, but if Thursday's more than 3 per cent slide is added in, it has been hit just as badly by ANZ's capital raising as ANZ has.

That is because the Commonwealth delivers its annual profit report next week and analysts are expecting an even bigger capital raising than ANZ

Talking about confusion earlier, the CBA cash raising is somewhat different to that of ANZ:

"Unlike ANZ, which placed stock to institution to the annoyance of some of its retail shareholder base that was diluted, CBA will structure its raising as a pro rata renounceable entitlement offer. This will allow all shareholders to buy 1 new share for every 23 shares held at an offer price of $71.50 per new share.

The new shares will be issued at a 10.5 per cent discount to the last closing price."

"just return to post us the graph which reflects CBA's status next week when they release their annual profit report."

Must wait a little for the graph, but in the meantime :

CBA: 9.1 $billion record profit. 5% increase in FF dividend. Exactly within what was forecast.

CBA will pay a fully franked final dividend of $2.22 per share. The total dividend for the year is $4.20, up 5 per cent on the prior year. It will be paid on October 1. That is a P/E ratio of around 15.

1 for 23 at $71.50. To buy or not to buy?. Hmmmm, assuming the same dividend, this price will give a return of 5.9%, and with franking 8.5%

BUY  or even wait and see if the "market" will  descend to this offer price and then buy.

[myoclon1cjerk]

'Tony Abbott’s hubris is staggering': UK's climate adviser on emissions target5142.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10
Australia’s “pathetic” 2030 emissions reduction target shows the country has opted out of the global effort to limit warming, according to the head of the British government’s climate change advisory body.
Lord Deben, previously a minister in the government of Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher, said Australia’s 26% to 28% reduction in emissions
 by 2030, based on 2005 levels was “simply not enough”.
“Australia is fundamentally out of step and this decision puts Australia among the ‘don’t cares’ of the international community,” said Deben, who is the chairman of the Committee on Climate Change
.
“Global warming won’t wait for Mr Abbott and his government. Mr Abbott’s hubris is staggering.”
Deben, formerly known as John Gummer, said Australia’s “pathetic” target showed it had “opted out of the greatest physical challenge of our times” and ignored the leadership of US president Barack Obama, the European Union and Pope Francis.
“Australia’s friends know she could do so much better than this and all of us abroad will work with all those people who are determined to overturn this irrational decision,” he said.
The condemnation of Australia’s climate commitment, to be taken to crunch international talks in Paris later this year, was echoed by the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands – one of the low-lying Pacific nations at acute risk from sea level rises.
“Australia’s weak target is another serious blow to its international reputation,” said Tony de Brum. 
“As with prime minister Abbott’s attempt to ignore climate change when hosting the G20 last year, this will send a serious shudder through the Pacific and raise concern amongst its closest allies, including the United States and Europe.”
De Brum, who has repeatedly called on Australia to show regional leadership on climate change, said it was disappointing Abbott had not embraced clean energy more readily.
If the rest of the world followed Australia’s lead, the Great Barrier Reef would disappear
“If the rest of the world followed Australia’s lead, the Great Barrier Reef would disappear,” he said. “So would my country, and the other vulnerable atoll nations on Australia’s doorstep.”
Tony Abbott
 has defended yesterday’s announcement of Australia’s post-2020 emissions target, insisting it was “highly comparable” to what other industrialised countries have committed to.
“This is a very respectable figure, it’s environmentally responsible – and above all else, it’s economically responsible,” he told the ABC on Wednesday.
“We are confident we can achieve this without clobbering jobs and growth because in the end that’s what we want – we want more jobs and we want higher economic growth because that means more prosperity.
“We are not expecting a reduction in the coal industry. Obviously in the ordinary course of events some mines will close, but I suspect more mines will open.”
Environmentalists have lambasted Australia’s target, although comparisons to other countries are not straightforward due to the differing starting points for emissions cuts. According to Bloomberg New Energy
 finance, Australia’s emissions pledge is less ambitious than the EU and US, but more ambitious than Japan and South Korea. 
When commitments are translated to the 2005 baseline year used by Australia, it appears the 26% to 28% reduction is towards the lower end when compared to other countries.
The US has a 26% to 28% reduction target, but for five years earlier in 2025. The equivalent 2030 target is 41%. The UK has a 50% reduction by 2025, based on 1990 levels, which translates as a 48% cut when compared directly to Australia’s 2005 baseline.
New Zealand, Germany, Switzerland, the EU and Canada also have greater planned cuts than Australia when their commitments are considered with a 2005 starting point. 
Conversely, Japan and Norway have weaker targets than Australia. China, the world’s largest emitter, has no set reduction target beyond a pledge its carbon dioxide emissions will peak by 2030.
Australia will remain the highest per capita emitter in the industrialised world
The government’s independent Climate Change Authority recommended emissions be slashed between 45% to 65% by 2030, based on 2005 levels. The decision not to adopt this recommendation means Australia will remain the highest per capita emitter in the industrialised world.
Beyond the target itself, there are serious questions over whether the Coalition has adequate policies to accelerate emissions cuts. Just $200m a year until 2030 has been set aside to buy abated emissions through the Direct Action plan, despite several studies of the plan showing it won’t be sufficient
.
The Australian Industry Group, which represents more than 60,000 businesses, said the Direct Action emission reduction fund would need between $100bn and $250bn in taxpayer funds in the decade to 2030 to reach the target. The Climate Institute estimates the cost at between $28bn to $200bn.
The government is pinning a large portion of its emissions cuts on “other” means of reductions, including technology changes that do not yet exist. A price on carbon, which was dismantled last year, will not return under the Coalition due to its insistence it will drive up electricity prices and cause job losses.
*

[monman12]

That's nice M1C, a large C&P sans comment

What are your actual views on the topic,  as opposed to those from a UK politician with a background in history? Perhaps you could post some more of his past utterances e.g. :-

"We won't win those battles if we allow ourselves to be associated with people who have extremist views which are not connected really with the environment. It's what I call the Christine Milne school of thought, which is very close to sort of Trotskyite politics,"

"those who condemn fracking as extremely damaging are taking a "nonsensical position" 

" it would be valuable if we could frack some gas in the sense that at least it would come from our own resources and it reduce our dependency on other nations and you're not carrying it long distance."

M1C do you (or perhaps even Debden/Gummer) wonder why our target emissions set by the first Kyoto Protocol was  that Australia's was to limit its emissions to 8% above their 1990 level over the 2008–2012 period,  the target 108%,   an INCREASE!.

Has anyone "noticed that CO2 levels are rising at an ever  increasing rate, or that our contribution is insignificant?