NSW NSW State Election: 25th March 2023

[BFew]

What Pauline is probably thinking of getting Mark for Xmas.

 

[BFew]

Greenwich: all Class
Latham: all ass/arse. (and get's my Donkey vote next time)

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/one-nation-mp-mark-latham-slammed-over-homophobic-tweet/news-story/a3998315ba0d0c060e12acb99a0e9655

'A gay MP who was targeted by NSW One Nation Leader Mark Latham in a homophobic tweet has hit back with a classy response.'

 

[BFew]

Latham got struck by a lightning Bolt today.
Bolt says that Latham appears to have a health issue that needs treatment.

Andrew Bolt unleashes on Mark Latham for ‘disgusting’ homophobic tweet

Mark Latham is under fire for a “depraved” homophobic tweet targeting NSW independent MP Alex Greenwich, with both Andrew Bolt and Pauline Hanson branding it “disgusting”.

www.skynews.com.au

 

[schneebly111]

ALP will be in minority government:

NSW Labor falls short of majority after two seats are called for Liberal party

Ryde is the only count still in dispute as the Liberals hold on to Holsworthy and Terrigal, ABC election analyst Antony Green says

www.theguardian.com

Good, maybe actually crack down on the gambling lobby next time.

Message for Albo - you don’t hold majority by much either, be cooperative with the cross bench as you may need them in a few years.

 

[Not Important]

so much for the lib neanderthal who claimed the voting worked against 'em. geez, they are clueless.

 

[Caesar]

so much for the lib neanderthal who claimed the voting worked against 'em. geez, they are clueless.

It is a bit hard to tell the exact results because under full preferential voting there would probably be a few more three-cornered contests with Libs and Nats - which probably would have funnelled more preferences to Nats candidates in some of those seats won by regional independents

But I agree that overall, optional preferential voting hurts the ALP much more than the Coalition these days due to the existence of the Greens

Ironic given that it was the ALP who brought in preferential voting in the 80s to try and hurt the Coalition

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

This might be Labor finding excuses.

But the Coalition has form and is suspect it’s true to a large degree.

Deals on the bus: Sydney locked into $5 billion in contracts until 2030s

The previous state government signed multiple long-term deals with private bus operators in the months leading up to the election.

www.smh.com.au

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Absolutely scathing piece by Geoffrey Watson SC on the dodgy AF bus contracts. You can trust a Lib as far as you can kick them.

Multibillion-dollar secret bus deals take us for a ride

That the outgoing NSW government entered secret contracts for $5 billion on privatised bus services just before the election is disturbing at a number of levels.

www.smh.com.au

 

[BFew]

Absolutely scathing piece by Geoffrey Watson SC on the dodgy AF bus contracts. You can trust a Lib as far as you can kick them.

Exactly what dates, did NSW Transport or the contracted suppliers publicly disclose on their contracts registers, eTendering - Home, their websites, or in media releases, promotional material, or job ads, the existence any of these newly executed bus contracts?

 

[Caesar]

Exactly what dates, did NSW Transport or the contracted suppliers publicly disclose on their contracts registers, eTendering - Home, their websites, or in media releases, promotional material, or job ads, the existence any of these newly executed bus contracts?

They had not yet been released

The agreements were signed on 3 March, and public disclosure is not due until 60 days after that date (i.e. early May)

 

[sataris]

They had not yet been released

The agreements were signed on 3 March, and public disclosure is not due until 60 days after that date (i.e. early May)

The solution is to shorten the public disclosure period to 15 minutes.

 

[Caesar]

The solution is to shorten the public disclosure period to 15 minutes.

60 days seems to be pretty standard. I am not quite sure why. It is probably reasonable for some kind of waiting period, to allow the final contract to be appropriately redacted and any potential final issues with the contract agreement to be clarified or resolved before it is announced.

On the face of it the process seems reasonable enough. The contracts were due to be renegotiated, this occurred over a period of many months. Once all negotiations were complete on all contracts they were signed to be released in a single batch (presumably to avoid giving any one supplier an informational advantage in their own negotiations).

The timing is certainly serendipitous though - early enough to avoid breaching caretaker, but late enough that the decision wouldn't become public before the election. Given how controversial the contracts are, you do have to wonder if it was planned that way.

Irrespective of intent I kind of feel like this is a bit of a loophole in the caretaker conventions, and it would be nice to see it closed