Biggest swing so far is 30% in Ballina away from the Nationals. Predicted to be a safe Greens gain.

Libs lasted one term in my seat of Prospect which is no real surprise, was always likely to go back to the ALP

Four more years! Four more years! \:d/

Safe

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

-PB

Yep .....finally making money again.....NSW back up in economic ratings and all back on track.......

Completely agree. Labor is still a basketcase in NSW. They are to Libs right now what City are to Victory.

I think given Baird has been open about his policies whether we like them or not, the state still own the power grid AND investing in making Sydney a more efficient city, that NSW were happy to give him another go.

Happy with Baird back in.

Now back to wishing we had a decent political figure at national level :(

Solid Greens result, plus privatisation looks set to be blocked in the Leg Council. Good shit.

I reckon if Baird does well as a state premier he would have a good shot at being a future PM

I ended up voting for South Park.

that's the spirit.....:-"

I suppose its meant to be funny :? can't see the point as well.

apathetic perhaps

The actual thing of voting for South Park is solely a reference from the show Community.

But for my reasoning about voting informal, I wrote this elsewhere, cbf re-writing:

Went to my local school to vote Sat and there were people handing out pamphlets for Independent, Labour, CDP and Greens. A guy asked "is there anyone handing out Liberal sheets" and they all laughed and said no, libs didn't bother with this place, and the old guy handing out the Greens forms said "Liberal are only a small party anyway" and it got a bit of a laugh. But moral of the story is Independent seemed to have Lake Mac wrapped up so much that Liberals didn't even bother taking it seriously, as did few of the other parties. Even if I had enough interest to take proper consideration into voting, my choices were limited enough.

In the end I decided to informal vote. I will happily admit I didn't have the interest enough to delve deep enough to find out which issues each of my local members did or didn't stand for. I find a big problem with the voting public is a heap of people seem to vote for a party solely because their grandparents did their whole lives, or some ingrained notion that certain parties are for certain things without even checking if their local member does or doesn't stand for that.

For instance, one would casually assume Greens stand for everything environment. But I listened to an interview with the Greens guy running for my local and when asked his 3 big issues, his first and most important was how he was pro-voluntary-euthanasia. I'd bet there were a heap of people who didn't delve deep enough to find out what each person stood for that still wouldn't have a clue that he stood for that issue.

I see uneducated voters as a huge issue. I know a tonne of people who voted against Liberal in the last election solely because they saw the picture comparing Tony Abbott to Gollum, and thought he looked creepy. So my solution that I offer to everyone is: only vote if you've done the research to know what you're voting for. And if you don't know, don't vote (ie informal). That way, a true indication of what my local, informed community want, will be voted in.

When I decide to take enough interest to feel educated enough on issues and my local members and exactly what they stand for, I'll happily vote formally. Until then, I choose to leave it to the mature members of my community who are educated enough to make informed decisions. Or until all the "my family has always voted labour... my dad told me to vote liberal.. I like god so will vote the christian party" people subscribe to my informal-until-educated view, I'll leave it to them too.

Fair enough post pv4, thanks.

WELL FOR ME THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS....STAND ON THE SIDELINE AND WATCH IT ALL GO TO SHIT IN A HANDBAG....OR GET INVOLVED AND GO OUT SCREAMING.....

I HAVE CHOSEN THE LATER....

If only that was his only problem.

Or option 3:

[youtube]BGi6Q1pNbS0[/youtube]

Just some news through this morn on this low life :

Obeid wives hit with $8 million tax bill

Date
April 2, 2015 - 7:49AM

Kate McClymont
Senior Reporter

Exclusive
Tax bill: Judy Obeid at her Hunters Hill home.

Tax bill: Judy Obeid at her Hunters Hill home. Photo: Simon Alekna

Although they each list their occupation as "housewife", six members of the Obeid clan have been hit with a combined tax bill of almost $8 million, according to documents filed in the NSW Supreme Court.

The Australian Tax Office says family matriarch Judy Obeid, the wife of corrupt former Labor powerbroker Eddie Obeid, owes $1.86 million for the financial years 2010-2011, 2011-12 and 2012-13.

Mrs Obeid's bill includes more than $500,000 in penalties and interest payments.
Eddie Obeid.

Eddie Obeid. Photo: Daniel Munoz

The ATO is pursuing Mrs Obeid, two daughters and three daughters-in-law in the Supreme Court.
Advertisement

In July 2013, the Independent Commission Against Corruption made corruption findings against Mr Obeid, his son Moses and former mining minister Ian Macdonald.

This followed a sensational corruption inquiry which revealed that at the end of 2010 some $30 million from a corrupt coal deal flowed through a maze of Obeid family trusts and then on to members of the family via tax-free loans.

In recommending the ATO investigate, the ICAC report said it would be "open to the Tax Office to infer from the manner in which the trusts were operated that they were a sham" and that if the payments were not loans, they would be taxable as trust distributions.

The black money – coal profits – were used by Mr and Mrs Obeid and their nine children, none of whom work outside the family businesses, to maintain affluent lifestyles which included buying luxury houses, fast cars and a seaside penthouse for family holidays.

Only a fortnight after the ICAC report was tabled in Parliament, the ATO hit the Obeid clan with amended tax assessments.

According to the Supreme Court documents, the year of the coal windfall – the 2010-2011 financial year – was the most profitable for the Obeids. Paul Obeid's wife, Lucia, has been issued with an amended tax liability of $918,726 for that year. Her mother-in-law, Judy, had a similar liability as did her sisters-in-law Carol, who is married to Damian Obeid, and Maree, married to Eddie jnr.

The ATO is pursuing the four women for total tax liabilities of about $1.83 million each.

The Obeids' youngest child Rebecca Joummaa has been hit with a $452,000 tax bill while her sister Gemma Vrana's bill is $101,335.

The Supreme Court action, which will be back in court on April 15, has been initiated by the ATO. It comes on top of a separate stoush in the Federal Court where nine members of the Obeid clan are contesting their tax assessments.

Surprising omissions are Eddie Obeid and his entrepreneurial son Moses, who are not part of any action against the ATO.

The existence of the Obeid family trusts first came to light in 2012 when Moses Obeid claimed he didn't have the means to pay a $12 million debt to the City of Sydney.

Justice Peter Young said he could have "very little confidence" in the evidence of Moses Obeid and his brother Paul and noted the Obeids appeared to exemplify the doctrine, "How to live well on nothing a year", from the classic novel Vanity Fair.

Despite having a taxable income of $100,000 a year - and his wife Nicole $80,000 - the pair lived a sumptuous lifestyle, drove his and hers Land Rovers, employed a maid, met their annual mortgage payments of $210,000 on a $4.5 million Vaucluse mansion and still had $800,000 a year left over for living expenses. It was discovered that the money was coming from the Obeid family trusts

I'm glad you voted informal. State politics is ridiculous and it should be removed.

We should just have regional councils and federal government.

problem is councils are more corrupt than state politics, rife with nepotism and cronyism.... so it is hard to determine what tier needs to be removed if any? perhaps councils need to be merged to look after far larger area's? can't see a council running an hospital or train station or a fire brigade with any competency and transparency

It's disappointing that you say that. I actually think this was one of the more significant state elections in a while, in a policy sense. Baird wanted to do a massive infrastructure spend, but wanted to effectively sell off control of 49pc of the poles and wires to do it. It was a big policy to either agree or disagree with. There were also a number of big environmental issues on the table this time, like what to do about Coal Seam Gas, and whether or not Westconnex should be built.

On the Central Coast and hunter you also had the problem of what to do with the corrupt liberal MPs who were done in by ICAC.

I voted Labor but I respect Baird for actually treating the electorate like grown ups for once, by putting something big and controversial to us and asking for endorsement.

Health, education, transport etc should be absorbed into federal politics.

possibly, but then there becomes the argument that federal level control loses the engagement at the coal face and can't manage for the local needs and requirements, meaning that federal will just make a blanket decision and roll out the same everywhere, so deficiencies are not addressed and waste is also duplicated.

But my local was wrapped up by the independent. so much so that Liberal got a law student who they didn't even bother putting posters up for to run. All the candidates that took my electorate seriously were all opposed to selling the wires off, and there was sfa else to vote about in my area.

My belief is that this country is becoming more and more homogenous and thus the differences between the states become less and less. I work in health care and have done so across borders between NSW and VIC and NSW and ACT and seen the wasteful bureaucracies that borders can create.

The number of times I've had to transfer a patient 3 hours down the road when another facility just 10 mins across the border can't take them for bureaucratic reasons.

I still don't think that's a reason to vote informal. You could always vote 1 for your preferred (or least hated) party or candidate and then exhaust your vote.

Besides, there was also an upper house election where you could have voted for a whole number of different parties and policy platforms. Baird looks like he will be able to pass his poles and wires bill because Fred Nile won a seat and is ready to negotiate. If you were pro-privatisation your vote would still have made a big difference there.

I just hate this attitude that people have, where you disengage from a choice because you're not inspired by it. In our democracy there is almost always a choice, unlike America where they just have two pro-corporate parties. There is always a better or a worse option, even if that difference is slight.


Edited by lastbroadcast: 6/4/2015 05:02:56 PM