As one who gleefully put the boot into NSW Labour on Saturday, I’m not exactly a Carr fan. Still, I wonder if the rot really started at the top.

Carr was a strong leader. Was he effective? He brought the NSW budget under control, and did a good job managing Fahey’s triumph in scoring the Olympics. Carr actually did address transport/infrastructure issues, making good use of public/private partnerships to keep expenditure down. In principle, it looked like a good idea. We got much-needed facilities, and didn’t go into debt to pay for them.

So Iemma was very surprised when, on his ascendency, the Public Service modelling and usage projections for PPP projects proved to be inept at best, more likely criminally negligent. Investors lost a packet, government lost respect, voters got screwed. Our new world-class ticketing system costing megabucks proved to be the product of clowns in Public Service clothing. The legacy of the Olympics rotted in the bureaucracy’s dirty fridge. Bugger the Regions.

Iemma wasn’t stupid. He noticed the rot in energy infrastructure, and tried to act. With the PPP option closed, bills rising, and income dropping, privatisation was his only choice. But by this time Public Service & Unions saw disaster looming, and circled the wagons. They knew that what REALLY needed reform was the NSW bureaucracy. Regicide was much the easier option.

Rees and Kenneally were like child monarchs: all title, no power, easily replaced. The BER and related spendathons financed a nice party for the Faceless Men and their mates. Gillard knows it ... and that they’ll hit her up for more — if they go down, they’ll take her with ‘em. Kenneally lost the election, but so what? John Robinson will inherit Labour’s Light on the Hill because he’s got the most blood on his hands, an endless stream of Union Dues with which to buy influence, and an army of heavies to address complaints. And he commands loyalty, because no one else can stop reform of the NSW Public Service.

I hope Barry’s armed and ready for war.

Oh dear Patrick, I think you are fundamentally off-track.

You wrote;

<< …the biggest reason for this result can be brought back to one word – transport. >>

Which is intimately connected with population – the size of it and the rate of growth, yes?

And who has been the arch advocate, or the ONLY advocate amongst top-ranking politicians in this country, for stopping continuous population growth in growth-stressed, transport-clogged cities?

Yes, one Robert John Carr!

Unfortunately, he couldn’t do much about Sydney’s continuing stifling population growth from within a manically pro-growth Labor party and with a manically pro-growth Federal government there to override any growth-mitigation measures that he might have tried to implement!

No Patrick, Bob Carr was NOT the cause of Labor’s undoing in NSW. The cause was their manic addiction to rapid growth regardless of the consequences for the average quality of life of current residents.

Labor has yet to learn that a stable population that can be brought into balance with infrastructure, services, resources and environment, is ESSENTIAL. When we are on track to a stable population, THEN and only then can we hope to bring infrastructure and services up to speed, rather than having these things forever chasing the tail of growth.

What we have had for decades is ever-more infrastructure and services for ever more people, without any average net gain for the ordinary person, and indeed an average loss in many places, not least Sydney!

Unfortunately under O’Farrell, we are not likely to see any change whatsoever away from never-ending rapid growth and towards this essential balance. Yep, the Libs are just the same!

Patrick Baum has the auro of an old buck Rabbit overviewing shrinking pasture around his warren, declaring “poor seasons, poor soil, those cattle, --,” as ever more rabbit kittens, increasingly malnourished, hobble around an overworn landscape.

Bob Carr was on the money regarding awareness of the basic problem - ever-more people. He was outspoken against an ever-continuing rate of increase - determined, predominantly, by the Federal Department responsible for an excessive net migration intake.

As Jane O’Sullivan pointed out (OLO 8 March 2010 - The downward spiral of hasty population growth), two percent of existing infrastructure, overall, needs replacement and updating each year; and added to that are the extra needs for increasing numbers. Two per cent is a hefty burden, and the extra numbers bring it up to near four per cent.

How long before Barry O’Farrell is transported into the above reality, or is he too obtuse?

during the building of the Olympics money was striped from the state.

when it came back all of it was used to subsidize the " white elephant" Venus because nobody would hire them

could not run a chook raffle

ben