I was at the EGM yesterday and noted that the proxy vote for...

I was at the EGM yesterday and noted that the proxy vote for resolution 1, appointing GW as a director, was slightly over 50% in favour. It was only when the vote from the floor was added that the tally reversed to slightly over 50% against. My take on that is sufficient small investors at the meeting decided to support the existing regime. I was also taken by the mode of presentation and inconsistencies in NB's very short online speech as chair. Firstly, he did not do the meeting the courtesy of appearing in person. Secondly, he said that the company was well run, but then stated that it should have been in production by now. I cannot see how these two statements go together. I know I am laboring the point, but if TNG is a well run company, why isn't it in production?

I also see a parallel between what happened at the EGM and how leadership changes occur in political parties. Back in 1991, Paul Keating challenged Bob Hawke for the leadership of the Labor Party and lost. However, it gave him the momentum to challenge again later the same year and he won. I cannot imagine that the board members challenged at the EGM can feel secure in their positions, as they only squeaked in by the narrowest of margins. I look forward to the upcoming AGM, when shareholders can question them as to why they consider they are the best people for the job.