1. Yes this is suspicious and I'm surprised more hasn't been made of it in the media.

    I'm not sure if it has something to do with a dispute between partners on seat allocation or somehow related to their agreement to stand together and who the mandates belong to in the event that parties decide to go separate ways.
    (bganon, 1 June 2008 15:48)
  2. "... but that there was an additional deadline of five further days."

    By additional deadline - I suspect that you mean that there was an extension.

    This is troubling news though as it suggests that the SPS-PUPS-JS coalition may be more deeply divided then they appear in the media; it seems reasonable to assume that a general understanding on how they would allocate the seats they earned would have been established prior to establishing their coalition, so why the dickering now? The delay suggests that some 'horse trading' is occurring - an extra seat here, a 'softening' of position there. As might well be expected this is idle speculation though I have little doubt that I'm among a wide variety of speculators as to the political minutia following the elections.
    (Dave, 1 June 2008 04:48)