ttbn,
> Why are your mentioning 'apologies'? Feeling a little guilty?
Of course I'm not feeling at all guilty. Were I feeling guilty I'd certainly not have mentioned apologies in a negative context. But as it is, you're the one who should apologise!

> Politicians have never, and never will, spend our money 'efficiently'; they just spend it.
I won't dwell on the counterexamples beyond the Nullarbor because there's a far more important - indeed absolutely crucial - point you seem to be overlooking:

EFFICIENCY IS NOT BOOLEAN!

Even if no government spending meets your standards for being efficient, the fact remains that some spending decisions are much much more inefficient than others.

> Everything about the 16 year socialist government is “absurd”, and they have never “made...economies”.
Firstly, Labor's hardly socialist.
Secondly, their Liberal predecessors were similarly bad and for a long time it seemed the opposition had learned nothing.
Thirdly, the Labor government were pretty good in their first term when they had to rely on the support of independents and a National. It wasn't until they had a majority in their own right that they became wasteful and arrogant. Experience shows the best way to minimise inefficiency is to force the government to justify every decision they make!

> The Murdoch press is not lying.
Maybe not deliberately, but it's making baseless claims.

> It is Xenophon who is refusing to answer questions about whom he would support in the case of a tight vote.
Xenophon has not made up his mind about whom he'd support in the case of a tight vote. And nor should he - if it happens, the answer should be negotiated afterwards, not predetermined.

Aidan,

I'll leave to try to convince yourself that you know know what you are talking about. Your desperate patter hasn't worked on me.

"You don't think I have the right to an opinion just because I don't 'have' to vote for a particular candidate"

ttbn I never said you don't have a right to an opinion, I said your view was odd as to what constituted an independent politician. It is accepted that an independent is simply a member with no party affiliation, not bound by party rules or directions, nothing to do with their political philosophy.

Paul,

I'm not talking about your 'independent' comments. I couldn't be bothered spending time on that.

I am referring to your previous post in which you sided with the maturity-challenged Toni Lavis. You said, "As Toni said you don't have to vote for him". That suggests, in anyone's language, that there is no need for me to have an opinion of a person I regard as a threat to South Australia because I don't have to vote for him.

Hi ttbn, not at all you have the right to express an opinion about Nick Xenophon. I happen to think he is being extremely discourteous towards those who voted for him last election and the rest of Australia. When you run for public office I believe you give an implied commitment to serve for the full term, unless circumstances that are beyond your control prevent you from doing so. That is not the case with Xenophon he is being a cynical b.

Irony. Former NSW Primer Kristina Keneally, was on Sky yesterday passing somewhat muted comment on Xenophon's action. This is the same woman I believe gave an undertaking to the votes of the seat of Heffron NSW in 2011, if returned she would serve them as their local member for a full term, she was duly returned, but her government was ousted with a massive 16% swing. Within 18 moths she cynically walked away, and a by-election was held for her old seat. She can't talk.

Paul,

Certainly Xenophon should stay where he is (provided he is 'cleared' by the High Court, which he is almost certain to be). Pricks like him treat politics like a game - at our expense. There are too many of them on all sides of politcs, but voters are too damn lazy or stupid to stand up to them.