The youth vote 2013



Winston Churchill once observed, “If you are not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

Much has been said and speculated about the “youth vote” – the demographic aged between 18 and 24 and to a very considerable extent a lot of what is said or claimed just isn’t supported by the facts.

There are officially 14,712,799 people enrolled to vote on September 7. Between the calling of the election and the close of electoral rolls, 624,539 people signed up yet, of those, only 3,641 were aged 18 or 19 and only 21,787 were aged 20 to 24. A whopping 47% are aged over 50.

The Young Labor Association (YLA), which likes to describe itself as the largest youth political organisation in the country says it has over 10,000 members aged between 14 and 26. The National Seniors Association has over 200,000 over 50.

It is estimated that about half a million eligible voters aged 18 to 25 are not enrolled and this is a huge 12% of the electorate – consider that the total vote difference between the two major parties in the 2010 election was about 30,000. About one-fifth of this age group is not registered to vote – the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) says 1.9 million people aged 18 to 24 are enrolled while 400,000 are not. 

Studies show that even young voters who are enrolled are less likely to vote than older people. Reflecting Churchill’s observation, the older people get the more likely they are to be conservative.

The Whitlam Institute has reported that young people are more likely to vote on issues that are important to them rather than on party allegiances. They said, “For example, same sex marriage, the way we treat asylum seekers, climate change or action on global poverty are issues that are brought up right across Australia” but those who are passionate about these issues are more likely to vote for The Greens.  

PM Rudd likes to mix with young people, get treated as a pop star and portray himself as king of the kids and a super cool dude  – that is when he is not parading around as an international statesman, wise policy guru and finance manager of pure genius ability. His confected use of what he thinks is youth slang such as “gotta zip” is embarrassingly naff for young people and hugely amusing for the rest.

Surrounded by throngs of screaming school girls who seem to regard him as another member of boy band One Direction, Rudd appears both tremendously pleased yet distinctly out of place. In any case, they don’t vote.

If my parents – about a century ago it seems – had been given to describing something as “cool” I would have curled up in embarrassment. Fortunately, they didn’t. 

The ALP has imported US whizz kids who worked on President Obama’s social media campaign to connect with the youth demographic. While the youth demographic is more likely to rely on social media rather than mainstream media for their political news, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they will enrol to vote or even vote once enrolled.

The ALP has announced that it is going to ramp up its campaign in favour of gay marriage with a serious concentration on social media complete with celebrity endorsements, given the acknowledged fact that young people are far more inclined to be in favour. There will also be letterbox drops, mainstream media advertising and other strategies.

But it will probably be a waste of time, money and resources. While a recent Fairfax/Nielson poll nationally showed 65% general approval of gay marriage, only 16% said the issue was “very important”. There is a very real risk this campaign could alienate older ALP voters, especially working class men.

It can be an important factor in some electorates. The Brisbane electorate is held by the LNP’s Teresa Gambaro with a 1.1% margin, it is certainly the “gayest” electorate and she recently announced, after tip-toeing around the issue, that she would vote in favour if a conscience vote was allowed.

Yet in Blair – centred on Ipswich and the very socially conservative surrounding rural areas – sitting Labor MP, Shayne Neumann, remains steadfastly opposed. He can only hope that this new ALP campaign initiative is ignored. In a throw-back to Whitlam’s campaign in 1972, this campaign is headed, “It’s time” which hardly shows any originality but, I suppose, 1972 for young voters is as distant as Curtin is for me.

Back in February, the national Young Labor Association held its conference in Canberra. One highlight which impressed me was a motion from NSW right faction delegates entitled, “John Faulkner is a contemptible charlatan” which claimed that the veteran left-wing Labor icon, “has now successfully joined the ranks of the sideline whiners and the hypocritical teetotallers that are those few ALP politicians, whether former or current, who complain about the processes of the Australian Labor Party despite the deeply hypocritical nature of their complaints.”

While the grammar doesn’t provide any reason to feel confident about the NSW education system, there is something weirdly comforting about this – the NSW Right Faction leaders of the future have learned much at the feet of their elders.  Given that the NSW Right re-installed Rudd, perhaps this was a portent for Rudd’s plea for a “kinder, gentler” debate.

God only knows how they could bag Abbott with stronger language – perhaps they could implicate him in the holocaust.

Similarities in leadership

Top ranking US presenter Bill O'Reilly is not noted for going hard on President Obama, until now. It seems there is a familiar pattern with socialist leaders that surfaces soon after re-election.

Ego, arrogance and incompetence are the common traits – usually all three at once. Readers may recognise similarities between the Prime Minister of Australia and the US President in Bill's article.


What Happened, Mr. President?

By Bill O'Reilly

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Not a great week for the Obama folks, as the scandal du jour tour has firmly taken hold. Every day it seems another federal agency is exposed as either intimidating, snooping, covering up, or going to Vegas on the taxpayer dime. Zimbabwe is even making fun of us.

On January 21, 2009, in remarks welcoming his new presidential staff, Barack Obama said: "Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

So what happened, Mr. President? Why so much stonewalling?

Let's take this one by one. Barack Obama has to know that nobody is buying the assertion that Ambassador Susan Rice made a simple error when she blamed the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens on a spontaneous Muslim uprising caused by a stupid anti-Islamic video. No one believes that was an honest mistake, Mr. President!

So it is on Mr. Obama himself to explain the Rice deal and also why armed U.S. assets in Tripoli were not immediately sent to help the Ambassador and other Americans under siege in Benghazi.

But for eight months, the President has refused to explain.

The IRS chaos is newer and the president was forced to respond by firing Steve Miller, who ran the agency. But again, how could the powerful IRS get so out of control? Was it loyalty to a liberal president that made agents unfairly target conservatives? We need some clarity here.

On the Associated Press front, all the president has to do is what Attorney General Holder refuses to do – explain in general terms why the Justice Department thought it necessary to secure the phone records of AP reporters. Explain why there was an urgency to the investigation. Mr. Obama can certainly do that without compromising national security. So why isn't he doing it?

The answer to that question lies in accountability. When has Barack Obama ever been held accountable for anything? The press has largely covered for him when mistakes were made and the public seems to be in a very forgiving mood, especially on economic matters where, according to some polls, almost half the voters believe the sluggish economy is Bush's fault.

Sensing blood in the water, the president's ardent opponents will continue to take the scandals as far as they can. The only way this stops is for Mr. Obama to take control, admit whatever mistakes were made, explain how and why they happened, and hope the public understands.

If he doesn't do that, his second term could well be a national nightmare.

(Thanks to reader Jim.)

The “climate” word isn’t used anymore

TobyToby may be suffering jet lag as his jolly demeanor has turned to an attack on stupidity surrounding US politics as they grind down to the wire. An insightful assault nevertheless.

Three presidential debates watched by millions,
but not one word about climate change.

Months of campaigning, billions of dollars spent on advertising, thousands of reporters digging like dogs on speed getting issues to be included in the debates. Even a terrified petition signed by160,000 demanding that the presidential debates include something, anything, to allay their panic and anxiety had no impact.

Not one word about climate change in those debates.

Well, there was one mention, but it went over both as a mocking joke and a stirring vote-for-me; ‘Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet…My promise is to help you and your family.’

That was it.

Climate change – or as it used to be called, global warming, has been mentioned in every presidential campaign since 1988 – and mentioned in all six debates. Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry, Dole, Gore, Bush, Bush(Mk2), McCain, Obama all had something to say and promises to make during the campaigns.

The ignorant Obama even messianically promised to stop sea level rise after he was elected. The others squibbed such promises; they didn’t smoke his brand, however they did promise to spend money on making electricity from cow dung and chicken fat, sunshine and wind. But, in these debates? Zero.

In April, this very year, the nincompoop Obama declared he would make global warming a key campaign issue in 2012 but only promised it to the way out wacky Rolling Stone magazine. Of course, he also promised them to do something about banning high risk investments.

Standing in the debris of the colossal failures of those high risk investments, his green energy initiatives – seeing literally billions of taxpayers money swallowed in the endless list of companies like Solyndra, daily under attack for shovelling real money to people who had put money into his election campaign, even he finally realised the jig was up.

Climate change is a bust.

And when the world’s largest economies Russia, India, China, the US, are actually taking advantage of the self-induced hallucination of Climate Change to tap the pockets of the Brits and the Germans and Australia -what are the odds there will not be a word about it in the next Australian election?

Except, of course, to pour scorn on the official and unofficial Carbon Taxes that have serious impacted every single Australian life with higher costs, unaffordable heating bills, and white elephant desalination plants resulting from the panic stricken attempts to supply Australia with water from the oceans instead of building dams to catch the rain?

The Climate Change scare was doomed from the beginning when its public face was the smarmy get-rich-quick partisan Al Gore; and its principal source of ‘science’ the corrupt United Nations and its equally scandal ridden branch – the mad green IPCC.

Affecting the promotion of this nightmare was that the Climategate scandal had massive consequences on public opinion; there was a collapse of the UN climate treaty talks; and the repeated failure of predictions of no more snow, running out of water, millions of climate refugees.

The game is not over yet while the Herald scans the weather reports every day and jumps its Move-On readers and the lunatic fringe which increasingly makes more of its readers and letter writers. The Greens still have their hands around the testicles of the Labor Party and still huddles over the sinking coals of their lies, and the CSIRO’s budget depends on keeping Gillard happy and she depends on keeping Greens happy.

But the agony and tears of Al Gore and his astonished tweets why there was no mention in the debates are some little sweet solace to the victims of the Great Scam.

No longer are his raves listened to in the mainstream press. He is forced to do facebook appearances and hapless tweets that only go to his demented followers anyway. His other statements just bring laughter and derision, and increasing anger, from his former dupes.
It can’t be long before Flannery becomes like Gore and his name becomes a verb for failed predictions.

“Yair, he flanneried on about Dingbat’s chances in the Cup, but I preferred Wossname.”



Jim McCrudden dares to write about the murder of US Amassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens like no other about the wave of Islamist insanity now spreading like a lethal virus against Western interests in some 20 countries. All of it driven by a perceived insult to the prophet Mahammad in a Youtube clip.

Four days ago, on September 11, the 11th anniversary of the
Twin Towers massacre, Egyptian Muslims attacked the US embassy in Cairo; the
Marine defenders were ordered to withdraw and hide, and Islam’s ancient black
flag – the one used when they began the conquest in the Middle East and Europe
– was hoisted in place of the torn down and desecrated US flag.

Simultaneously, Libyan Muslims attacked and set fire to the US Embassy in Libya
murdering at least four men including the ambassador who was dragged through
the streets—that’s him above, his name is Chris Stevens—and burnt the place to
the ground. Stevens apparently died in Benghazi hospital of smoke inhalation. A news report made by the Libyan
Free Press reported that Ambassador Stevens was raped before he was killed.
In each case the murderers claimed they were offended by a movie made in
America. The offence, of course, is a convenient bullshit masquerade. Certainly
they were offended by a movie they had never seen but only heard about, but the
attacks were co-ordinated to take place on September 11th for obvious reasons.
There was also an attack on the US embassy in Yemen.

 The US response was swift.

Obama-pisses-himself Urine running down their legs, they came out and condemned, not the attackers,
but makers of the movie about Mohammed and mewed pitifully that everybody
should respect other people’s religions.
In other words, ignoring this terror campaign against its embassy, the murder
of its staff and the desecration of the American flag the formal response was
to apologise for the right to free speech inherent in the US constitution.
The statement read was, “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the
continuing efforts by misguided individuals [the movie makers] to hurt the
religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all
religions. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right
of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
While bleating about the “religious feelings of Muslims,” the U.S. embassy in
Egypt had nothing to say about the fact that, immediately before the Embassy
was attacked, a Christian man in Egypt stood on trial for “insulting”
Islam—even as a throng of Muslims besieged the court-house, interrupting the
hearing and calling for the man’s death. Appeasing thin skins is more important
than speaking up for those whose lives are at stake—not just Christian
Egyptians, but now U.S. employees—over issues of freedom of speech, not to
mention terrorism.
Despite the fact that there had been widely publicised long standing threats to
the U.S. embassy well before any movies demanding it be burnt to the ground,
culminating with the destruction of the American flag—Victoria Nuland, the U.S.
State Department’s SpokesIdiot, speaking in response to this latest attack,
said that “none of this suggests that there are hostile feelings for the U.S.
in Egypt.” No, of course not.
The US Attorney General has asked for an investigation. The Libyans have
replied saying it isn’t easy – there were so many there, it was all mixed up,
the light was uncertain, a lot of people were just watching; many were looking
the other way….
None of this is surprising—not the attacks on the U.S. embassies, not the
murders, and certainly not the U.S. government’s head up their arse response.
This event explains the situation in a way Blind Freddy understands: the more
you appease, the more contempt you earn from those you appease, and the more
demands will be made of you.
Today, far from being respected as a super-power, the U.S. is increasingly seen
as a subdued, contemptuous crawler—who must say “how high?” whenever commanded,
Thanks to Obama. He did it single-handed.

UPDATE. There have been counter demonstrations in Libya, by
Libyans, supporting the US. They condemn the film, but they also condemn the
attack on the embassy.

Jim McCrudden is a retired lawyer, a scholar of Dickens, Shakespeare and many others. He lives on the NSW South Coast and has keen interest in politics.


TobyMeet Toby Jug. Toby suggests you read his articles on Saturday mornings with a good coffee, a lamington and with tongue-in-cheek. The best doctors say laughter boosts the immune system against the madness of mankind. Try it and see.

The USN'S Henry J. Kaiser is one big ship. It can carry
900,000 US gallons of the stuff that powers US cruisers and fighters, that’s
about 32 thousand tons of it. And thanks to the green enthusiasm that has infected the US Navy admirals, it
is carrying this very moment not conventional fuel but biofuel. And biofuel only costs 650% more than diesel, $26-a-gallon compared to $3.60.
The Navy budget will be blown out covering fuel that is four times more
expensive; ships will be laid up to save cash.

Using a perverted sense of logic known only to those civilians who run defence
forces, the galah in charge of this particular fantasy claims this is evidence
of the way the navy is technologically up to the very second. The navy upgraded
from sail to coal, from coal to diesel, diesel to nuclear, he claims, and now
they are going to fuel made from natural resources. Just like they did when
they used whale oil in their lamps 200 years ago.
“Why, not just use algae”, the desk admirals claim with the same glitter in the
eye that Charles Manson and Hitler had. They believe that the US Navy looks as
terrifying to its enemies burning fuel squeezed from seeds, algae
and chicken fat as it does using petroleum.
What? Chicken fat?? Seriously???
“The Navy is open to using any biofuel that meets its specifications,
regardless of whether it is produced with seed oil, chicken fat or
woody biomass.” Plans are under way to estimate how much chicken
fat they can have in reserves, how much to use in blends and so on.
They are considering toilet waste too. No doubt to power the Crapcan class
destroyers and make the Russian Navy as jealous as a jilted Spanish skunk as it
manoeuvres upwind of them.
Toby Jug’s cadet reporter, Wilfred Dickins, ever in the forefront of green
initiatives, has advised the US Navy department of the suggestion of Christine
Milne to collect jettisoned paddle pop sticks and coffee stirrers.
“These sticks, suitably glued together, make an excellent small ship, able to
intercept illegal people smuggling, illegal fishing, illegal whaling and so on.
Being of timber they do not have an identifiable radar signature. They are
readily constructed, powered by sail or rowing they are economical to run, have
no carbon footprint, and easy to repair.”
A marriage made in heaven; the HMAS Paddlepop powered with mighty engines
burning chicken fat and poop when the oarsmen get tired or the wind
Something like the current electrical energy system.
And, what about the Japs and the whaling? Are they secretly planning to fuel
their naval fleet with whale oil? Is that what was behind South Korea’s plans
to scientifically study whales by killing them? To think that Julian Assange is
holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy learning Spanish, eating chili, when he could
be revealing the truth.
Knowing what our defence department is like it will come as no surprise when
reported that our priceless Collins class submarines have been eaten
by sharks trying to get at the chicken fat fuel tanks.
That would be a move welcomed by every right (read left) thinking Green on
planet earth.


How the Left is Roasting Free Speech

Front Keith Topolski examines how one fast food outlet stood up to leftist elites and exposed the left's inner dictator.

In the past, to be branded chicken was to have your courage brought into question. Perhaps now to be branded chicken should mean that your courage is unquestioned.

American chicken outlet Chick Fil-A has either found itself the target of either a vicious smear campaign by progressive whingers or exposed itself as a Christian fundamentalist cult, depending on who you listen to.

What exactly created this furore? Chick Fil-A owner Dan Cathy had the temerity, the spite, the vindictiveness to, wait for it… oppose gay marriage!

As you will ascertain by listening to the interview, Cathy may have sailed close to the wind by talking about shaking fists at God, but otherwise he made no outlandish remarks.

Now, you would think (Which immediately precludes many on the left) that something may have twigged in the minds of the neo-Communist crowd when they realised sometime in the last 66 years that, unlike other businesses, Chick Fil-A remained closed on Sundays.

However, whingeing Socialists is nothing new. We live with them every day. What makes this issue different, though, is that elected officials are now making efforts to shut down development opportunities for Chick Fil-A because they don't like what Dan Cathy said.

Chicago Councillor Joe Moreno, supported by Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, has declared he will oppose any DA's which come before Council from Chick Fil-A.

Now, socialist politicians from Chicago having stupid ideas about building things is nothing new.

Similar pronouncements have come from, surprise surprise, Boston and San Francisco.

However, never before has a political movement, so out of control and full of its own self importance, sought to restrict business opportunities based on an individual's political beliefs.

Where the new Stalinist movement goes off the rails, however, is that they have left behind some of their progressive allies. Allies who actually appreciate the dangerous precedent being set by restrictions on freedom of speech.

I tell not a word of a lie when I tell you that the New York Times and even the American Civil Liberties Union have declared their support for Chick Fil-A.

Thankfully, we are finally seeing a handful of those on the left appreciate exactly what these restrictions on freedom of speech mean.

If we can restrict the speech of people opposed to gay marriage in the north, what's to stop a Council controlled by supporters of traditional marriage refusing DA's to businesses which declare their support for the gay community? After all, if politics is cyclical, wouldn't conservatives eventually stand a chance of getting into power again? (How silly of me, socialists always favour a one party state)

Socialist dictators don't just reside in Cuba or Vietnam. Right now, they reside in the White House and The Lodge, and even on councils determined to socially engineer their own communities. We know that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and more people should understand that sometimes vigilance is telling the Government to back off and only do what it is legally entitled to do.

If private operators conducted themselves like Chicago Councillors, there would be an outcry from the left. It is time we raised the same sort of hell.

Indeed, conservatives far and wide have flocked to Chick Fil-A, but this needs to become more prevalent.

Only by removing politicians who overstep their mandate can we have a Government we can trust. When Governments become bullies, people must stand up for themselves. When they do not, they become oppressed.

A world without freedom, after all, does seem rather fowl (sic).

(Disclosure: I am undecided over the issue of marriage equality)

Keith Topolski is a former member of the NSW Young Liberal Executive and is studying Communications.

Seriously WTF Would Anyone Buy an Obama Belt Buckle?

Some great belt buckles here until I saw this gem.

Obama belt buckle

Seriously, WhyTF would anyone buy an Obama Belt Buckle?

Fortunately there was no Julia Gillard or Bob Brown belt buckles in sight.

Why is it that some people like to wear stuff with pictures of socialist President Obama or mass murderer and communist Che Guevara? When did progressivism and communism become “so cool”?


Follow Andy on twitter