Wyatt is the LNP candidate for Longman, just north of Brisbane. He is 20 years old.

I question some of his political principles, as listed on his website: http://www.wyattroy.com.au/principles/. But then of course I do, as I have fundamental concerns about the direction that the LNP would take us in (as I do with Labor).

I am more interested in soliciting views from the OLO fraternity on whether it is a good thing, irrelevant thing or bad thing for a 20 year old to be a federal political candidate.

Would he be a good member simply because there is no one else anywhere near his age in our federal parliament?

Would a green member (one that is somewhat naïve, innocent and free of baggage) be a good thing?

[Of course a really green member (one that has a strong environmental and sustainability ethic) would be a great thing. But the LNP would hardly have anything to do with such a person!! ( :>o ]

Should there be more young people in our government?

While I commend Wyatt for standing, would we be taking it too far if we had people in their twenties in powerful positions of governance?

Wyatt certainly has different views to me, but I admire his strong stance and willingness to state his position without apology or dilly dally. There is enough mediocrity about as it is.

I am not sure how I feel about young people in those roles overall given that experience is something that is becoming undervalued and there is growing age discrimination in this country. However, it would be remiss to apply a similar prejudice to youth.

Perhaps a few younger candidates might bring a refreshing change and tempered with the experience of older colleagues might be a good thing.

Ultimately the test will be his character and ability which is true of any of us, regardless of age

He can put his name in the hat, same as anybody else. You dont have to vote for him.

I bet you'd tread more carefully if it was a young female candidate, just in case it looked like being a bit prejudiced.

Watch question time in paliament any night, and it looks like a bunch of dementia patients at the bowling club arguing who's ball is who's...

Ultimately it'll be up to the voters in his electorate. I for one wouldn't vote for someone as young and inexperienced as Wyatt Roy to represent me in parliament, whatever party they belonged to.

However, I'm sure that many voters will vote for him, simply because he's the LNP candidate - not that that party inspires any confidence at all in Queensland.

Wyatt should be banned. He's way too young. How could he possibly understand the workings of government. Just a kid.

Leave it to the adults.

"Adults" like Wilson Tuckey, Joe Hockey, Christopher Pyne, Julie Bishop, Tony Abbott ..... gee what a fine bunch of "adult" professionals. Keep the kids out!

I take your point, benq - and I certainly wouldn't vote for any of them either :D

Johnny Frazer, from the Gold Coast, Queensland, would have been 20 when he got his call-up notice under the Selective National Service legislation of 1964.

Early in his basic training, Johnny met the assessment and selection criteria for entry into the National Service Officer Training Unit, and, for whatever reason, volunteered to undertake the 22 week pressure-cooker course. (It has since been claimed that all that were accepted as ENTRANTS to that course during the years 1965 - 1973 would, in the normal course of events, had they been entrants to what we now know as the ADFA, have graduated as commissioned officers into the Australian Defence Forces.) There was a huge attrition rate during those OTU courses.

Johnny graduated, and was posted as a platoon commander to an infantry battalion, in microcosm a powerful position of governance.

His battalion was in due course sent to Viet Nam.

One day, on operations, Johnny trod on a landmine.

He must have heard it click as it armed, because it was claimed he shouted the warning "mine". There wouldn't have been much time for the men behind to have gone to ground, and I don't know if all, or any, made it in time. As I have heard it recounted, Johnny was still standing when it detonated. His body is thought to have created a sort of 'shrapnel-shadow' for the men behind.

Did he remain standing deliberately? It would be hard to say - any decision would have had to have been a split-second one. It was, however, the sort of thing Johnny would have done, if he had had time to think about it.

Johnny died in the chopper while being medevaced. I think he would have been 22.

So it is possible that someone aged 20 may, if placed in a powerful position of governance, display, despite inexperience, the necessary character and ability that the position requires. Whether Wyatt Roy measures up is up to the electors of Longman to assess. Perhaps he was the only one in his party prepared to give it a go.

I have two concerns about old mate Wyatt.

The first is that, as a notably young member, he will be expected (fairly or otherwise) to be the 'voice of youth' in Parliament. This is all well and good, but as an elected MP he would also be expected to be the voice of his electorate - something that may clash with his other unofficial duty.

The other is that he won't have enough practice at 'being an adult' before slipping into the world of politics. I'm not saying this is a bad thing for politics - after all, there are plenty of voters his age or younger and plenty of young people whose interests need voicing. But it is arguably a bad thing for him: climbing into the ivory tower and detaching himself from the real world before he has had any real chance to develop his beliefs and convictions. Finding himself jaded with the lethargic world of politics before he even hits 30. Being savagely attacked by political opponents before he has built the diplomatic skills to deal with such attacks. We call them adults, but 20 year-olds are still very young.

Well said Forrest. I was lining up with the others in thinking he was too young. I don't know if you have changed my mind.

I will, however, give the question some thought, now.

He is not too young Forrest showed us that but I already knew.
Age has nothing to do with it he however has an uphill battle

Hasbeen,

I was simply trying to keep the windows of viewers' minds open to the possibility that Wyatt Roy may have the necessary character and ability to do the job, if elected.

To be fair (and, perhaps, safe) it must be remembered that there are two important differences between Johnny Frazer and Wyatt Roy, despite the similarities in age at their respective times in history.

Johnny Frazer did not ask for his microcosmic powerful position of governance, it was thrust upon him without choice, other than that involved in his acceptance of the opportunity to make the best of the time required of him during his National Service. Wyatt Roy, by contrast, as indeed do all candidates, seeks the endorsement of electors to place him in a like position. Therein lies a significant difference.

Perhaps more importantly, there was an objective and exhaustive set of selection criteria applied to all such as Johnny Frazer, oriented around leadership qualities, which simply had to be met before there was any prospect of such ever being placed in those, although microcosmic, relatively powerful positions of governance. By contrast, candidates for election, such as Wyatt Roy, generally face no such objective and exhaustive formal selection criteria, being effectively self-recommended and maybe possessed, in some cases, of little more than the necessary ego to aspire to the position and win a pre-selection, even though such formal selection criteria as applied to the Johnny Frazers of yesteryear would be almost equally relevant to any pre-qualification of parliamentary aspirants that might be thought desirable these days.

I know nothing about Wyatt Roy beyond what Ludwig has posted. I would like to think he might measure up to the sort of criteria that once were applied to Johnny Frazer. If he does, I would wish him well, and the rest would be up to the electors of Longman.

Perhaps an ideal compromise in a wider field of application would be if persons having the experience of age that could also have met such selection criteria as applied to Johnny Frazer were candidates up for election.

This is hilarious.. I agree with morgan and benny

toooo much. (perhaps it would be better put..'they' agree with me :)

Vote for a 20 year old - why not? As a matter of fact I'd happily vote for a particularly capable 12 year old we all met on this forum a few days ago.

Audrey responded to the posts on her thread inviting we (supposedly) adults to respond to her survey with skill and aplomb.

Who is more mature Abbott or Audrey?

Any person who is qualified to vote should be entitled to hold office. That is non-discriminatory and it is the case in Australia. Then it is up to the voters to decide on merit against the other hopefuls. It is relative merit that should decide, how else should a rational person vote?

What about Kelly Vincent?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/dignified-victory-in-sa-for-australias-youngest-female-mp/story-e6frgczx-1225851586229

Malcolm Fraser and Paul Keating were at age 25. For Mal that was in 1955. No-one seems to be beefing about the youthful age of Sarah Hanson-Young as a federal senator.

I certainly would not discount Wyatt Roy on age alone as some might do, that is prejudice, pure and simple.

I've been giving this matter some serious thought. On reflection, with a name like his I would vote for him regardless of his youth - but only if he was running for sheriff.

Funny you say that, CJ. A bit of a Wyatt Earp/Rob Roy merger - he certainly has an epic future ahead of him, if his name is anything to go by!

C J Morgan

What a moronic response to divert attention from your admitted prejudice against young people.

What the hell is wrong with you? Any young person who has the sense of civic responsibility and guts to run for parliament should be warmly congratulated, not disrespected. Who cares what party, just have the good grace to welcome and applaud him as a young person who is volunteering to serve the nation.

Wyatt Roy is old enough to marry and care for a family, to risk his life defending prejudiced, pretentious old geezers like you and to work to provide for your care and pension.

All young people reading your remarks should be very aware and wary of the biased, old Lefties like you who hang off the shirt tails of the Greens.

Cornflower,
imagine the overdose of praise CJ Morgan would lay out if the young bloke was standing for a leftie party or if he was indigenous.
what's that word again ? it starts with Hip ...?

Otokonoko - I was thinking more of a cross between Wyatt Earp and Roy Rogers...

Apparently my levity wasn't appreciated by some who didn't read my first post properly. I said I wouldn't vote for a 20 year old candidate for any party, because I don't think they'd be mature enough to represent me.

I didn't say he shouldn't stand. Mind you, he appears to be quite loathsome young twerp standing for a party that is a joke.

Well, there you have it, Wyatt.

Direct from the keyboard of the Lord Dymo, Thread-Labeler-in-Chief of OLO himself:

"..., he appears to be [a] quite loathsome young
twerp standing for a party that is a joke."

Take it from me, thats authoritative. Exploit it for all its worth. I can see your campaign posters and dodgers already:



[Beneath a photo emphasising Wyatt Roy's youth]

"I am a quite loathsome young twerp.
Help put me in Parliament where I belong."



[On the back of the dodgers]

"Be a party to the joke ...PTO"



I reckon voters just might like such refreshing honesty, even if they might not otherwise have considered voting for you.


Just contact Graham Young, Chief Editor of OnLineOpinion, and get permission as to how you can copy and use stuff from this thread. I'm sure he'll be helpful. After all, it would be a sort of vulgar form of advertising for OLO.

CJMorgan deserves his chance at attaining literary immortality, which his composition of your potential campaign slogan deserves to earn him. His views are profound, and his judgements deeply considered. Use them!

And remember to thank Ludwig (from Leichhardt?) for starting the ball rolling.

Well, I don’t have any problem with a 20 year-old being elected to federal parliament.

If there were numerous very young candidates, I’d be a bit concerned. But the real issues are policies, integrity, good representation…..and all that boring sort of stuff!

I wish Wyatt a good result in the election and a long and prosperous political career….. for as long as he pursues the right sort of policy agenda! ( : > )

Sadly competence, aptitude, knowledge or even clear thinking skills are not prerequisites under our political system. So I'm not anymore dismayed by what the system throws up (as in vomits up).

NB Politics is the only profession other than prostitution that doesn't require brains just a body and an friendly personality (genuine on not).
One prostitutes their body the other their integrity.

Examinator

You owe an apology to all prostitutes. What a person decides to do with their body is their business.

Q: How many narcissists does it take to change a light bulb?
A1: Just one, but he has to wait for the whole world to revolve around him.
A2: None at all, he hires menials for work that's beneath him.

There are a few here who probably won't get that joke, but it is funny and topical in view of some of the harsh remarks made by the few usual suspects about the young fellow Wyatt Roy and about politicians generally. Those contemptible remarks might be more personally revealing than their owners might imagine, hence the joke (there, I have relented and explained it for the few).

Through business and volunteering I meet quite a few politicians and am constantly amazed just how hard they work and how much they seem to care about their electorate and the nation. Of course like any calling there will always be the one who breaks that rule, but that is so everywhere in life.

It is astounding that there are those who would insult a young person who has the guts and gumption to put himself on the line for election. There needs to be a reality check: why dump on the very few who will come forward; and isn't it infinitely worse if young people are rejected and feel alienated instead?

Should old embittered geezers rule? No, absolutely not and the contribution of fresh young ideas is always most welcome.

Posted by Cornflower, on the day of the Great Deletion:

"[Question]: How many narcissists does it take to change a light bulb?

[Answer 2]: None at all, he hires menials for work that's beneath him."

Or above him, might I deign to suggest?

[Forrest retires, polishing his halo assiduously as he goes, preparing all the while for how he will deal with the sounds of silence. It had all really been quite Mikado-esque, what with the Lord Dymo losing his head, and all that. "My object all sublime, which I'll acheive in time, to make the punishment fit, the punishment fit the crime ..."]

But you have to admit, Cornflower, that the Old Embittered Geezers Party does have a ring to it.

This is a 'to the fallen' post.

It is in honour of OLO UserID 'Ludwig', who started this thread, but unfortunately became a casualty as seemingly 'collateral damage' in the Great Deletion that took place upon the 'Racist government, racist opposition, racist debate' article comments thread yesterday. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10669#177163 . I say 'seemingly collateral damage' not as any oblique criticism of the moderation decision that resulted in his suspension for abuse, but rather by way of recognition that abusiveness has never normally been something that Ludwig has displayed on the Forum.

Viewers can check this for themselves by going to his user history, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=22800&show=history , and looking at any of his 3466 comments posted to the Forum, except maybe two.

I can only think Ludwig must have been provoked, unless his suspension really was collateral damage, a mis-hit of the deletion/suspension button, so to speak.

Anyway, as he is at present unable to shepherd his thread, I shall endeavour to do it for him to some extent, without actually trying to put words in his mouth, in order to keep it up on the default display until he returns.

BTW, the Lord Dymo copped it too in the Great Deletion, as my earlier remark about him 'losing his head' may have revealed. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10669#177082 . He had eight of the 27 deleted posts down to him.

Ludwig only had two posts deleted. Just to introduce a sense of proportion.



"Everybody's lookin' for somethin'
Somebody wants to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused ..."



Everything is OK at the corral, Wyatt. Don't you worry about that!

Forrest Gumpp and Poirot,

Heh, heh, good ones and my keyboard needs another careful sponging to remove the coffee.

On the day after the Great Deletion, I would like to thank you Forrest for your comments.

I was very very unimpressed with my 24 hour suspension and I have let Graham know about it.

I’ll maintain that my posts were not abusive and were intended to be humorous and that I was indeed collateral damage.

Nearly five years on this forum without a suspension or a warning, then no warning, just a suspension, over something that I could never have dreamed could have led to it.

I am as familiar with the forum rules as they actually apply, which is somewhat to how they are written, and with the OLO culture as anyone could be. And I was of the impression that any poster who infringed the rules, even really blatantly, would get a warning first before the big stick was whacked across their backside.

I’ve always had a very good relationship with Graham, up until this point. It has certainly been damaged.

.

.
Um… so how do I join the Old Embittered Geezers Party?

----
Now, back to Wyatt Roy. As I said in my first post, I question some of his principles (http://www.wyattroy.com.au/principles/):

<< We believe in small government. >>

I don’t. I believe in efficient government that is large enough to properly undertake the enormous variety of duties that we depend on it for.

<< We believe taxes must be as low, as fair, and as simple as possible >>

Fair and simple, yes, but taxes have got to be high enough to properly cover steady improvements in all the areas that need it, which are many.

continued

<< We support sustainable economic growth >>

This should be; we support a sustainable economy, which would be one that is not based on continuous growth.

<< We believe fostering strong growth in productivity >>

We’ve got to get off the continuous growth spiral. We can’t keep on growing the economy and the population for very much longer. We need strong growth in productivity just to keep up the same sort of lifestyle for the rapidly growing population. So the obvious answer is not to forever foster increasing productivity, but to reduce population growth and then stop it altogether so that we can have a stable population. We then would not need strong economic growth. A small steady increase in economic growth or even a no-growth economy would be possible and very practical.

There are many more on Wyatt’s website, but that’ll do for now.

It is not Wyatt's age or inexperience that matters, it is his and his party's principles and policies.

Ludwig says:

"... I was of the impression that any poster
who infringed the rules, even really blatantly,
would get a warning first before the big stick
was whacked across their backside.

I’ve always had a very good relationship with
Graham, up until this point. It has certainly
been damaged."



Welcome back to the Forum, Ludwig.



I am pleased your suspension was only for 24 hours. I am wondering whether the suspension of others is anyway proportionate to the number of posts they had deleted. I guess we will soon find out, maybe in two more days, no?

I'd cut Graham a bit of slack on this one, Ludwig. It is my suspicion that he may be a little taxed at the moment over technical issues that appear to be intermittently affecting the Forum's functionality. I tried to implicitly suggest that there might be attempts at interference with the Forum from outside to other posters, some of whom were protagonists in the brawl, with this post to the 'Refugees will be an election issue' thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10680#176808 (which, strangely, I can access through my user history, which is up in a different tab, even though I can't get the index right now). It seems, however, there is no overcoming of offended online dignity when it is in full flight: straight over everybody's heads it went, leaving me having perhaps sailed close to the wind for nothing. You ponder its possible implications, Ludwig. I don't really want to flaunt what I did, and it is just possible I made a mistake as to having in fact posted.

I suppose Wyatt, if he is watching, might be wondering what this is all about. It might be a good test of his perceptiveness. I do so, so, want to post to George Williams' article about the electoral rolls.

Now, FWIW, the words I was not going to put in your mouth:

Here are the 2007 Federal election results for the Division of Longman: http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/website/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-302.htm

And here are the 2004 Federal election results: http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-12246-302.htm

Ludwig, "It is not Wyatt's age or inexperience that matters, it is his and his party's principles and policies."

Well said, of course voters should be using their brains and not their prejudices to choose their representatives. It is the emotional outburst that so often lifts the veil to show the prejudice and hubris beneath:

C J Morgan, "I for one wouldn't vote for someone as young and inexperienced as Wyatt Roy to represent me in parliament, whatever party they belonged to."

That attitude conflicts with Australian law which thankfully is non-discriminatory, allowing all adults the right to stand for office and represent their electorates.

The same poster's unnecessary and repeated abuse of the youthful but legally adult candidate "he appears to be quite loathsome young twerp" reminds one of the derivation of 'hubris':

"In ancient Greece, hubris referred to actions that shamed and humiliated the victim for the pleasure or gratification of the abuser." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

It is sobering thought that psychologists believe that behaviour generalises.

There is one sense in which there is a direct comparison, at the age of 20, between Wyatt Roy and Johnny Frazer.

It is one to do with their being required, on the basis of the decisions of their respective elders in Parliament assembled, to quite literally put their lives on the line in serving their country.

Whilst it is all too obviously clear how this was required in Johnny's case, it may not be at first sight obvious how it might be required of Wyatt. To see this one needs to recognise both the nature of modern-day terrorism, especially as it might come to be exercised in Australia following the events of recent years, and the technical legal consequences of the amendment of the Commonwealth Electoral Act that changed the number of writs issued from one for every electoral Division, to just eight, one for each State and Territory.

The technical legal consequence of this change is that if just one candidate for any reason dies between the close of nominations and polling day, the whole election in the relevant State or Territory fails. Previously such consequence was quarantined to just that of the election in the specific Division in which the death of a candidate during this interval may have occurred. In what I understand to be the words of one of the foremost constitutional lawyers in the British Commonwealth, a barrister licenced to appear in Australian courts, Leolin Price CBE QC, "sloppy and incompetent legislative drafting".

Terrorist action could hamstring the assembly of a new Parliament!

The change was all done for what, at its most polite, might be described as bureaucratic empire building in the AEC, an after-the-event legitimising of the centralising of the keeping of the then newly computerized electoral rolls, a function that had already been unlawfully usurped from the Divisional Returning Officers who had previously threatened to refuse to certify the accuracy of such rolls for elections.

The government was told of this legislative bungle, Wyatt. http://forums.pmc.gov.au/Electoral_Reform_Green_Paper?page=1

Now any of the likely 1,500 or so candidates have become targets!

Listen to Wyatt Roy on PM this evening: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2961478.htm

Not just your average 20 year old. A very switched-on fellow with a very real chance of winning in his seat, despite it currently being a Labor seat and despite the general tide of favour for Gillard and Labor.

Wyatt Roy, on the 2007 figures, has to change 2935 voters minds as to how they vote in order to just win by one vote in Longman. See: http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/website/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-302.htm



It could very well be a case of Roy being the Boy for the Hoi Poloi in Longman.



At 20 years of age Wyatt is at least a clean slate, politically speaking, which is more than can be said for the nongs that can now be seen to have effectively hung a target around his neck. For heaven's sake, it should have been a matter of bi-partisan agreement to have amended Section 154 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act to minimise this exposure of the Australian body politic to terrorists, wingnuts*, or sheer misfortune on the part of just one candidate.

Wyatt should note, however, that the Virtual Tally Room page is no longer the VTR page as it displayed at the finality of the count in 2007. The page layouts have been completely re-jigged. He can learn my take on this here: http://twitpic.com/27ovfm , and here: http://twitpic.com/27ow0g

Here is a link to the dpmc forum on the Electoral Reform Green Paper, for those who wish to navigate their way around for themselves: http://forums.pmc.gov.au/Electoral_Reform_Green_Paper . Note that there are three web pages of comments. A viewer can move forward or backward by clicking the page numbers at the bottom of any page. Just to confuse viewers, the second page of comments shows as 'page 1' in its URL, thus: http://forums.pmc.gov.au/Electoral_Reform_Green_Paper?page=1 , and similarly the third as 'page 2'. Take care if you wish to avoid missing anything. The Green Paper itself can be accessed from a clickable text link at the top of the page.

What were they thinking in Canberra?

*You will note, Ludwig, that I am being fair to our absent Lord Dymo (aka CJMorgan) in using one of his favourite descriptors. I feel its the least I can do for him after the Great Deletion.

Yesterday afternoon I made Google my friend.

Here is how it illuminated me with respect to Wyatt Roy, especially in the light of Ludwig's four opening post questions:
http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2010/07/q-weekend-article-on-wyatt-roy-the-coalition-kid.html

From that article:

"At Matthew Flinders Anglican college
in Buderim [Wyatt Roy] became best friends
with Patrick Hall, now 19, who suffers
spinal muscular atrophy type II and is
wheelchair-bound. Roy fetched books from
Hall's locker, got him his lunch, wheeled
him into classes. "Wyatt and I became
best mates at school from when we were
about 13", recalls Hall. "He showed great
maturity and leadership looking after me
there and later at Uni. He'd straighten
my head if it tilted over, stuff like that ...
... He has strong beliefs. He is a very
wise soul."

and, at the article's very end:

"As Roy sees us to the door, he offers
an obvious but astonishing fact. "I have
never voted in a federal election. The
first person I will ever vote for is myself."
He grins with the novelty of it. "I had to
wait for the best candidate."

Too right!

Also interesting to learn from the article that the Roy family farm specializes in growing strawberries. Johnny Frazer was frequently referred to by his mates as 'Fraze'. Fraise. Fraises. French for strawberries. Curious, that. Wonder if it means anything?

Come to think of it, Wyatt has an old-looking face for his age, just like Fraze did.

I think Jon Sullivan, the sitting member, may be in trouble.




Yup, Seajaye, no doubt about it. Definitely a quite loathsome young twerp, but under his future leadership his party looks like becoming anything but a joke.

BTW Seajaye, you can sort of get around your suspension from OLO if you want to. The linked-to article has a comments pane. You could give Wyatt the benefit of your considered opinion there. It looks, from the article, as if any feedback would be likely monitored by his campaign staff. Why not tell him what you really think!

Nicely put Forrest.

I left a message on Wyatt’s website notifying him of this OLO discussion a couple of days ago. I also sent him a personal email.

But alas, neither he nor anyone on his behalf has responded.

Good to see you effecting a connection between the OLOverse of opinion and the real world of domestic politics, Ludwig. Election campaigns can tend to become pretty hectic for candidates with only voluntary helpers. I'm sure nevertheless that your message and email will have been noted, and will be acknowledged in due course.




Now, Wyatt, about that target you will, as from 12 noon next Thursday until Saturday 21 August, be figuratively wearing, courtesy of that Great Champion of the People, the Central Office of the Australian Electoral Commission, and the dullards of the previous Parliament who failed to take any corrective action in amending Section 154 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

What you could do, Wyatt, is wear one literally for that interval. Yours you could quietly wear with pride, like a red badge of courage, for there are, even if not terrorists, definitely wingnuts (THAT word again. Gotta keep doing my bit, ain't I!) out there. But in saying 'yours' you could rightly infer that I see more of these targets, these red badges of courage, being made available to be worn by other candidates (if they have the courage, that is) for this interval of time.

For those candidates who were members of the last Parliament, they could be worn, if they have the courage, with shame, for they could so easily have fixed this disgraceful legislative blunder to no one's political advantage or disadvantage.

Wyatt, I reckon you should put 'em all on the spot, and make one available to every candidate, Australia-wide, at these elections. You could call them Section 154 targets (a la the army range targets, Figure 13 - outline of man lying down facing shooter, or Figure 11 - outline of man standing). You could design them to be concentrically circular, black in the centre, red to the outside, about the size of a Flanders poppy, on a white background on which could be printed, at the bottom, simply the words 'Section 154'.

A talking point.

You could bring focus upon the real issue at these elections, Wyatt, electoral mechanics.

Ludwig, I've got it! A plan that is absolutely brilliant, even if I do say so myself. One that is fiendishly clever! The people of Australia will love it.



Providentially, with Wyatt Roy's candidacy, the Coalition may well have stumbled upon the very means of its return to government at the upcoming elections. Up until now, the Coalition would have stumbled upon just about anything, but now there is a new bright light on the scene, and the end of the tunnel in sight.

All it would take (provided it, as a collective of sitting members and aspirant candidates, has got what it takes) is a deliberate and unanimous decision to go to the elections leaderless!

Stunningly unorthodox!

Paralysingly confusing to its political opponents and the commentariat alike!

Killing many birds, as well as an electoral Goliath, with just one well-slung stone!

But how could a major political party go to the people without a leader? Well, there is such a thing as a chain of command. The Coalition still has its same old same old deputy-leader of the Opposition able to act in a co-ordinative role for this likely (and hopefully) brief interregnum. As to not being able to speak as to policy during that time, well, the Coalition was already going to the people without much in the way of policy being known with any certainty, so what's to lose?

The people of Australia would have a right to know who they should expect might become their alternative PM before they vote though, wouldn't they? And here is where the fiendish cleverness strikes home.



The Coalition sitting members and aspirant candidates formally make a commitment that, if the Coalition wins enough seats to form a government at the elections, it will be Wyatt Roy, if elected as the member for Longman, that will be calling upon the Governor-General on Monday 23 August 2010.




That should stand the system on its head!

http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2010/07/q-weekend-article-on-wyatt-roy-the-coalition-kid.html

As in every thread where attention to detail is important, we must make a small, but relevant, detour to correct a slight (entirely understandable) mis-statement.

OLO userID 'Severin' posted earlier, on Sunday, 18 July 2010 at 5:42:58 PM, that:

"... As a matter of fact I'd happily vote
for a particularly capable 12 year old
[Audrey Ahmer] we all met on this forum
a few days ago."

Not quite so, Severin.

What Audrey originally posted (on the 'help out a school kid? easy 1-2 minute questionnaire' topic) http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3791 , was:

"I'm a year 12 student [-] politics."

That would in all likelihood place her in the 16, 17, or 18-year-old cohort of the population, Severin. As such, that would entitle her to be upon, even though unlikely yet, perhaps, to be able to vote, the electoral roll for her Division, as a provisional enrollee.

It would be particularly interesting to know how many of us in the OLOverse of opinionation were/are aware of the fact that 16-year-olds are now lawfully able to be upon the electoral rolls as provisional electors. It seems to me that this change to electoral law has been kept relatively quiet. See: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/legislation/act1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/71640FB013A9A734CA25776200169BCA

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9605

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9605#154715

The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Act 2010, Act No. 110 of 2010, received the Royal assent on 14 July 2010. Bastille Day. Vive la France! Vive la Linux! Morte a les chevaux Trojans!

Act No. 110 of 2010 permitted 16-year-olds to be, as provisional electors, upon the electoral rolls!

Now the question is, Wyatt, when the AEC publishes the number of electors enrolled in Longman as an opening entry upon the VTR for 'Election 2010', will it, or will it not (as the law requires), include those who are provisional electors? Undoubtedly the 'certified lists' (the rolls on the table in polling places) won't, but that's not my question.

I'll be the first to admit to there being a certain madness to my method, Wyatt, but don't let that put you off. I reckon your candidacy is the best thing to have happened in Rortsville, er, I mean Longman, sinced sliced bread.

It is fortuitous for the party that has endorsed you that the public can read about your friendship with Patrick Hall, and your taking upon yourself many of the responsibilities of a carer for someone suffering a disability from the age of 13. That speaks as to the character aspect of fitness for the task of being member for Longman.

It is fortuitous because of the impact that recent, but not yet widely known, legislation imposing foreshadowed income quarantining, from 2011, upon many in situations of the like that Patrick appears to be in, will have upon potentially millions of less well off Australians. It is reassuring to know someone with first-hand experience of such situations may be in the Parliament. The problem being that Tony Abbott has said that he would impose such a regime straight away, was the Coalition to be returned to government under his leadership. That could well be electoral poison for the Coalition.

Superimposed upon this proposal is the discovery of a defective alteration to the Constitution, that of the insertion of placitum (xxiiiA) in 1946, that seemingly none on either side of Parliament has noticed for 64 years, a defect that doubtless Big Pharma of the US will now exploit mercilessly under the terms of the US/Australia Free Trade Agreement to the detriment of millions of Australians presently assisted by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

So continue campaigning, Wyatt, to the best of your ability. You could do no worse in Parliament than many who have gone before you, while there is every prospect you would do much better. Meantime lets see if Julie Bishop is prepared to do 'whatever it takes' to co-ordinate my fiendishly clever, stunningly unorthodox, paralysingly confusing plan, as seemingly it is the fashion for Deputy leaders these days to do.

To Yarralumla!

By golly, Wyatt, Professor Flint is talking about your electorate here: http://australianconservative.com/2010/08/fraud-and-the-election-high-court-challenge/

The second paragraph reads:

"Legislation in the eighties allowed for a generous
seven day period, ostensibly to make voting easier.
But critics said this latitude opened the door to more
fraud. Some even alleged that this was its very purpose.
They said the Electoral Commission was inundated in the
seven days with an unmanageable flood of registrations,
many of which would be removed well after they had cast
their secret ballots when it was found they were unknown
at the place registered. In one celebrated Queensland
instance registrations were found to have been made for
electors residing on both sides of a very long road one
side of which was a waterfront without dwellings."

The Queensland instance referred to was on Bribie Island, if I'm not mistaken. You ought to talk to former investigative journalist Bob Bottom about that one, I think he now resides in your part of the world.

You might also ponder the potential significance in Longman of the observations made in this OLO post: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3840#94748 , and the post following.

Just a little acknowledgement of one of the better results of the Federal elections, that of Wyatt Roy as MP for Longman.

Not only did he top the poll in Longman, but he also topped the trending topics worldwide on Twitter for a time quite a deal longer than 15 minutes.

Some Twitpic mementos:

http://twitpic.com/2h3scz

http://twitpic.com/2h3tx6

http://twitpic.com/2h3vli

Congratulations Wyatt!

Alexander Downer has forecast a great future for him.

Hmmm, maybe I'd better leave it at that.