AD-Lib Winter 2017

AD-Lib Th e S o u t h A u s t r a l i a n Yo u n g L i b e r a l M o v e m e n t M a g a z i n e Winter 2017

AD-Lib

Disclaimer The opinions expressed herein belong solely to the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor or the South Australian Young Liberal Movement.

Contributions to this edition of AD-Lib are from members and friends of the SAYLM. To contribute to the next issue of AD-Lib or to contact the Editor, email adlib@sayoungliberals.com.

Authorised by Mr. Robert Katsambis, President, SAYLM. 104 Greenhill Road, Unley, 5061.

Contents From the Editor 3 From the President 4 MayDay in the UK - Ben Newell

5

Tax & Technology - Henry Davis 8 Counter-culture - Dorian Basic 11 Council Meeting report 15 Gala Ball 16 UK Election Champagne Breakfast - Leighton Stuart

2

18

AD-Lib

From the Editor

T

hanks for picking up the Winter edition of AD-Lib magazine, the quarterly publication of the South Australian Young Liberal Movement.

It’s once again been a busy few months for the movement, as we all look towards March 2018 and the State Election, possibly the most important election this state has seen since the State Bank collapse.

Many of the movement’s activities have been geared towards preparing members for the election campaign, getting people together to exchange ideas and develop a strategy that can aid the senior party in the months ahead.

Many members of our movement have been abroad recently, attending conferences or assisting with campaigns both locally and internationally. Benjamin Newell, our Policy Vice President, took part in the Federal Young Liberal Movement’s Electorate Development Officer (EDO) program during the UK General Election. The result was not what Theresa May would have expected when she announced the snap general election. You can read Ben’s thoughts on the campaign and what went wrong for the Conservatives on page 5.

Our generation faces many hurdles (not least the smashed avo conundrum) and finding meaningful, stable employment is becoming increasingly difficult as entry level jobs evaporate.

Automation and artificial intelligence are eliminating many of the jobs young people used to get a start in; nowadays it is increasingly difficult to get the experience required for even the most basic of jobs. Henry Davis has investigated, and the future he sees is not going to be an easy one. The robots are coming - read about their arrival on page 10.

Dorian Basic has penned a very interesting article on the fundamental

misunderstanding of counter-culture and the Left’s use of persistent, and false, underdog narrative. You can read Dorian’s insightful article on page 12. Well worth a read.

Lastly, there have been a number of social events hosted by the movement in recent months, including Council Meetings at the Hackney Hotel and the Gala Ball at the Hotel Tivoli, You can find those on page 15 and 16.

We also had our joint function with the Adelaide University Liberal Club, the UK General Election Champagne Breakfast. Leighton Stuart discusses that on page 18.

Thanks to all those who contributed to this edition of AD-Lib. It has been a pleasure being the Editor of this publication for the past 12 months and I hope you have enjoyed reading it.

As always, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with the Communications Director if you are interested in writing an article for the magazine. All submissions are more than welcome and help get your name out there in the movement and wider party.

Cheers, Rowan Thomas SAYLM Communications Director

3

AD-Lib

From the President

T

he last 12 months have been a very successful period for the Young Liberal Movement, which has strived to connect with as many members as possible.

In my final report as President, I seek to outline just a few of these achievements.

The highlight for the last year was the South Australian Movement’s hosting of the Federal Young Liberal Convention. This involved around 200 Young Liberals from across Australia coming together to participate in policy debate and events.

This included two-day sessions and three social events, most notably the annual Gala Dinner at the Mortlock Library featuring guest speaker Rita Panahi, attended by around 150 people.

Guest speakers at the Convention included Minister Simon Birmingham, Sam Duluk MP, Stephan Knoll, Morry Bailes, Zed Seselja, Tony Abbott, Cory Bernardi, Erik Abetz, and many others.

The two main social events for the year were the Tonkin dinner and the Annual Ball. The former was held at the Arkaba Hotel towards the end of last year and was attended by more than 70 people. At that event, the Honourable David Watton, who was a minister the Tonkin Government, gave a most inspiring address about the Tonkin era.

The latter was held at The Tivoli in May of this year and attended by 100 people. We were very fortunate to have two guest speakers, those being Tim Andrews of the Australian Taxpayers Alliance, and the Honourable Craig Laundy MP. At the start of the year, the Executive made a commitment to transform Young Liberal Council into something which was not merely a constitutional requirement, but rather an engaging forum which people could look forward to. By placing a strong emphasis on excellent guest speakers, well-informed policy debate and value for membership, there was not one Council meeting which was attended by less than 60 people. This was an outstanding result.

4

Guest speakers at Council included Nicolle Flint, Anne Ruston, State Director Sascha Meldrum, Party President Steve Murray, and State Liberal Leader Steven Marshall. The policy committee played an integral role in organising policy debate, for which it is to be commended.

The above is merely the tip of the iceberg in a year which so much was achieved. As I stand aside for others to take the reins, it must be noted the amazing work which has been done by your executive over the past 12 months. The quality of work and dedication volunteered by Rhys, Ben, Kelvin, Nik, Laura, Jocelyn, Rowan, Grace and Saffron has been nothing short of outstanding. I wish you all the best in your future endeavours and thank you for your commitment.

I wish the next Executive and the Movement best of luck in the lead up to March 2018 and for subsequent years. I thank the Movement for giving me the opportunity to lead it over the last 12 months, and I look forward being an active participant in the movement in the years for which I remain a Young Liberal.

And finally, I wish to thank each and every member of the Movement for their commitment to the Liberal Party during my 12 months as President. I now look forward to working alongside many of you in the fight to give South Australia the Marshall Liberal Government it so desperately needs Robert Katsambis SAYLM President

AD-Lib

MayDay in the UK

Benjamin Newell experienced the June UK General Election on the frontline, witnessing one of the biggest political gambles backfire in spectacular fashion. So where did it all go wrong for Theresa May and the Conservatives?

T

he Federal Young Liberals recently sent five members from across Australia to the United Kingdom as part of the Electorate Development Officer (EDO) program. The EDO program gave the selected Young Liberals the opportunity to help the Conservative Party campaign from Tuesday, 30 May 2017 until the day of the UK election on Thursday, 8 June 2017.

The election itself served a valuable lesson to all governments that are tempted to call an early election. The Conservative Government led by Theresa May was two years into a fiveyear term. The Government had virtually nothing to gain and everything to lose by calling an early election and, unfortunately, the gamble backfired, with the Conservatives losing their majority in the House of Commons. However, at this stage, it seems the Conservatives will be able to stay in office by forming a coalition with the Democratic Union Party (DUP) in Northern Ireland. The problem with forming a coalition with the DUP is that a key campaign slogan used by the Conservatives was to vote Theresa May to avoid a “coalition of chaos” between Labour and the minor parties which now seems ironic.

In respect of the EDO program, the Young

Liberals learnt new campaign techniques from our Conservative counterparts as well as having the honour of meeting distinguished Australians such as the Australian High Commissioner to the UK, Alexander Downer and the Conservative Party campaign strategist, Sir Lynton Crosby.

The Young Liberals’ campaign was primarily based in the seat of Twickenham in southwest London. The sitting Conservative MP was Dr Tania Mathias, who had defeated Sir Vince Cable in 2015 who was a Liberal Democrat Minister in the Coalition Government and had previously held Twickenham for 18 years. The Conservative campaign followed the national strategy which included targeted letterboxing (or “delivering” as it is referred to here). Each card carried the message that only Theresa May’s Conservatives could be trusted to implement Brexit and was targeted at specific voters and not an entire geographic area. The problem with this tactic was that the seat of Twickenham was strongly in favour of Remaining in the EU in the referendum held last year.

The local MP, Dr Tania Mathias, who was very kind, compassionate and grateful for our assistance, was not a standard Conservative MP. Dr Mathias studied medicine at Oxford, worked as a doctor for the poor in developing nations

5

AD-Lib

and is also a Quaker and a member of Amnesty International. Dr Mathias was a Remainer in last year’s referendum and is very close to the views of her electorate. Unfortunately, a national campaign about Brexit did not resonate well in Twickenham which emphasises the importance of targeted and localised messaging. One of our tasks was to deliver a printed handwritten letter from Dr Mathias which set out her views in detail about the issues facing Twickenham, such as the expansion of Heathrow Airport, school funding and the rights of EU nationals.

Due to the first past the post voting system in the UK, most Labour voters in Twickenham indicated to us that they will vote tactically and support the Liberal Democrats when we were doorknocking. Doorknocking (or “canvassing”)

6

was a pleasant experience and I found most people were happy to discuss their thoughts on the election. Phone canvassing at Conservative Central Headquarters (CCHQ) in Central London was very different to Australia as it was a spacious office and had an easy to use computer system and a large army of volunteers.

On our way into CCHQ, we were lucky enough to see Theresa May in person.

The Prime Minister had visited Twickenham earlier in the week along with a number of other Ministers. Our group also had the pleasure of meeting the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, James Brokenshire and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond before we went out canvassing alongside them and Dr Mathias.

AD-Lib After a number of days of sustained campaigning, we met with two distinguished South Australians, Sir Lynton Crosby and Australia’s High Commissioner Alexander Downer.

Sir Lynton worked right in the middle of the campaign office and had his pulse on how the election was tracking and the overall plan for the campaign. Sir Lynton also noted the differences between Australian and UK electoral laws, such as the UK having an extremely restrictive approach with no election television commercials, no corflutes on poles and very tight campaign spending caps. Mr Downer emphasised the importance of the UK-Australia relationship.

In the lead up to polling day, we were involved in a new technique called “Plan to Vote”. We would doorknock residents who were soft Conservatives and had a poor voter turn out history. Each resident had an individually addressed tear-off leaflet. One side was kept for our data purposes and the other side was given to the voter which stated where the polling station was and what they told us about their plans for the day.

The psychology behind this technique was that by making personal contact, the voter would feel obliged to vote. We continued to campaign right until the day of the election when we were doing everything we could to save Twickenham. Unfortunately, the large turnout of Liberal Democrat voters for Sir Vincent Cable resulted in his return, but I believe it is unlikely he will contest the next election if the Parliament goes for a full five-year term until 2022.

With the benefit of hindsight, it was clearly a political mistake for Theresa May to call an unnecessary early election. The election result has weakened her position and it remains to be seen how long she will remain Prime Minister for.

Benjamin Newell is the Policy Vice-President of the South Australian Young Liberal Movement

77

AD-Lib

&

TAX

TECHNOLOGY The robots are coming for our jobs. Well, most of them, anyway. Henry Davis look to the future to see what our working world would look like if the machines took over.

Universal Basic Income? Socialism? What’s the answer?

T

he only thing worse than taxes is not paying taxes (means you aren’t getting paid or you have run into life’s other certainty). With underemployment in South Australia sitting at 17% and a guy at Oxford saying that 40% of all jobs will be replaced by automation within ten years it might be time to fundamentally rethink our tax system.

Firstly, let’s look at the types of jobs which will be at risk: Basically, all of them. And … Yes, that most definitely includes lawyers. I am currently working on an Artificial Intelligence which will replace entry level law jobs with automation; sorry in advance, but things are going to get worse for lawyers.

According to some professor at an Australian government think tank; everything from dentists, to Rowan (editors) to grave diggers “are in

8

grave danger of perhaps outliving their usefulness”. The most imminent and most dramatic shift will be the introduction of driverless cars.

With 25% of Australian jobs involving driving, this is going to rock our economy. I see truck drivers being replaced within five years and legislation banning all human driven cars being banned by legislation within ten years.

Even the pizza delivery guy or couriers can be replaced in the next couple of years with drones. If you struggle to believe driverless cars will be a reality anytime soon go and check out what RACIntellibus and Tesla are doing.

The fact is driverless cars are already on our roads.

The question for you as someone interested in politics is: what will be the jobs of the future and how can we start preparing for this huge shift in our economy? This is not the first time we have faced a huge structural shift in

AD-Lib our labour force, but perhaps none as sudden or fundamental as this one. The industrial revolution saw a huge number of jobs being replaced by machines and a great many people went into manufacturing jobs. Technology dramatically lowered the cost of goods and allowed people to then go into more cerebral tasks such as design or development. In the industrial revolution, it was relatively easy for people to step into the new jobs created by technology.

If history repeats itself we should be all fine and dandy… however, the technology of drones, driverless cars and automated checkout systems at supermarkets create very few new jobs as a result. The express aim of these new technologies is to require no human involvement, unlike the textile industry during the industrial revolution which required humans to operate the machines.

We have 5 – 10 years to prepare our labour force for a dramatic structural shift in the jobs market. A failure to prepare will see unemployment skyrocket with a market unable to adapt in time to a rapid fundamental structural change. We can sit around and wait for it to happen or we can set Australia on a path to be ready for this shift.

TAXING OUR WAY TO PROSPERITY?

You know Labor’s solution to everything is just tax the crap out of something until people stop doing it and I’ll bet my bottom dollar their solution will be a “tax on robots”. Unfortunately, this “solution” has the backing of one of the leading players in artificial-intelligence: Bill Gates. Gates goes as far as arguing that we

should. A slippery slope argument would be: well does Bill Gates intend to pay a tax on all the postmen/typists he made redundant by use of Outlook/Word? Probably not… The main aim of this tax would be to “slow down the speed of automation” and give the labour force the chance to move into new roles.

One thing for certain is that welfare is

going to go through the roof in 5 years’

time, robot tax or otherwise… the

bigger question is how are

we going to pay for it?

UNIVERSAL INCOME?

Basically, it’s a welfare system where everyone gets welfare, even

Clive Palmer.

Everyone regard- -less of their

assets or whether they are even

looking for a job

gets an income paid to them which

would be enough to meet

a person’s basic needs; in \ Australia, it would be

around $20,000 each.

Currently in Australia, we have an unemployment rate of around 6% and our welfare system costs us around $170 Billion per year. A universal income would cost $380 billionish. Double the unemployment rate due to automation and well… starts to look affordable.

Hawaii could soon implement Universal Income as a bill to seriously consider the idea passed their state parliament unanimously (FYI Switzerland said no at a referendum). The Democrat leading the idea in Hawaii says that his concern is that automation will result in fewer jobs particularly in the services sector.

“We’ve seen automation of the retail space, with self-checkout systems proliferating, as well as automation in fast food and similar sec-

9

AD-Lib tors, and the biggest thing, which obviously is yet to come but surely around the corner, is on the transportation side with respect to autonomous driving.”

So tax robots to fund universal income seems to be the only strategy so far.

IF YOU DON’T LIKE SOCIALISM THEN WHAT? You can always just leave it for the free market to correct itself… but when you think about it, the free market isn’t as free as you think in Australia. Regulation is rife and that won’t be changing anytime soon. One of the most fundamental controls is the idea of a national curriculum which prevents schools from setting

10

their own curriculum which would prepare children for this automation age. If I was to set the curriculum for my children I would want them learning robotics, coding or biology rather than geology, maths or history. Now would I advocate to remove the national curriculum and let the free decide? I have no idea… but if the government are going to intervene and prevent parents from guiding their children into “the jobs of the future” then governments need to perform that role instead. Reskilling programs are also going to be very important.

This change is coming. Are we going to prepare for it now, give the market the freedom to prepare for it or wait till it hits our economy like the GFC on steroids?

Henry Davis is a member of Policy Committee of the South Australian Young Liberal Movement

AD-Lib

Counter-culture: a fundamental misunderstanding Dorian Basic examines the very nature of the Left and their use of counter-culture as a Battle-tactic in their fight against the Right.

T

he term itself came around during the social revolution of the 1960s.

Since then, the emotional resonance it has with the general public stirs up thoughts of peace-loving protests, and anti-establishment youths. Of course, there is “counter-culture” in a sterile, scientific sense: a formation of values, in conflict, and to an extent, reactive to the dominant group culture.

Though, what most of us know is something different all-together.

It only takes a couple lines of questioning to see the reality underneath the powerful associative complex that has been carefully cultivated through inertia, by a stagnant and homogenous market of thought. If all things Western and patriarchal are our earthly lords and tyrants, how then do we live in a world of intrusive political correctness and quotas? If our free-spirited actors and musicians are colourful rebels sticking it to the heartless “Man”, then why do they act like a viscous priest-like caste? Our rational and secular academics are busy discovering the fifthly-seventh gender, and whoever is left with some sense of logic and order is adrift in all the chaos.

President Trump, a now tired subject to those who saw his coming in the stars (or perhaps they simply had grounded view of the social and political climate?), and his supporters are a counter-culture in the honest sense. Though they all factor in later. First:

Nothing about the Left is new —it’s all entrenched Those on the Right need to take a step-back, and cast aside a conception of political history, and landscape, which is too “in-time”. There needs to be a complete re-evaluation of the post-war period of the mid-twentieth century, and the forces that were at play. The USSR’s influence had already seeped into the West long before it reached Berlin. Most importantly —the Social Revolution was not a wellspring of fresh-faced idealism, but a decisive victory in a cultural battle between traditional Western values, and the perils of modernity oft-maligned about today. The Left has long sat in this moral vacuum, doling out shallow humanitarianism for those who care most for emotional satisfaction, and naught about practicalities or consequences.

Creating a digestible, and coherent narrative to outline all facets of this cultural domination is a difficult task. There’s factual and historical realities; political concessions and disasters; and

11

AD-Lib an inherent “human” factor, both psychological and biological. However, a cheap and effective analysis on the arts and creative media is a suitable primer for the novice who seeks to understand their political opposition. One that is malleable, contradictory, and hard to pindown. And as we start: One of their most effective weapons is a pesistent, and false, underdog narrative The Left has effectively marketed themselves, and their client groups, as the underprivileged and unheard moral centre of society, against an oppressive class that takes an interesting form. Though, unanalysed and unbroken, the rhetoric is that of the honest few against the mythical villainy that has plagued human history and holds unwieldy amounts of power.

“Power” is the key focus of nearly every such arch. The problem/societal ill is solved not when “the People” are free of unprincipled power, but when the vanquishing Leftist hero acquires and exercises that power to right society. From an outside view, it appears as a tale of envy, and that analysis is close to the truth when understanding what their opposition is.

Though, to form any outside view of the Leftist narrative requires the acquisition or development of an external values system. With the fall of organised religion, inherent in the shift to a secular society (as opposed to a secular state), Leftist moralising is the first trace of any values

12

system most younger people come across.

Coupled with the “long march through the institutions” now being a festering scar, it may very well be the only values system modern peoples encounter in a stifled educational environment. Therefore, through ignorance which is to some degree, no fault of the individual, the message that power must be used to right society persists through an uncritical populous.

This makes it a trivial task to reframe the political battle between Left and Right, and most elements of the Right are culpable for ceding the frame, and in many cases, falling for the rhetoric. It’s the march of “progress”. Not a power struggle that waxes and wanes with the dynamism of human drama. It is a finite, and universal, progression from unjust to just, powerless to powerful, and from starving to satiated (mostly in a material, or emotional sense).

It’s conclusion has an “end of time” aesthetic to it, and all these elements make it an easily digestible narrative conception of human history and moral struggle.

“Narrative” may seem an overused term in this piece, but it is intensely vital in understanding the Left. Their politics sell a story, which is want for a solution, whereas the Right is characterised by uncomfortable truths, or fundamental principles, which an individual carries with them through life. One is ironically totalitarian in the way in which it covers what came before, and it’s conclusion —the other is

AD-Lib

more akin to training wheels which are later internalised. The fundamental structure of the narrative, in general, is older than the communication of abstract principles, which speaks to how effective it is as a vehicle for transmission of politics and values.

What characterises the oppressor?

Here, it’s argued that what is inherently antagonistic to the Left is that which is unassimilable. What is able to be assimilated are ideals and institutions that have no inherent power to transmit values independent of “the Left” and their external self-reflection of the Leftist State. What is unassimilable, and then re-characterised and reconstructed as oppressive, are all other parallel structures of power and moral value —whether as units or other social bodies— both natural and man-made.

The Western conception of the individual is unassimilable because it grows forth from God-given dignity, free will, virtue, and inalienable rights. Undoubtedly, “an” individual is different from the idea of “the” individual that underpins their status in Western society. In the late-stage of seizing power, and exercising

power, in the Leftist narrative, the individual is an external source of moral agency, and therefore a competitor, that could be detrimental to practical goals and realities. A focus on “individuality” has been demonised for decades now, ironically through a game-theory-like tactic of hypocrisy, in an attempt to cast people who hold these views as selfish. Selfish because there’s an element of themselves that refuses to give into the moral authority of the Leftist State.

Consequential and tangential elements of the individual are, in turn, characterised as being false or detrimental. Self-responsibility and agency come after the conception of the individual, therefore as it is unassimilable, it is a moral wrong, and these two concepts don’t exist, as the first theoretical step to be taken is verboten. Likewise, it’s extrapolated that there is no individual success or prosperity —instead, it is a status that is granted by the power structure as it exists without Leftist control.

As the only moral authority is within the Left, any philosophical argumentation is sophistry meant to deceive others into submission or excuse the existence of the power structure.

The family and religious belief are other such competing elements which go through like-processes of characterisation. Though, with the aim to be relatively succinct, the “cellular” nature of the individual as a unit of human society makes a fitting study.

13

AD-Lib

What does the Leftist moral narrative have to do with “counter-culture”?

always referred to what are essentially vehicles for the Leftist narrative. The position is exemplified by simply stating what counter-culture is.

It is drug culture, music culture, fashion cultures, and identity groupings. It includes mediums which, in principle, are unbiased, but are ripe for the Leftist narrative due to its infinitely more accessible and digestible form, like video games, movies and television. It can incorporate anything assimilable and reframe it into an underdog v oppressor tale of morals —despite being championed, consumed, or including objectively powerful and influential people.

The importance of understanding the Leftist moral narrative is due to the fundamental misunderstanding of what counter-culture is and has been, since the conception of the term.

Indeed, there has always been in human societies factions based on the abstract or on blood that has been parallel to, battling for influence or at odds with, the dominant group. Obvious examples include early Christianity and it’s medieval heresies. To link back to the begging of this piece, Trump and his movement are a more modern example. But the term has been wrongly used since it’s conception, making the textbook definition obsolete in the face of its operative usage.

“Counter-culture” is really a battle tactic in political and philosophical struggles for influence. It is a pragmatic execution of seeking, exercising, or holding power, whilst simultaneously casting oneself as powerless. This piece may be a quagmire to trod through, though it’s unavoidable. Rational people on the Right can argue and deconstruct each Leftist argument ad-infinitum and not gain a single shred of influence or political ground —because at the core of Leftist politics is an unprincipled drive for centralised power, not a rationalised or dialectic driven approach to civilisation and good governance.

Here it is argued that, in its brief linguistic lifespan, counter-culture, as it is used, has

14

Dorian Basic is a member of the South Australian Young Liberal Movement

AD-Lib

Council Meeting

O

n Tuesday 28 March, the Young Liberals hosted a very special council meeting with special guests State Liberal Leader Steven Marshall MP and State Liberal Party Director Sascha Meldrum at the Hackney Hotel.

Steven Marshall provided an update on how the senior party is progressing, policy development, and the issues that will define the next election. Sascha Meldrum highlighted the significant role of Secretariat and the grassroots work it is doing assisting candidates.

After hearing from both our guest speakers the evening was opened up to a casual Q&A, where members of the movement were able to ask questions of two of the most senior members of the South Australian Liberal Party.

Topics ranged from the how the young liberals can get more involved with the senior movement, particularly in the lead-up to the next election, to how the young liberals can best assist in countering the Labor message, particularly through mediums that younger generations excel at, such as social media and digital communications.

Policy discussion followed and, as always, it was engaging and robust, with many members expressing their views on a variety of policy motions, such as green cars, the superannuation for first-home buyers scheme and more.

15

AD-Lib

YL Gala Ball

T

he Tivoli Hotel played host to the 2017 Gala Ball on 3 June. It was a great turn out from the Movement and it was a pleasure to have such a distinguished guest list in attendance. Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science the Hon. Craig Laundy MP was our guest speaker for the night, with Assistant Minister for Agriculture Senator Anne Ruston also attending.

Tim Andrews, the Executive Director of The Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance, was also a special guest, along with Federal Young Liberal

16

President, Aiden Depiazzi and Vice President Josh Manuatu.

The night also saw the Young Liberal of the Year award handed out, this year to Rowan Thomas.

The Movement would like to thank everyone for attending the premier Young Liberal event and making it such a fun night for all.

AD-Lib

17

AD-Lib

UK General Election Champagne Breakfast

W

hile we didn’t get the Conservative victory we were all hoping for, at least one event was successful that day.

That event was, of course, the joint SAYLM-AULC Champagne Breakfast in honour of the UK election.

Those who rose early enough to watch the results come in live were treated to a delicious hot breakfast and nearly bottomless Tomich sparkling wine. This champagne breakfast follows on from our first one in 2015, where we watched as David Cameron was swept to power.

18

Professor Heydon Manning from Flinders University was able to join us to digest the results as well as broader global trends in politics. He also had some words of wisdom as we approach the all-important 2018 state election.

My thanks go to Rhys Williams and Grace Marryat for organising this fantastic event which I know that many members thoroughly enjoyed –especially those who were not particularly thirsty after 10 am (I’m looking at you, Andre).

Leighton Stuart is a member of the SAYLM and President of the Adelaide University Liberal Club.

AD-Lib

19

AD-Lib Winter 2017 www.saylm.org.au