Sherry’s back! Greg Sheridan, writing in the Oz, reminds us of the hot-metal days of printing, when a series of headlines were permanently set in type: ‘No Survivors’, ‘War Declared’ and of course ‘Labor Split Looms’. The last grouper is always looking for a treacherous left, and he thinks he’s found one in Stephen Smith. More after the jump.
Rudd is absolutely right to take a tough line against illegal immigration. …those who cannot bring themselves to embrace the Prime Minister’s language, such as Foreign Minister Stephen Smith in a remarkably evasive and feeble performance on Lateline, merely show how much better, shrewder and braver than the Labor Party Rudd is
Wow. Different members of the Labor Party saying different things. It’s almost like they want to give out a complex yet integrated message. Imagine.
Bizarrely, the article is notable for the fact that Sheridan actually rescinds one of the decent things he did, which was denouncing the Howard govt’s ‘pacific solution’. He claims now that he (mistakenly) argued that the scheme wouldn’t work. In fact he argued that it was cruel and immoral, and all but accused the government of racism. He’s hotly trying to deny he ever made a moral argument. ‘It must have been some other Greg Sheridan…’
With Turnbull trying on the ‘we will decide’ line, like a small boy trying on his father’s clothes, and pundits like Sheridan all at sea in a boat they appear to be sabotaging, there is no doubt that Rudd is shrewder and braver than some. But it’s not the ALP that are suffering in the comparison.
3 Comments
The Opposition, with Ruddock and Andrews jumping out of the cupboard, are justifying the decision we made when we voted them out of office.
As I believe I recall from actually reading the article, rather than the potted statement here, is that Sheridan opposed the Pacific Solution on a number of points, one of which was that it would not work.
In his article, he states that on that point, he was wrong, it did work.
I think many people would agree with that statement, based on the number of arrivals post the implementation of the Pacific Solution.
Yes it was harsh and draconian, but it did work.
Now the people smugglers believe that the situation has changed to the point where they can tell potential customers with confidence that “I can get you to Australia where you will be given a place in their refugee intake, no matter where you are from or your actual claim to be a refugee”.
Hence the revisiting of the Pacific Solution by the Rudd Government, re branded as the Indonesian Solution.
michael james said “Yes it was harsh and draconian, but it did work.”
Not sure that’s true michael (the bit about it working I mean). There’s an interesting article over at Possum’s Pollytics where he analyses the arrivals into Australia and New Zealand over the past 15 years. NZ did not change their policy whereas Australia introduced the Pacific solution. The arrival rate between the two countries are strongly correlated, both before and after the Pacific solution, the best interpretation being that what we did down here to deter arrivals had little or no impact. There’s also some analyses of arrivals into the other OECD countries which show similar outcomes.
Possum has a nice line about those emphasising ‘pull’ factors being engaged in a little pulling of their own. Well worth a read. Can be found at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/10/19/push-vs-pull-asylum-seeker-numbers-and-statistics/