No U-turn here, SPOR, I have been consistent on this over the last 2-3 years if you review my posting record, beginning with my support of the Malaysian solution to stop the boats and a significant rise in intake.

Emma Alberici did her best against the ever evasive Christine Milne on Lateline last night, but to no avail. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3814671.htm

The Greens say the boats can't be stopped by any Labor or LNP policy and settlement anywhere in our region but Oz is hell on earth horrendous gulag for any human, far worse and unprotected than anything they've escaped, by the sound of it.

Apparently, all we have to do is bring over 3800 of those massing in Indonesia to take boats to Australia and the boats will stop. That's right, we'll steal the smugglers' clientele from right under their noses! But there's more, the secret is that that's only to begin with as thereafter, presumably, we keep the shuttle service going, boats solved! Of course, Milne won't come right out and say it, but she can't possibly mean anything else. Just get yourself to Indonesia and we'll pick you up.

Also, the developed world should take in 45 million or so, and Canada and Scandinavia need a talking to, along with other countries whilw we lead the way with no stated cap on our own intake.

Reading the transcript from "EMMA ALBERICI: Can I take you back to the actual specifics of the question, what's the upper limit in your policy?" (Control + F to find "Canada", the question follows this), it's like chasing Poirot through a warren, ducking, diving, burrowing and pirouetting.

Luciferase,

"..... it's like chasing Poirot through a warren, ducking, diving, burrowing and pirouetting."

My take that it will be difficult to stem the flow isn't coming from any party's policy. It's just me surmising that in a refugee crisis we're likely to be the destination of more people.

Regarding you seemingly putting so much importance on whether I can name a figure or a strategy, I think you're overplaying our participating roles in a common garden variety forum.

When all is said and done, it makes no difference whatsoever, who does or does not post their opinions on refugee numbers on this forum.

We're a bunch of odd-bods stroking our egos, putting our two cents worth in and having a bit of a squabble.

You might think that's earth-shattering in it's relevance to the ongoing refugee crisis.

I don't

I watched for the first time the conclusion last night
of "Go Back To Where You came From." It had quite an
impact on me - just the little I saw, and made me realise
how complex the problem really is - and solving it is
no easy matter. However as one of the Australians stated,
she wished that our mainstream media and our politicians
would stop with the politicising of this issue - and
trying to make brownie points for political gain. We should
not forget that it's human beings we're talking about here,
not "boat people," like some kind of disease but just
simply - people.

Lexi,

1)SBS nowadays is little more than a lobby group for asylum scammers & their advocates –which might explain why you feel so at home there.

2)What ever happened to your holiday?
When I read you were going to take a “break” from OLO I had high hopes we’d all be getting a 2-3 month Lexi-free period of bliss –instead, you pop up 2-3 days later!

SPQR's idea of a "great forum" is one where all posters think along the same lines and reinforce each other's prejudices.

As it stands, around 90% of contributors to OLO think alike.

He won't be happy until it's 100%.

.......................

Lexi,

".....she wished that our mainstream media and our politicians
would stop with the politicising of this issue......"

She's going to be wishing for a while. "Politicising" this issue has been manna from heaven for both parties.

With a willing population luxuriating in the over-the-top demonisation and hysteria, and cheering on the performing-seal pollies, they sky's the limit - politically speaking.

@Poirot,

<<SPQR's idea of a "great forum" is one where all posters think along the same lines and reinforce each other's prejudices>>

I seem to remember that you were one of those in the AGW debate who was hinting --and maybe even stating openly-- that only opinions in line with the offical IPCC position should be permited coverage.