SM, you just can't lie straight in bed! Your link is 18 months old, and the Malaysian swap was proposed only 6 months ago!

Golly, two thirds of people prefer Cereal A when there is no Cereal B! Please run that one past us more slowly.

The beauty of this particular attempt at deception by half-truth is that it is so shameless, careless and blatant that it is accessible to absolutely everybody, even those in a vegetative state!

After many instances like this, exposed by me and others, you have completely blown any shred of credibility you may have had.

Time for another alias or, better, Get a blog! Maybe call it "Inconvenient Half-Truth". Other suggestions. anybody?

LF,

Your half truth is blatant, you can't even lie properly. My first link is a week old is clear comparison between the two solutions and blatantly avoided by you.

The older post was not meant to be a comparison to the Malaysia solution, just to show how unpopular on shore processing was and how strong the belief in the Pacific solution, a clear kick in the crown jewels to your posturing that the pacific solution didn't work.

English and logic are clearly not your strong points, though spin is. Work for Juliar do you?

Belly,

Juliar's team has given no indication whatsoever that they intend to change their position. I think they only want to talk so that the voters think they are trying to do something.

Juliar only compromises with someone that can vote for her.

Abbott's position is clear. The coalition has already conceded 90% of what Juliar wants with the one amendment ensuring that what ever country is used is a signatory to the UNHCR as she claimed in 2010 was a minimum requirement.

Lexi, you quote this Michael Clarke character:

< Offshore processing of asylum seekers … does not … deter people smugglers nor the asylum seekers themselves from undertaking dangerous boat journeys to our shores >

Rubbish! Of course it does. All else being the same, it would be a considerable deterrent. But in isolation it probably wouldn’t be a sufficiently strong deterrent, to take us back to the trickle of arrivals that we had under Howard. It needs to be part of a package, which includes temporary protection visas, a stricter interpretation of the definition of a refugee, etc.

< Given the rhetoric of the Howard years, such as the oft-quoted, "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances under which they come," would have meant that the majority of those detained under the "Pacific Solution," would have in fact have been REFUSED asylum in Australia. >

Yes. Most asylum seekers could have been refused under a tougher interpretation of the definition of a refugee. If the judgement of a refugee had been anything near the same as we use for selecting offshore refugees, then very few onshore asylum seekers would have been accepted. And this should have the been case!

But despite accepting most applicants, Howard still managed to implement a strong level of deterrence which reduced the number of arrivals to a very low level.

Clearly once potential asylum seekers got the message that most applicants were being accepted, the offshore detention factor and indefinite period of detention became even more significant in deterring new arrivals.

continued

< "Is the alternative of onshore processing, as Richardson argues, a viable one?"

"Practically "yes," but politically, "no." >

Come on! Practically, yes and politically, yes!

If something decisive isn’t done to stop the boats by the current government, they’ll find themselves in the political wilderness for sure, at the next election!

It is politically untenable for them NOT to do it!

< What is actually needed is a change of course - and an adoption of onshore processing as the preferred option. >

Was does Clarke mean? He doesn’t elaborate. Does he want onshore processing with or without detention?

Clearly, a no detention policy has created a huge pull factor, which is completely inconsistent with the apparent desire of both the Labs and Libs to stop the boats.

So mainland detention centres would have to feature prominently, surely. But of course, Clarke is not thinking of that, which can only mean one thing; he’s totally confused, as are many who are battling to reconcile the desire to be as accommodating of onshore asylum seekers as possible while at the same realising the importance of stopping the boats.

Oh dear, SM, it just gets worse!

"....a clear kick in the crown jewels to your posturing that the pacific solution didn't work."

Posturing? Let's see:

Today SM wrote:, "I also think that the vast majority of Australians believe that the Pacific solution worked."

I wrote in response: "Change that to "everyone" agrees that it worked, including me, and it worked because the actions of the Australian Navy made it work. That it worked is not the only criterion for reimplementing it. The problem is, it is wrong to turn unsafe boat-loads of people back out to sea by force. Australia is a better nation than that now and there is a more humane path Labor wants to take us down. Let them take us there."

On Sunday I wrote, in response to SM's effort on another thread to falsely attribute the same suggestion to me, "I wish to acknowledge, as I was misrepresented on another thread, that the Pacific Solution worked. My argument is that just because it did does not make it the right path for our nation going forward. We are a better nation than that."

The central working element of the Pacific Solution was the use of naval force and the message it sent. The Pacific Solution, in its entirety, worked and I have consistently acknowledged so.

I rest my case, and, again suggest that SM that gets a blog to give his/her failing critical faculties an overdue rest.