Two sides of Sheridan's analysis

Comments on Greg Sheridan “No lurch to the left in Victoria”, 2/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/no-lurch-to-the-left-in-victoria/story-e6frg6zo-1225964138058
While it is rare for me to agree with many of Greg Sheridan's views especially when foreign affairs are concerned, I find at least one point in this article agreeable. It is that a well functioning federation needs strong states contained in the second last paragraph when he states the following:

"One thing federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has got completely wrong is his preference for Canberra power over state power. Federal systems, such as the US and Australia, derive their dynamism from the innovation and policy competition of states."

In recent times, both major political persuasions in Canberra tend to over-centralise power to Canberra at the expenses of the states that undermines the health of the Australian federation.

It is highly unlikely that further concentration of power to Canberra will improve the quality of services to the public. On the contrary, if anything is more likely, it must be the pink batts fiasco.

On the main issues that Sheridan discussed, he probably ignored a number of important facts. They include the Obama win of the US presidential election in late 2008, Labour in Britain had been in power for a long time, the federal ALP was troubled by Rudd policy back flips especially on climate change and the emissions reduction scheme as well as the blunders in some of its stimulus programs such as the pink batts and the BER wastes.

Another fact was that Rudd’s popularity was very high up to Copenhagen late last year.

In summary, Sheridan seems to only choose what suits his points and ignore important facts that contradict his views.

That is typical of his analysis and opinions. That is not good and balanced analysis!