Brown Sees Red Over Garrett's Green Credentials.

[Matilda]

"BOB BROWN and Peter Garrett are giants of the environment movement, standing over six feet tall in their socks and frequently uniting to fight for various causes.

But realpolitik has set in and the two are firmly on different sides of the green line after the Greens senator yesterday launched into an uncharacteristically personal attack on the Labor MP.

(snip)

A Greens source said: "Will Peter Garrett be to the Australian Conservation Foundation what Philip Ruddock is to Amnesty International?". This referred to Mr Ruddock's - as minister for immigration - insistence on sporting his Amnesty badge despite the group's howls of outrage that his membership contradicted its work on refugees."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/garrett-under-fire/2006/11/29/1164777657665.html


I think it's a great shame that Peter Garrett's ambition has allowed him to apparently betray his
environemental credentials - he would have been a wonderful asset to the Greens in Parliament,
where they really need someone with his charisma and pulling power.

One of the big differences between the two major parties is the way the Libs take a maverick like
Malcolm Turnbull and use him, but Labor takes figures like Cheryl Kernot and Peter Garrett and
neutralise them.

[gemini_liberal]

1. So, because Garrett chose Labor over the Greens...

it makes him a sell-out and anti-environment? That's a tad melodramatic, I think...

Sorry, but when Senator Brown starts whiny, partisan tirades he becomes indistinguishable from other party hacks.

Politics is about different people with different viewpoints coming together, not just toeing a party's line - regardless of that party's ideology.

[Matilda]

2. It made me very sad to see Garrett actively campaigning

against the Green candidate in the seat of Melbourne. He had no choice, he must campaign for the
party he belongs to, but if he was sincere about his earlier role as an environmentalist (and I
believe he was), it must have been very hard for him to do, and I hope he felt a bit ashamed.

[gemini_liberal]

3. Maybe he felt that the ALP candidate could better represent Melbourne

Or maybe he wants to prove to the party he isn't a spoiler who is going to defect to the Greens at the first sign of disagreement, that way his more, for lack of a better word, radical ideas won't just get dismissed by caucus as a poison pill...

I honestly believe there is a place at the table for both Labor and the Greens. Labor needs to be the viable centre-left government party, whereas the Greens need to be a left legislative party that can hopefully have the balance of power. I honestly do not want the Greens to become too big of a party, otherwise they will start becoming pragmatic in order to gain more power.

I also think the ALP needs people like Garrett to keep the party from straying too far to the right, and possibly even shifting the caucus a little to the left.

[Matilda]

4. I think Garrett just had to do what he was told.

The Labor Party used his cred as an environmentalist to try to dissuade voters from supporting the
Greens in a what was thought to be a vulnerable seat. He even sent out letters saying that the
Greens had done a preference deal with the Libs (there was a copy of it on the ABC website), and
that was not true, which he may or may not have known. But he was used.

To my mind, the Greens and true Labor should be able to deal together, but to the right-wing of
Labor, the Greens are practically Satan Incarnate. They even preferenced Families First over the
Greens at the last Federal election, something that totally pissed me off - what have Families First
got to do with traditional Labor values? If Labor hadn't done that, you wonder whether we might not
have another Green in the Senate instead of Steve Fielding, because many people just vote the way
the How To cards tell them, not realising where the preferences will end up.

I think this all tells us just what is wrong with Labor today - the right-wing are only a tiny baby
step away from being true-blue conservative.

[Djinn]

5. no but perhaps

joining a party that is about to abandon the 3 mines policy might be considered selling out, or possibly putting his name to a letter to Vic voters in which he spread the outright lie that the Greens were preferencing the Libereal party.

your view about politics is exactly why Garrett is a sell out - joining the ALP is ABSOLUTELY about toeing the line and not about "different viewpoints"

[gemini_liberal]

6. Give me a break!

your view about politics is exactly why Garrett is a sell out - joining the ALP is ABSOLUTELY about toeing the line and not about "different viewpoints"

My view about politics is knowing who your allies are and trying to work with them to ensure a mutual goal is achieved - y'know pretty much the standard definition of it.

Sure, it's not perfect, but it's better than being a reactionary who just finds any excuse to bitch about Labor and attack those who don't 100% hate Labor on messageboards.

[Djinn]

7. Gime ME a break

Having actually worked within the ALP and knowing personally the two main advocates of scarping the no new mines policy I am in a reasonable position to judge that Garrett has ZERO chance of influencing the vote on this one.

As for calling me a reactionary - mate I've been slogging away at this activism shit for a LONG time - apart from a very brief sojourn into media I have ALWAYS worked in jobs that are in the public service/not for profit or labor movement that pay far less than I am able to gain in private fields. My politics come at a considerable cash loss.

Whatever YOUR view of politics is, it is NOT shared by ALP factions - go and see what it's like on the inside and then come back and lecture me on my political views. In other words refrain from casting judgements until you are qualified to do so.

BTW - Do you have any idea what a reactionary is? because the term is unarguably more fitting for the ALP than someone who could most closely be placed into the Makhnovshchina category - perhaps a bit of reading and experience within political systems and theories is in order

Oh and one more thing - Brown was rightly pissed that Garrett allowed his name to be used in a letter to residents of Melbourne's northern suburbs (of which I'm one) which FLAT OUT LIED about Greens preferences - nothing to do with partisan whining and EVERYTHING to do with the Vic ALP's dirty tricks. Again when you are more informed of the situations about which you speak you're less likely to look ignorant

[gemini_liberal]

8. when you resort to ad hominem attacks, your point becomes moot.

As a political "expert", you should know that's a major unwritten rule in the game. Why not just imply I am a Nazi while you're at it?

Also, you have no idea who I am or what my experiences are. I assure you I have been active since my teens in progressive politics, and have had plenty of experience with various political forces, including Labor AND the Greens. Recently I have gone through the motions of making a career out of it. While I am sure your experience is greater than mine, and I don't wish to debate that, please refrain from treating me like some kind of arm chair activist.

I stand by my comments about Senator Brown's comments. It sounded jealous and partisan. I don't hate the Greens and this won't stop me from working for them and voting for them in the future. Next year, I will be trying my hardest to get Sarah Hanson-Young (a wonderful woman who'd do SA a great service) elected as this state's first Green Senator. I support the Greens and Senator Brown, just not in this case...

[Djinn]

9. so why did you start by calling me

a reactionary then??? I promise to refrain from calling you an armchair activist (even though it's clear you have no experience working within the ALP) if YOU refrain from calling me a reactionary with no purpose in life but to "bitch" about the ALP simply because I do not support a party that supports a political and economic system I oppose entirely.

BTW if you're flirting with a career in the ALP I'd seriously suggest volunteering first - from my experience I think you'd be very disillusioned which is easier to deal with if the source of it isn't your source of income

[gemini_liberal]

12. I'm sorry Djinn

I shouldn't have called you a reactionary and I take it back. We're on the same side and we shouldn't be quarreling. Every time two people on the left fight, John Howard laughs.

You're not a reactionary. You're very wise and your heart is in the right place. I am just too much of an optimist, to the point where it makes me naive. Please forgive me.

[Matilda]

10. It appears that Garrett will be well and truly rolled

on everything that he once stood for. Kevin Rudd announced his support for Howard's Tasmanian
forestry policies - pragmatic, but disappointing - and kept Garrett out of the way while he did so.

Rudd is an economic conservative, and I'm afraid we can expect more of this sort of policy statement
while he's running for election. I can only hope there might be a shift once he gets the job.

It's also interesting that Peter Garrett is Shadow Minister for the Environment, Climate Change,
and the Arts. None of these portfolios has a high priority with the Howard Government, and it looks
as if Labor has the same view.

I always thought that Garrett should have run for the Senate as a Green, where he would have been
a shoo-in. I think Labor took him into the fold to neutralise him - I'm sure he thinks of himself
as a future leader, but if he's never given a chance to make his mark, he'll just wither away and
disappear, like Cheryl Kernot before him.

[Djinn]

11. Well put Matilda

and if you speak off the record to a couple of those ALP hacks responsible for signing him up they admit that neutralising him was the absolute intent. It was expected that Garrett would eventually move into politics and the ALP wanted him inside the tent pissing out rather than outside pissing in.