Peter Grarret - morally compromised? (2 Viewers)

[loquasagacious]

Peter Garrett | Peter Garrett's uranium mines policy | Phillip Coorey

PETER GARRETT, whose first tilt at politics was a run for the Senate with the Nuclear Disarmament Party, gave the go-ahead for a new uranium mine yesterday.

The Environment Minister approved the Four Mile mine in far northern South Australia, the first fully fledged uranium project to be approved by the former Midnight Oil frontman and one-time anti-uranium campaigner.

An interesting example of the dichotomy that can exist between the reasons people get into politics and what they do once they get there.

If we assume for a moment that Peter Garret is still morally opposed to uranium mining then we have two main options here:

• The Greater Good: Garret has recognised that within the Australian political system real changes can only be made through working in/with the major parties. To do this he has compromised and approved a uranium mine because such compromise is required to be in the halls of power and influence decisions and protect the environment generally.
• Power corrupts: Garret may still care about the environment however is no longer an environmentalist at heart and acts to amass power for the sake of power.

While I have used Garret as a convenient example this issue really goes to the heart of our political system as the same two basic options face all politicians in major parties.

What are people's thoughts on this?

 

[loller]

I have never had a very high opinion of Garret. Mainly because i thought midnight oil were pompus wanks and their music sucked. He is a sellout and i love it.

Also he might actually be smart and realise that nuclear power is the only way to go and is the best for helping the environment. Basically anyone who opposes nuclear power hates the environment.

 

[Teclis]

It's the age old political dilemma

Do you get elected and then do what you came there to do with the risk of getting voted out in the next election...

Or do you consolidate your position, pamper to the voters so you can achieve your goals over a longer period of time.

 

[loquasagacious]

It's the age old political dilemma

Do you get elected and then do what you came there to do with the risk of getting voted out in the next election...

Or do you consolidate your position, pamper to the voters so you can achieve your goals over a longer period of time.

What would you do?

Personally I'd take the risk and probably go out in a blaze of glory ala Whitlam (but I wouldn't be a communist with corrupt ministers).

 

[JonathanM]

Yeah, he's the biggest sell out.

Woohoo, another uranium mine. Now we'll be exporting even more of the precious resource out to other countries who have got their heads turned on the right way and are using nuclear power.

 

[Iron]

It's a sensible decision, the lesser of two weevles. You cant be all bleeding heart labor coal-miner loving filth balls if you really believe in global warming and the urgent need for better energy solutions. I have nothing but admiration for Garrett and his political career so far. You can sit on the side-lines and bitch or you can be apart of the system and effect real change from within. Sure, when you take on the beast, youre not going to end up spotless and pure, but it's a mature and adult decision to sacrifice his individual self-righteousness in order to achieve some environmental good, even if it appears marginal and dissatisfying to his base

 

[Iron]

edit the same base comprised of marxist residue who will follow any cause which sees humans as a pest and disease that should be managed and manipulated for some supposedly greater goal

 

[Serius]

funny, but he is probably a lot more realistic now he is actually in politics. If i was him i would be doing the same thing, nuclear powerplants are the only viable alternative to burning dirty, polluting coal.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

[*]The Greater Good: Garret has recognised that within the Australian political system real changes can only be made through working in/with the major parties.

Is that why the Greens have the power to veto any bill they don't like in the Senate (assuming the Libs and Labour disagree, which is a fairly safe assumption)? And they're only getting more votes each election.

Just sayin' - maybe your premise is flawed.

Edit: Anyway was Garrett against nuclear power in the first place? I dunno. But I'm a greenie and I support it. I think all the hype against it is largely a product of inefficient and unstable technology from 40 years ago - today it's amazingly safe. So there's also the assumption that Garrett should be against nuclear power and uranium mining, which might not be correct (although obviously uranium mining inside a national rain forest as in QLD for instace is a different issue).

 

[loquasagacious]

Well the third option is to operate as an independent of some description in the Senate, such as the Greens, Xenephon, Fielding and to an extent Joyce - however realistically this is a pretty limited position.

These groups/individuals have the ability to influence Government policies however they do not have the power to make policy. They do not present a viable alternative Government to the major parties and it is unlikely they ever will.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

They do not present a viable alternative Government to the major parties and it is unlikely they ever will.

Based on what do you make this assumption? The Greens, for example, are pegged to win Lower House seats next election, and have already served as government in at least two states/territories that I know of (Tasmania and ACT).

In fact, ignoring for a second the probable Greens lower house seat wins next election, it would seem your entire assumption rests on a voting system unkind to smaller parties, such as the structure of Australia's Federal Lower House (i.e. instant-runoff voting), as opposed to something like the Federal Senate, which uses proportional voting.

I keep mentioning the Greens simply because they're the biggest third party at the moment, but it could just as easily be, say, the Pirate Party or even Family First, if enough people supported them. Why do you imply that Labour and Liberal are forever when a party's very existence depends entirely on the whims of the electorate?

I rejected your false dichotomy of "either you compromise inside a major party or your remain powerless as an independent". This isn't America.

These groups/individuals have the ability to influence Government policies however they do not have the power to make policy.

Does it count as the ability to make policy when you won't pass a government's key planned policy unless they also pass a policy you made? What about when won't pass it at all because you disagree with it (or does that fall under 'unmaking' policy? )

Once a third party like the Greens pops up and starts 'stealing' votes, the only way to defeat them is to adopt some of their polices and thus placate those lost voters. But doesn't that kind of mean that the Greens have in fact, made policy in a round about way?

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Oh, that's a bit fucked up. The process that will be used to mine this uranium is banned in the United States due to its environmental damage.

If the fucking United States is banning something because of its damage to the environment, you know it's must be pretty bad.

 

[Serius]

Oh, that's a bit fucked up. The process that will be used to mine this uranium is banned in the United States due to its environmental damage.

If the fucking United States is banning something because of its damage to the environment, you know it's must be pretty bad.

haha wow ok, withdrawing support of uranium mining

 

[loller]

does anyone know the actual process being used so i can research and provide an engineers report by lunchtime tomorrow

 

[Iron]

i h8 l&ob m8s

 

[runoutofsleep]

does anyone know the actual process being used so i can research and provide an engineers report by lunchtime tomorrow

ok scientifically speaking they put some acid water in the ground and then they suck it back up out of the ground and voila uranium water

you can use this in your report as long as you credit me

 

[loller]

so wheres the environmental harm

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Why the fuck would this classify as "light and off-beat"?

*Le sigh*

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

so wheres the environmental harm

Oh, I dunno, sulphuric acid and radioactive uranium in the water table?

 

[loller]

fuck the water table imo its full of salt anyway