With the greens becoming increasingly less environmental and more hard left, there has been speculation that control of the "Greens" was slipping away from Bob Brown.

Did Bob resign or was he pushed? Is "Leadercide" a left wind sport?

Your thoughts

Shadow Minister....I've heard some crap in my time and you raze the minds of what not should be. "Fade from Green to Red"...let me give you another......"from champagne to sh!t"....isn't that the capitalist mind:)

cc

Excellent!

I have hit a nerve big time. I have subsequently seen a few other opinion pieces speculating similarly on the route the greens are going to take.

Christine Milne is the chief architect of the Labor killing carbon tax, and has enabled the Greens to take all credit while labor takes all the punishment.

Plant 3,

Normally I find the need to resort to foul language distasteful as it marks the author as an intellectual pygmy. However, this time I will not try and have it removed precisely for that reason.

Two threads, same headline's bought both about.
Yet different themes.
Both thoughts I do not share.
This one however best serves the views I have.
Bob is not my main man, his party either.
He did not retreat, not run away, he is 67 years of age.
He was the greens.
I question the wisdom of yet another female leader.
Unfortunate or not, are there enough women to keep the greens, any party, up to current numbers.
The increasing fashion, putting women leaders in, must not be based on gender, but ability.
Like it or not, recent events in the National Parliament have not helped, men are increasingly against females leaders, because of gender in politics .
I think the greens are on the way down.
And am not concerned about that.
And that the extremism of their new leader is oil on the already slippery slid they live on.
Red? while greens are the home of so many factions and groups, reds are likely to be out numbered by the lost dreamers of dead ideas.
Farewell Bob enjoy, I will.

SM...your quite right in your objections with the use of profanity and well point out. As for your eel type wordings, your a master none the less:) I do sometimes take offence when the string is pulled on my passions.....however, your far from the smartest tool in the shed:)

Politics is, a very fine line, and the writer you wish we not offend understands that very well.

cc

Planet, Apology accepted.

My original post was to speculate on the growing change within the greens to move from environmental issues to extreme left issues, and whether with Bob's sudden exit, whether this will accelerate. Brandt for example is self described as far left wing, and a green of convenience.

SM,
So is Senator Rihannon, they do the old "no platform" trick of ignoring criticism on the floor of parliament, the coalition Pitbull, Arthur Sinidinos can pretty much stand there all day pointing out their well documented, treasonous, criminal behaviour back in the old ACP days and the greens just sit there grinning inanely. The Greens represent no one, I don't know any environmentalists who are still members and even the middle class White women who make up the core of their support are drifting off.

Sorry, CPA, Communist Party of Australia.

I have no idea what you mean about "hard left" or "extreme left" when it comes to the Greens.

I thought they were a bit more narrowly focused on specific issues than having some sort of overall agenda to nationalise all our industries and rise up to overthrow the capitalist system.

Then again, maybe everything that is not official Liberal Party policy is, by default both "left" and "extreme".

Not particually interested in what the greens are up to, but with
Bob gone I think the real radicals will start their engines.
That new one from NSW, Rihan or similar I think her name is.

I went to a meeting on a different matter and she was at the table
and I was not impressed. She is an old time communist and I believe
a real party member, not just a fellow traveler.

I'm always a little astonished at the antagonism shown to people who want to improve the lot of everyone, share things a little more equably, ensure that corporations dont evade their fair tax payments, think the world would be better with less pollution in air, land and sea, think that a fair share of the profits made from ripping valuable minerals out of the land should go to the people who actually own the land, especially as in twenty years most of it will be gone. Why should someone be reviled because they think good farming land and clean artesian water is ultimately of more use than ten years of gas that we'll export, leaving the land poisoned for centuries. And what's so objectionable about wanting to leave the few remaining remnants of the once magnificent forests that used to cover the entire eastern seaboard? Why is is somehow a sin to want to preserve sanctuaries and habitat for the other animals that live on this continent? Why is it evil to say that everyone living on this planet should have a say in where we're going, and that we should all share in the profits?
Is the present political, economic and social structure, in which all natural systems are in such a state of collapse that all life, including that of humans is endangered, so much better than trying to slow down development and stopping this mad scramble for 'growth' so we can consider alternatives?

ybgirp,

Because it is precisely that kind of fiscal irresponsibility that put Greece where it is now, and where now most people are in financial trouble.

I wasn't referring to the Greens, specifically, merely to the antagonism directed at anyone who espouses the ideas i mentioned in the post. As for blaming the bankruptcy of states on concern for those sorts of things, Shadow Minister, I think you're mistaken. According to the News, the wealthiest individuals and corporations in Greece pay next to no tax, Just as the wealthiest corporation in Australia, the Catholic Church pays zero tax despite greater than eight thousand million dollars profit per annum. [And the Anglicans and others also make very tidy tax free billions]. Italian corruption and theft of most of the social budget and almost zero concern for either the environment or social equity, accounts for much of their debt, and the same goes for Spain, in the development sector where no planning guidelines were enforced, and no check was made on official corruption. And don't neglect the corruption of the big banks and lending houses world wide that have accepted blatantly false valuations on properties and enterprises in order to lend big bucks that could never be repaid. It is simply not true to blame spending on social services for the downturn

ybgirp, social irresponsibility is only part of the problem.
The real basis for the collapse in Europe was bad lending practises
so that when the price of oil climbed from $40 to $124 there was
nothing left to pay their interest bill and their borrowed money.

It crashed the financial system and the rest is history.
So now they are playing Monopoly and do not yet realise the present
situation is permanent.

ybgirp,

Everything has consequences, even the nordic states have found out that the cost of this pie in the sky socialism is economic ruin, and have wound much of it back.