Peter Garrett - Does this guy have any credibility left?

[Wedgie]

Agreed with all, loved the Oils but the answer to the original question "No"

[therisingblues]

I don't get the same news over here as all you, obviously, but my reckoning is that Garrett is of more value to his past causes if he becomes entrenched in the Labour party. I don't believe that he has changed his spots as radically as everyone is saying, I think he may be making sacrifices for the greater long term cause. if he bucks the party line now he'll be out of the party and ineffective.
Secondly, no one has answered my original question which relates to Uranium being the most viable of our current available "green" fuels. My question was: is this being discussed in connection with Garrett's comments?

[mick]

Don't know where you are living mate a mediocre GP can clear $200k without much problem a general surgeon can make $50K a month, my colleagues in the public service without any medical defense make > $200k for a <40h week my brother is a lawyer and sure there are barristers who make $3k a day but most don't. But don't try and tell me medicine is no longer a lucrative profession. The top specialists don't need the AMA. The medicare rebate is rather irrelevant if you need specialist help I'm in favor of nurses being able to prescribe or treat for "coughs colds and sore holes" makes perfect economic sense. The majority of medical problems don't require six years training, in any case at some medical schools economics (making the degree as cheap as possible) has so devalued the quality of the degree I would rather be treated by an older graduate of at least 40 years old or a nurse. I have been involved with medical education for a number of years, some of my colleagues quite openly say medical education has been set back 300 years in some medical schools. As a person who is >50 years the quality of medical education is a huge concern to me. If you are smart medicine will still attract the best, because at the highest level it offers the greatest intellectual challenge, plus you have the feeling of doing something good while being paid fairly well. Do lawyers and accountants have that same feeling? Vets maybe but not sheysters and bean counters.

I don't know where your figures come from, but in Victoria the salary for a senior medical specialist was recently a bit over $160,000, but the vacant jobs are not being filled because the state government has not provided the salaries in the annual budget. Sydney has been offering $225,000, if your are prepared to work in Mt Druitt, where I'm told an armoured Hummer is the best work vehicle.

I also don't know about your "clear $200k" for a GP comes from. In private practice an acquaintance of mine is grossing $200,000 on a 36 hour week, but running expenses are eating over half. GPs do a little better than some specialties because they get higher bulk-bill rates for some patients [100% of the "schedule fee" instead of 85%] plus Practice Incentive Payments if they jump through all the hoops. GPs are now favoured because there are more of them and keeping them on side makes the bulk-billing statistics look better.

Some surgeons make really big money - e.g. Orthopaedics - but non-surgical specialties are being squeezed, which is why in some fields there is no shortage of training positions despite the squeals of the states because they are only getting half as many applicants as there are positions. In Vic in 2006 there were 25 applicants for 56 training positions in Psychiatry.

I have medical degress, but I bailed out of the mainstream years ago for all those reasons, as many are. At least 3 friends have quit Medicine and done Law since. [The problem is rigidity and sticking to rigidly to the book-learning rather than going beyond it based on experience.]

There are some excellent nurses and there are some shockers and my experience in my hospital days suggests a pretty even split. But here are already problems with doctors and tunnel vision who work on "you have this and the treatment of choice is", so I would hate to have my health in the hands of someone with narrower and more limited education, especially if I couldn't second guess them myself.

In my area senior medical specialists employed by the public service, get as you say about $160,000 pa PLUS a 40% loading in lieu of private practice, no medical defense to pay, no expenses of running a practice, guaranteed study leave, one O/S conference per year guaranteed (often they attend many more). In addition to Long service leave, annual leave and sick leave and very generous superannuation. I think they are doing OK, not megabucks but a nice income without too much stress. Most specialists I have known are very competent, however GPs are another kettle of fish, much like you say for nurses, great ones and bloody awful ones as well. For mundane medical matters, routine prescriptions (handing out the pill), coughs colds, talking to pensioners, it makes economic and medical sense to employ nurses.

[ORDoubleBlues]

I don't believe that he has changed his spots as radically as everyone is saying, I think he may be making sacrifices for the greater long term cause. if he bucks the party line now he'll be out of the party and ineffective.

Certainly think that comment has merit.

[overloaded]

there are alot of politicians who are "out of the party" but still effective and most of them haven't sold their soul like Garret has

[Psyber]

there are alot of politicians who are "out of the party" but still effective and most of them haven't sold their soul like Garret has

About 10 years ago, I once contemplated "selling my soul" for the parliamentary pension, and had a safe SA state Liberal seat fairly well lined up. However, my wife said she didn't want to be public property and would leave if I became an MP because of the way it would effect both our lives. Looking back I think she was probably right.

[BIG SEXY]

there are alot of politicians who are "out of the party" but still effective and most of them haven't sold their soul like Garret has

About 10 years ago, I once contemplated "selling my soul" for the parliamentary pension, and had a safe SA state Liberal seat fairly well lined up. However, my wife said she didn't want to be public property and would leave if I became an MP because of the way it would effect both our lives. Looking back I think she was probably right.

he hasnt sold his soul for a pension though has he. hes sold out completely on his beliefs. and if those beliefs are still in him hes sold out on himself for not standing up for them. there is no way in 5-10 years he is going to make a lick of difference even if he does follow the party line now.

[Leaping Lindner]

Peter Garrett is a mere amateur compared to the greatest sell out Phil Ruddock. There is a man who took the art of selling your soul to dizzy heights.

[stan]

Peter Garrett and credibility, well its a hard one mainly because he has entered a world where winning the next vote over rides almost everything. I havent really taken much notice of his stance politics I dont see any real reason to at this stage.

[Psyber]

there are alot of politicians who are "out of the party" but still effective and most of them haven't sold their soul like Garret has

About 10 years ago, I once contemplated "selling my soul" for the parliamentary pension, and had a safe SA state Liberal seat fairly well lined up. However, my wife said she didn't want to be public property and would leave if I became an MP because of the way it would effect both our lives. Looking back I think she was probably right.

he hasnt sold his soul for a pension though has he. hes sold out completely on his beliefs. and if those beliefs are still in him hes sold out on himself for not standing up for them. there is no way in 5-10 years he is going to make a lick of difference even if he does follow the party line now.

I'm not arguing with you there.

[Psyber]

It appears Peter Garrett is not alone in adjusting his views once political office beckons.

Dr Karl admits mistake over clean coal.

Celebrity scientist and senate hopeful Dr Karl Kruszelnicki has admitted he was wrong to describe clean coal technology as a complete furphy.

Dr Kruszelnicki now admits clean coal is a worthwhile solution to climate change and not similar to National Socialist party propaganda, as he said on the campaign trail in Sydney last week.

Dr Kruszelnicki, a NSW senate candidate for the Climate Change Coalition, told The Australian: "I was wrong. We're very happy to admit our mistake on that."

The error comes from incorrect data found in the first edition of Australian of the year Tim Flannery's best-selling climate change book The Weather Makers, which has subsequently been corrected.

"We're stuck with the fact that we have still got to make electricity in the short term from carbon of some sort," he told the paper.

"Something is better than nothing, so sequestering carbon dioxide is better than just letting it go out.

"I see it as a stop-gap, short-term thing rather than a long-term solution because the more you store it away the more the chance that it will escape," he said.

Dr Kruszelnicki said clean coal technology was an interim technology that should be explored.

[noone]

It appears Peter Garrett is not alone in adjusting his views once political office beckons.

Dr Karl is no hope of getting elected, he isn't even number 1 on the ticket

[Leaping Lindner]

Karl Kruszelnicki would make a shirthouse polllie anyway. He actually admits when he is wrong. He doesn't blame...external forces, the previous government, the media, the banks, voters, iced vo vos, baby kittens etc.

[mick]

Karl Kruszelnicki would make a shirthouse polllie anyway. He actually admits when he is wrong. He doesn't blame...external forces, the previous government, the media, the banks, voters, iced vo vos, baby kittens etc.

Gotta agree with that honesty is not a good trait for a politician. Not that I'm saying they are dishonest but massaging the truth is a useful talent