Voted early - way to go.

[Beardy]

It's nothing new, Most pollies of any era would have used the same tactic if such info were available

Yes but these stooges were employed by Al Jazeera for three years preparing this information, creating false aliases and organisations for the sting. Kinda think they have taken it to a new level

[FenceFurniture]

It wouldn't matter all that much to me who has the reins of power provided they don't tell me how I should live my life, keep things tidy, don't seek to be lining their own or certain interest groups pockets, don't makes us a laughing stock of the rest of the world, keep things moving along, and don't slug any specific community too hard.

So just the common garden variety of Utopia then, nothing too upmarket?

Sounds good to me anyway.

[doug3030]

Kinda think they have taken it to a new level

But who is "they"?

One of our left-leading party's leader apparently lacks the ability to tie his own shoe laces.

The other left leaning party has international affiliations and a local leader who apparently lacks the ability to tie his own shoe laces as well.

[FenceFurniture]

Yes but these stooges were employed by Al Jazeera for three years preparing this information, creating false aliases and organisations for the sting. Kinda think they have taken it to a new level

Yes, that is one view, and I can certainly see why people who may be on that side of the fence might see it that way. In fact I think I've only heard that view from people on that side of the fence. I read quite a few journo's reports and opinions of it and I think the closest that one or two got was "it may have been close to entrapment, but we needed to know this stuff". When I say "journo" I mean proper fair minded journos, not those that might bolt away and talk a whole lot of devine crap only for the sake of ratings in their limited news outlets.

"I'm sorry I did it" is quite different to "I'm sorry I got caught".

OTOH, it would seem that a great many more people were glad to see it revealed, one way or another. Personally I can't see any moral difference between recording it secretly and having (say) two corroborating witnesses independently reporting it. They said those things, and most certainly dreamt of the money to buy testicles. At a very minimum, and given that everyone involved has blamed alcohol for these not-really-real-indiscretions-coz-I-was-pieced, do we really want people in power who drink so often and behave that way when they do? All that would change is the quality of the sauce consumed would rise.

Do we want people of that calibre with the Government's testicles in their hands? I bloody don't.

Really, the bottom line is that their views and thoughts and desires were exposed for what they are, and nothing can change that. The recordings are what they are, and I didn't see too much evidence of fancy editing. Much of it was uninterrupted. There was enough evidence ten times over, so you could take out a huge part of it and it would still be just as damning. None of the people recorded said "I didn't say that". The best they could come up with was "taken out of context", but each part was damning within itself.

The overall view of it will be known soon enough: their % of the vote has been on the increase for a while, so if it stabilises or goes backward at the erection we will then have our answer as to what the broader public thinks of it.

[doug3030]

do we really want people in power who drink so often and behave that way when they do?

Well, we've got them now, we've always had them. Even our very first Prime Minister was famous for his love of a cold beverage on a hot day. Another famous PM was a university drinking champion. Who was it who was found drunk in a hotel lobby without his pants on?

I would rather elect someone who drinks like a fish out of the public eye and can balance a budget than someone who is sober and cannot balance a budget or prioritize.

[BobL]

Over the last week I have been working my way through Prof. Yuval Noah Harari's best-selling 'Homo Deus'. Harari is a historian/philosopher and this book is a look at future history of humans. Form what I can tell he has most technical things well under his belt so he's not just waffling on. It's actually a very challenging books- do we really expect to be in charge of cyborgs or AI and if not do we expect them to treat us any better than the way we treat animals today. The fact that currently Google knows most people better than any other person including a partner, and very soon is likely to know you better than you know yourself. He's not just writing science fiction but presenting a range of prospective future directions based on what's happening today. I'm rating this book as the second best best of some 60 books I have got through so far this year.

One of the sections on the current chapter deals with decision making including voting. It appears that humans have a skewed way of making decisions that prioritises what is called the "peak", and the "edge" or" latest" experience. The most extensive testing has been done on pain perception. We remember/report average pain over a period of time based largely on the worst pain we experience during the period and the latest pain we experience and tend to average the two for an overall pain perception.

So if over a zero to 10 pain scale you are asked to average pain over the last weeks, you remember your worst pain (say 8) and your most recent pain (say 1) and you will report an overall average of around 4 even though you might have had all days, except the last, around 6. so your average should be ~6. If you experienced say 2 for all other days then your average should be around 2. The same applies to voting. If you vote on the actual polling day you will remember the most painful event during the parliamentary term and most of the recent raft of dubious promises made by politicians during the final media storm days of an election campaign and make a decision based on those.This is not done for fun its done deliberately. Hence the vast majority of people will make a poor decision. A better more representative decision (even for discerning voters) is made if you vote BEFORE the media crap storm kicks off. You cannot beat this - it's hardwired into humans.

The book goes into much more detail than this about decision making. It appears we have very little to ZERO free will to make decisions. Some of the future scenarios are seriously bleak and we appear to be blindly heading into some of these futures without being aware of it. No amount of conservatism or back peddling will prevent this and if anything make things worse for most folks.

[BobL]

I would rather elect someone who drinks like a fish out of the public eye and can balance a budget than someone who is sober and cannot balance a budget or prioritize.

I also don't worry about a pollies personal habits, religions etc as long as they are not then telling me how to live my life - once they do that they go to the end of the ballot paper.
I'm not convinced by basic balancing a budget - anyone can balance a budget, lop a zero or two off here and add a zero or two there - it's not rocket science rather it's how it's done that really matters. The same applies to funding health and education etc. And when they're not balanced there're endless excuses available.

[FenceFurniture]

Well, we've got them now, we've always had them. Even our very first Prime Minister was famous for his love of a cold beverage on a hot day. Another famous PM was a university drinking champion. Who was it who was found drunk in a hotel lobby without his pants on?

I would rather elect someone who drinks like a fish out of the public eye and can balance a budget than someone who is sober and cannot balance a budget or prioritize.

I don't disagree Doug, BUT...

do we really want people in power who drink so often and behave that way when they do?

It's the second part that is the critical bit.

The goose that was caught is neither the first nor last, however, when there is a chance of exposing it then I think it's fair enough to take it up. Certainly you'd have to think that the whole sordid affair will be some kind of lesson to people in public life, and perhaps will make them think twice about behaving like that (except that alcohol increases bravado and risk taking).

I can't think of any real down side to come out of this exposure as far as the general public is concerned.

[doug3030]

I can't think of any real down side to come out of this exposure as far as the general public is concerned.

Remember which party the goose is running for?

Do you think these revelations will change the opinion of someone who was going to vote for him in the first place?

[BobL]

Remember which party the goose is running for?

Do you think these revelations will change the opinion of someone who was going to vote for him in the first place?

I Agree. Even criminal offences/convictions are unlikely to swing dies hards. Unless the party leader has sufficient sway to knock them out of the election, this is why factional or minority party reprobates are able to get away with so much. Their supporters say, " He/she may well be a goose but she's/he's our goose".

[doug3030]

Their supporters say, " He/she may well be a goose but she's/he's our goose".

Politics aside, within a group, people get away with picking on the "goose" of the group, but when an outsider has a go, the group steps up and defends them.

[FenceFurniture]

Do you think these revelations will change the opinion of someone who was going to vote for him in the first place?

Well I think it probably might change some people's minds, particularly those who are considering voting that way for the first time. It wouldn't change a die-hard's mind.

[BobL]

Well I think it probably might change some people's minds, particularly those who are considering voting that way for the first time. It wouldn't change a die-hard's mind.

Given that bad publicity is sometimes better than none, I reckon it might also convince a few macho/butchy type doubters who might have vote informal or donkey or for someone else.
Their rationale might be they think most pollies are too PC and should harden up a bit.
It will be interesting to see the how many first preference votes he gets.

[FenceFurniture]

Anyway - nothing that WA does electorally influences the election outcome anyway - so we might as well not vote.

So -ve! But apparently on the contrary according to tonight's news.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-...labor/11064150

"Both sides see WA as a major battleground"

"the west is regarded as being "in play" at this election campaign on a scale not seen for some years"

[Beardy]

Yes, that is one view, and I can certainly see why people who may be on that side of the fence might see it that way. In fact I think I've only heard that view from people on that side of the fence. I read quite a few journo's reports and opinions of it and I think the closest that one or two got was "it may have been close to entrapment, but we needed to know this stuff". When I say "journo" I mean proper fair minded journos, not those that might bolt away and talk a whole lot of devine crap only for the sake of ratings in their limited news outlets.

"I'm sorry I did it" is quite different to "I'm sorry I got caught".

OTOH, it would seem that a great many more people were glad to see it revealed, one way or another. Personally I can't see any moral difference between recording it secretly and having (say) two corroborating witnesses independently reporting it. They said those things, and most certainly dreamt of the money to buy testicles. At a very minimum, and given that everyone involved has blamed alcohol for these not-really-real-indiscretions-coz-I-was-pieced, do we really want people in power who drink so often and behave that way when they do? All that would change is the quality of the sauce consumed would rise.

Do we want people of that calibre with the Government's testicles in their hands? I bloody don't.

Really, the bottom line is that their views and thoughts and desires were exposed for what they are, and nothing can change that. The recordings are what they are, and I didn't see too much evidence of fancy editing. Much of it was uninterrupted. There was enough evidence ten times over, so you could take out a huge part of it and it would still be just as damning. None of the people recorded said "I didn't say that". The best they could come up with was "taken out of context", but each part was damning within itself.

The overall view of it will be known soon enough: their % of the vote has been on the increase for a while, so if it stabilises or goes backward at the erection we will then have our answer as to what the broader public thinks of it.

Nothing to do with which side of the fence you are on........I am certainly not on his side. I was more just intrigued that so much money and effort was put into discrediting a minority party like they did, the timing of releasing the information was not a coincidence.

As far as politicians behaving badly, I think we would have few members left in parliament if all of their dirty washing was aired. Some just get caught