Kate Ashmor - PC member and liberal candidate

That must be the same Tania P that I heard saying that Bill is best equipped to run the economy and knows business because he has an MBA.

No disrespect its not an easy qualification, but thats a plain silly comment, as is this .

Guess we are all human in the end ?

ta

rolf

 

I would have thought that an MBA was a reasonable thing to have, and gives a reasonable background for somebody to have an idea of economics. I don't see it as a particularly silly comment at all.

Scott's education is in economic geography.

 

I can understand why Jewishness would be introduced into an electorate which encompasses Caulfield and surrounding areas. However, I question why somebody who is not observant (according to the articles) would raise an artefact which shows how observant somebody is.

 

While I can see your point..........

Objectively, if we needed to rely on the education and experience of the various ministers and also the shadow cabinet, we would be in a whole heap of trouble...........thats why a ministry has specialist advisers, policy creators, consultants, and the whole balance of the 3 ring circus.


ta
rolf

 

One doesn't need to be an expert, but somebody with some expertise can help decipher what the experts are saying.

I felt that your implication was that it was a negative thing to have some expertise. It may or may not help, but I certainly don't think that it hurts.

 

I think you need to understand the context here - read the article. It was a debate between two potential candidates for an electorate where the Jewish vote is considered very important to winning the seat because of the local demographics. The discussion seemed to devolve around a discussion about who was "more Jewish" based on symbolism in their campaign office.

It's certainly not something that is being discussed in the broader context of the party or the country - it was specific to that electorate and the people being addressed in the audience in direct response to a question from the audience about their beliefs.

Don't read more into this than there was.

 

Also, this wasn't against any race or religion. They were two people of Jewish background, both vying in front of an audience which was probably largely Jewish to show who was most Jewish.

However, trying to shame an opponent over one's practice or beliefs is not a great thing. It's not up to the level of intolerance but is probably not a great way to go in politics.

 

If it's important to the the local constituents, then it should be important to the members vying for election.

It's no real different to a city dweller running for a seat in a rural area and then being challenged as to how "country" they are - do they actually understand their constituents, or have they just been helicoptered in by the party to run for a seat for political reasons?

 

I did go to an Easter service at Canberra once, where I sat on the pew next to the then prime minister John Howard. The difference was that he didn't say anything to the congregation - not even a greeting, let alone any politicking.

Likewise, the Queen at the same church just kept to herself.

 

Yeah, except that they weren't discussing race - they were discussing beliefs.

You can't change who your parents were - but you can change what you believe; how you choose to live your life; and what symbolism you find important - which is exactly what was being discussed here.

An even longer bow to conflate race with beliefs.