The Student Room Group

Sexy Ed Miliband...

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Twinpeaks
To have a basic understanding of parties' manifestos. Or at least the ability to understand.
To have the strength of mind to not be swayed my superficial matters such as how attractive/ unattractive a party leader is.
No **** they shouldn't be judged by how attractive/unattractive they are. You know what Holier Than Thou, I knew who I was voting for before I opened this thread and that hasn't changed. This started out aimed at me someone you've never met, know zero about apart from what you see on a jokey thread. Using words like 'degenerate'. Who's making snap judgments hmm?

And how about it's the job of the parties to reach the lesser educated and marginalised? Surely there'd be a reason certain groups aren't politically engaged in the first place. And rather than letting them drown in cycles of deprivation they should be making their agenda more widely accessible, not weeding people out with an 11+ like you probably took to enter private school.
Reply 41
Original post by Twinpeaks
To have the strength of mind to not be swayed my superficial matters such as how attractive/ unattractive a party leader is.


I don't think anyone is swayed by the attractiveness of a candidate, it is highly unlikely to change the political decisions of any individual.
However, if a person puts themselves in the public eye they are going to be photographed. And sometimes the photograph will be funny and unflattering.

Laughing at a stupid photograph of DiCaprio isn't going to make you think he is any worse of an actor.
LeoStrut.jpg
Original post by Condog10
I don't think anyone is swayed by the attractiveness of a candidate, it is highly unlikely to change the political decisions of any individual.
However, if a person puts themselves in the public eye they are going to be photographed. And sometimes the photograph will be funny and unflattering.

Laughing at a stupid photograph of DiCaprio isn't going to make you think he is any worse of an actor.


Well that's factually and statistically wrong. Attractiveness plays a gigantic factor in the way we sub-consciously perceive others.

It is a recorded statistical fact that regardless of content about the debate and pre-conceptions of the people participating in it that the taller the person, the lower their voice, the less they sweat/display nervousness and the more attractive they are the more likely it is that people will think they won the debate.

Charisma plays a gigantic role in politics and even though it shouldn't such is the nature of democracy; people are dumb but we let them all vote nonetheless. The notion that the uneducated benefit scrounger has the same level of say in how the economy ought to be ran as the doctor of economics is a preposterous way to organise the running of a country.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 43
Original post by TorpidPhil
It is a recorded statistical fact that regardless of content about the debate and pre-conceptions of the people participating in it that the taller the person, the lower their voice, the less they sweat/display nervousness and the more attractive they are the more likely it is that people will think they won the debate.


I would argue that the qualities you describe would relate to the perception of confidence and dominance as opposed to attractiveness. Of course people want a confident and dominant leader, I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
It isn't like we have a history of attractive Prime Ministers now really is it... :tongue:
Original post by redferry
Awh I just think he's really adorable. He's just a super nerd...whenever I see him I just want to give him a hug :frown:

Like that time when he hadn't taken drugs but he'd read a lot about them. Bless him.



Good for you!

The problem a lot of us have, though, is whether the guy you want to give a hug to because you pity him is fit to run the country.

If he IS elected, in the immortal words of the Sun, will the last person to leave Britain turn the lights off?
Original post by Condog10
I would argue that the qualities you describe would relate to the perception of confidence and dominance as opposed to attractiveness. Of course people want a confident and dominant leader, I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
It isn't like we have a history of attractive Prime Ministers now really is it... :tongue:


No, it is confidence for sure, but attractiveness is related. Confidence makes us think people are more intelligent, but so does attractiveness, they are separate properties but they have the same consequences.

Attractiveness both physical and of their personality is a huge part of charisma.
Original post by Twinpeaks
Hang on, you basically agreed with me when you called people ****ing idiots?


I didn't say those idiots can't vote.
Original post by Condog10
I don't think anyone is swayed by the attractiveness of a candidate, it is highly unlikely to change the political decisions of any individual.
However, if a person puts themselves in the public eye they are going to be photographed. And sometimes the photograph will be funny and unflattering.

Laughing at a stupid photograph of DiCaprio isn't going to make you think he is any worse of an actor.
LeoStrut.jpg



Political psychology says to the contrary. Most of us are heavily swayed by appearance. We make snap judgements on how competent a person is by their appearance, and there's a good consistency with our snap judgements of competency and our later judgements when we learn more about the individual. There's not a correlation between perceived competency and actual competency, but there's a strong correlation between perceived competency when you first meet a person, and perceived competency after you've gotten to know a person. It is unfortunate but has been proven again and again in research.


Electoral campaigns are a dark game when you learn about political psychology (which unsurprisingly is a massive field), you begin to see so many dirty tactics from so many angles.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I didn't say those idiots can't vote.



Yes but I obviously wasn't being serious :rolleyes:


I was just expressing my annoyance at how harsh and ignorant people can be. Just like you did...
Original post by chocolate hottie
Good for you!

The problem a lot of us have, though, is whether the guy you want to give a hug to because you pity him is fit to run the country.

If he IS elected, in the immortal words of the Sun, will the last person to leave Britain turn the lights off?


I think he is a nice person and to me that is what is important in a leader.
I so would. :perv: Jokes aside, I do find him really endearing and adorable.
Original post by redferry
I think he is a nice person and to me that is what is important in a leader.


Let's hope yours is a minority view (I think it is).

We need a leader to manage a minority position in parliament (almost certainly), sort out the public finances, grow the economy, fix the NHS and Education systems, win the battle against home grown terrorism, hold the differing parts of the UK together, etc etc etc.

This will require qualities of leadership which may not exist in any man or woman. Judgement, unflappability, toughness, ruthlessness.

What it doesn't require is being "nice."

Do you think Churchill, almost universally regarded as our greatest leader, the man who saved this country and helped free Europe from Nazism was "nice?"

A great leader can't be nice he has to be unpopular sometimes. Oh wait, Miliband qualifies on that score at least!

:smile:
Original post by chocolate hottie
Let's hope yours is a minority view (I think it is).

We need a leader to manage a minority position in parliament (almost certainly), sort out the public finances, grow the economy, fix the NHS and Education systems, win the battle against home grown terrorism, hold the differing parts of the UK together, etc etc etc.

This will require qualities of leadership which may not exist in any man or woman. Judgement, unflappability, toughness, ruthlessness.

What it doesn't require is being "nice."

Do you think Churchill, almost universally regarded as our greatest leader, the man who saved this country and helped free Europe from Nazism was "nice?"

A great leader can't be nice he has to be unpopular sometimes. Oh wait, Miliband qualifies on that score at least!

:smile:


Churchill was a terrible leader outside of war time... A lot of his decisions lead to the financial crash!

We haven't had a nice leader in decades, and just look at the awful people that have been in power and what it has done to the country... Hence I am willing to give it a try!
Original post by redferry
Churchill was a terrible leader outside of war time... A lot of his decisions lead to the financial crash!

We haven't had a nice leader in decades, and just look at the awful people that have been in power and what it has done to the country... Hence I am willing to give it a try!


Which British Prime Minister (let's say since Walpole) would you classify as "nice"?

My view is that niceness doesn't and shouldn't come into it at all. I don't know if nice guys really do finish last, (experience suggests that on the whole they do, sadly) but I DO know that nice people don't tend to ascend to the top of the greasy pole of British politics.

And if they ever do they don't last long. Michael Foot was a nice man, for example. Look what happened to him.

Anyway, I really really hope not many people agree with you. Miliband as PM would be a disaster for our nation, mark my words. :-(
Original post by redferry

We haven't had a nice leader in decades, and just look at the awful people that have been in power and what it has done to the country... Hence I am willing to give it a try!


Clement Attlee? (more than a few decades ago :tongue:)

Quick Reply

Latest