Has Corbyn dumbed down the Labour Party by purging Oxbridge grads?

Lol srsly? There are plenty of students at Oxbridge and UCL with the same A-levels and academic ability.

Many people feel that the pressured, highly academic feel of universities like that is something that they would loathe. They would prefer a much more relaxed, friendlier atmosphere. Should these people be excluded from politics?

Also, since the OP is a supporter of UKIP (right?), care to share how many of the top tier UKIP politicians are Oxbridge graduates?

Cameron and Osborne suck up to an actual communist regime, give them levels of control over our nuclear industry. .

Well I could say that 50% of the UKIP MP's defending seats at the last general election were from Oxbridge. A better percentage than Labour or the Tories probably.

I could point out that the UKIP Economic spokesman at the last election took a First in Economics from Kings College Cambridge, whilst the current Shadow Chancellor graduated (degree class undisclosed as far as I know?) in Government from Brunel. (Admitttedly O'Flynn and Nigel seem to be no longer on speaking terms. )

Or I could say that all but the most purblind Corbyn fan boy or girl would concede that Farage is much more intelligent than Corbyn. He is widely regarded as having wiped the floor with (Cambridge educated), then Deputy PM, Nick Clegg in two, hour long debates live on national television. Whilst Corby is reduced to reading out the contents of his in box at PM's Questions, in an embarrassingly cringeworthy manner.

But I won't do that for two reasons.

First, there is no way UKIP can be described as a bastion of Oxbridge, or even red brick educational excellence. The Rat Bag is right in that.

Second, UKIP offers a different proposition to the electorate. The closest they will get to power is in a coalition with the Tories in a hung parliament, perhaps with Farage somewhere in Cabinet. And the likelihood of that is close to zero. The man himself hasn't even got a seat in parliament, and I doubt Cameron will ennoble him any time soon.

Labour on the other hand is the Her Majesty's Official Opposition. Their Leader and his or her Shadow Chancellor are the only two people, apart from Cameron's successor and his or her choice of Chancellor who could occupy the two highest Offices of State.

So it matters to all of us that they are bright and financially competent.

Not so much whether or not they went to Oxford or Cambridge, per se.. But whether, Like Corbyn and McDonnell they are as thick as pig sh##.

Good, he should be getting rid of rich toffs who dont even know how much a pint of milk costs.

Insightful but very prejudiced. Where's the infamous lefty tolerance?

Personally I appreciate a wide range of views from the whole of society rather than picking and choosing on the basis of their upbringing and bank balance.

David Cameron doesn't know what a loaf of bread costs. You can take your dumb comments elsewhere.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/01/david-cameron-price-of-bread

Okay look, this is one of the reason I think mainly uneducated people vote for Labour.

Getting investment from Chinese companies doesn't mean that the Chinese government now has a ****ing button they can press to blow up a nuclear reactor in the UK, that's absolutely ridiculous. I doubt they actually have any real control over it, that's not how investment works. You don't even need to learn Economics to know that (it isn't even taught to you, that's how obvious it is). You know what that investment will create? Jobs. Lots of them.

They don't "suck up", they're making trade deals which is part of being a ****ing leader that tries to help the economy. You're acting exactly like people did when Britain made trade deals with the USSR in the 1920s. China is barely Communist now anyway, the only damn Communist part about it is the fact they claim to be Communist.

Maybe you don't realise this but allowing the general public to ask our Prime Minister the questions that are important to them is not only great for democracy but sends a strong message that Corbyn not only cares about the worries of the average citizen but that he understand he will never know the things that every person in this country cares about and how the laws made in Westminster affect them because he has not lived any life other than his own.

Well I could say that 50% of the UKIP MP's defending seats at the last general election were from Oxbridge. A better percentage than Labour or the Tories probably.

I could point out that the UKIP Economic spokesman at the last election took a First in Economics from Kings College Cambridge, whilst the current Shadow Chancellor graduated (degree class undisclosed as far as I know?) in Government from Brunel. (Admitttedly O'Flynn and Nigel seem to be no longer on speaking terms. )

Or I could say that all but the most purblind Corbyn fan boy or girl would concede that Farage is much more intelligent than Corbyn.

He is widely regarded as having wiped the floor with (Cambridge educated), then Deputy PM, Nick Clegg in two, hour long debates live on national television.

Whilst Corby is reduced to reading out the contents of his in box at PM's Questions, in an embarrassingly cringeworthy manner.

But I won't do that for two reasons.

First, there is no way UKIP can be described as a bastion of Oxbridge, or even red brick educational excellence. The Rat Bag is right in that.

Second, UKIP offers a different proposition to the electorate. The closest they will get to power is in a coalition with the Tories in a hung parliament, perhaps with Farage somewhere in Cabinet. And the likelihood of that is close to zero. The man himself hasn't even got a seat in parliament, and I doubt Cameron will ennoble him any time soon.

Labour on the other hand is the Her Majesty's Official Opposition. Their Leader and his or her Shadow Chancellor are the only two people, apart from Cameron's successor and his or her choice of Chancellor who could occupy the two highest Offices of State.

So it matters to all of us that they are bright and financially competent.

Not so much whether or not they went to Oxford or Cambridge, per se.. But whether, Like Corbyn and McDonnell they are as thick as pig sh##.

Interesting news report in today's Times a propos of this thread, it is behind the pay wall so I can't link, but will quote indirectly.

"One of Labour's most high profile peers, Lord Grabiner, has quit the party's benches in the House of Lords because of Jeremy Corbyn."

He said "I can't square...(staying)...with my conscience."

He was particularly appalled at John McDonnell's appointment. "I am concerned with the economic stuff. I am really concerned with the Shadow Chancellor...there is no effective opposition to the Conservatives...Labour is in disarray"

After a career as one the country's most eminent barristers Lord G is now, wait for it...

Master of Clare College Cambridge.

And here I was thinking that the public were sick of the "oxbridge elite" being in charge?

It seems the media will try and beat Corbyn with any stick they can get their hands on. Something tells me they would've also criticised him if his cabinet had been full of oxbridge graduates. He literally can't win.

Am sure you would make such a claim, given the sample size was 2, and is therefore a meaningless statistic. Given you lied in your opening post of this thread that Corbyn's shadow cabinet is "almost exclusively red brick, not Oxbridge" (as it turns out it is around a third Oxbridge), then it would be perfectly consistent with your personality (and UKIP style politics) to misrepresent (or outright lie about) facts



How is this relevant to the discussion at hand?

It's top tier of elected politicians carry few Oxbridge graduates (as mentioned earlier, the biggest cohort seems to be no university or a university you would sneer at)

If you want to look at his spokespeople or his "support team" as you would call it (a number of whom are whom are not in elected or legislative positions), you will find 4 out of 23 (a whopping 17%). Sadly though, again the biggest cohort are people who didn't go to university, followed by non-redbrick universities (the type you sneer at), and only 3 from redbricks.

Also interesting was Andrew Charalambous, their Housing and Environment spokesperson. So clever and well qualified was this man (PhD, professorship) that he forgot to actually make sure he could back up his claims. Turns out his qualifications are from non-accredited institutions or ones that don't even issue degrees, and indeed his "professorship" isn't even with a university, but a philanthropic organisation. It's laughable to people with a few brain cells, but I guess people like yourself just lap it all up.

Another funny one William Cash, their spokesperson for Heritage and Tourism. Things that keep him awake at night seem to be the struggle to find quality live-in servants for his manor house, and how his past ones couldn't starch iron shirts, put up Christmas decorations properly (those ones got the sack), and were getting exacerbated by the lack of house-training of the family dogs.



I have no idea. I dislike them both. Being articulate and charming isn't a sign of intelligence; in fact most people coming from a privileged background - as Farage does - hold these characteristics, intelligent or otherwise.



And you determine victory at this debate how? Based on polls? Funny thing is, UKIP supporters felt Farage won, and Liberal Democrat supporters felt Clegg won. Given the ardent Eurosceptics are greater in number than the ardent Europhiles, then it's easy to see how this conclusion is drawn through polls.

There are far better markers of intelligence. Let's just take language acquisition, since this measures a whole host of cognitive abilities (understanding new information, logic, recall, perceptiveness, etc etc). In spite of plenty of opportunities Farage has mastered one language, his mother tongue. Clegg has mastered five. Enough said.



I assume you would have thought Hitler to be the most intelligent man in Germany based on his oratory skills and ability to rouse people's passions; often through pandering to prejudices, playing identify politics, being shouty and in-your-face (oh wait, that sounds familiar, that's UKIP style).

Oratory skills are not a sign of intelligence, so not sure why you are referencing them in this context. I will give it to you, they are a necessity as part of being a leader, but don't bear much correlation with intelligence.



Why is it something you judge one part on, but not another? Surely you use the same measures of 'leaderworthiness' on different parties? Or is this more UKIP hypocrisy?



Ah great, so you're basically admitting the party you support is a joke party, so they don't need to take the whole opposition process seriously. Great. I hope your views reflect UKIP supporters as a whole.



As above.



And you seem to determine that on attendance to Oxbridge.



Thanks for giving me a reason to actually look at top tier of UKIP politicans. It's more of a joke party than I realised.

We all know that Jezza scraped two E's in his A Levels and could only get into a Poly, but did you know that his support team is almost exclusively red brick, not Oxbridge?

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/labours-purge-of-oxbridge-intellectuals/

Has Corbyn dumbed down the Labour Party in this (and other) ways?

With all out problems, can Britain really risk electing a leader too stupid to even get into university with a Shadow Cabinet composed of graduates of second tier universities?

Well you certainly took some time over that post; I am flattered that you find my views worthy of such labour.

Unfortunately, however, your time was not well spent since you only demonstrated, (at somewhat tedious length if you don't mind my saying) a point I had already conceded. Yup, UKIP has very few Oxbridge graduates.

And, (you still seem not to have grasped this point, so I'll repeat it) it doesn't matter in practical terms, because UKIP isn't going to form a government. Labour might (although as presently led that is very unlikely, I'll give you that. )

You then have some fun scoffing that the virtual impossibility of a UKIP government therefore makes it a "joke" party. Au contraire old chap! We are all soon to have a vote on the most important political issue to face this country in my lifetime (and yours). A vote that would never have been granted without UKIP's pressure on Cameron. All three major parties support our membership of the EU and our nation would never have been granted a vote without the fear of UKIP

It is the same with immigration, one of the very hottest topic in politics (and linked to the EU obviously). Non of the other parties have a viable policy on that and therefore don't want to discuss it at all. UKIP will make them address it or lose votes.

Which brings us to another crucial role in the UK body politic played by Kippers. Preventing Labour winning a majority. Vital in our nation's interest, since Labour aren't fit to govern as I say. Every UKIP vote in the North of England and the Southern Tory marginals is a knife in Labour's heart. What is not to like about that?

We'll see how the Labour vote holds in the upcoming Oldham by election. I think Labour will win (the seat has a large Asian population) but the Corbyn fan boys and girls may be shocked by UKIP's vote share. We will definitely come a good second.

We come now to another argument you advance. You say that facility in debate is not a good indicator of intelligence. I would say the exact opposite. Indeed it is!

The ability to grasp abstract concepts and express them with an interlocutor (as Farage did with Clegg and Corby seems unable) is a very good demonstration of high intelligence.

Consider this; it would not be your position, I trust, that the Greek Philosopher Plato was anything other than one of the most intelligent men that ever lived?

Yet how do we know of his intelligence, what illustrates it, except what has been passed down to us in written form including the Socratic dialogues?

As for the outcome of the debate, yes I am going on the polls conducted afterwards. Farage won the first one by a small margin and had a decisive victory in the second.

Another charge you make of me is that I am an elitist. And there is the implicit accusation of intellectual snobbery. Guilty as charged!

I am not alone, however. In a post at 12.48 on the 9 September 2013 you wrote (in reference to academic courses you look down on):

"This is because, sorry to put it bluntly, Eastern European medical schools accept trash onto their English speaking programmes..."

And at 12.55 on the same day you wrote:

"Hence those medical schools being free to accept rubbish in and churn rubbish out, and not have to deal with the problems of this (since the rubbish floats back where it came from).

I make no comment on whether you are correct in this or not. It is however, an extremely unpleasant way of describing students less gifted than you are yourself (in your own estimation). . Shame on you.

It seems that we don't like being looked down on by others ourselves, but have no moral difficulty in "sneering" (your term) at those whom we consider beneath US .

I completely agree (and I don't want him to win, I just want a fair fight)

The right wing media will use anything against JC. Effectively, the Tories are showing they are rattled otherwise they wouldn't need to belittle him at every opportunity.