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

Oxbridge often suggests somebody is wealthier and out of touch

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.

So you wouldn't be scared if a nut-case politician, who loves anti-British terrorists and wants to remove our nuclear deterrent could become PM?

The problem with today's Labour Party is that they lack economic credibility.

If Corbyn cares about every person in the country, as you say he does, he will seek to adopt policies that promote economic growth so that the increased wealth can be spent on good public services and to help the disadvantaged.

Instead he thinks there is a magic money tree and wants to max out the national credit card and spend, spend, spend.

That will lead to lower growth, increased unemployment, higher inflation, and more taxes. But when an economy collapses, as it likely would under Corbyn, it is the poorest who suffer most.

Corbynomics will be not so much boom and bust as no boom then bust.

Does it? Since when?

Oh and Oxbridge had more state pupils when the Grammar schools existed everywhere.....

So you wouldn't be scared if a nut-case politician, who loves anti-British terrorists and wants to remove our nuclear deterrent could become PM?

That's the general impression people have.

Grammar schools were historically full of middle class pupils

Poppycock. He doesn't love "anti-British terrorist". Provide evidence to the contrary.

Save on military and defence spending to invest on the NHS , labour and social housing.

Meanwhile, thousands of jobs are being lost in Steel plants and the government is planning to sell their debt to Chinese investors! 😶

So you're a sheep?


Really? And what do you base this on?

When Hamas fund your election campaign:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11938212/Jeremy-Corbyn-campaign-part-funded-by-Hamas.html

When you won't condemn the IRA:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11787955/Jeremy-Corbyn-refuses-to-condemn-IRA-for-terrorist-atrocities.html



So as I said, compromising the nation's defence.....


???

It's great that you accept UKIP are a joke party.

Also your reasoning that UKIP can be nonchalant about the lack of talent within their senior ranks because they are a joke party (oops I mean because they are not going to form a party) implies that talent are beating at the door of UKIP and they are turning them away so as to have "more ordinary people". Sad fact is that there is such scant talent within UKIP.

And in the Winter and Spring of this year, when UKIP were hoping to catch a lot more seats than er, 1, and maybe be a possible coalition partner, did they rush in all this secret talent that nobody has ever seen so that they could be a credible party of government? Er no, it was the same trash that they have now.



Ah, so you saying they are a joke single issue party. Great.



They all have policies which they openly discuss. What planet are you on?



Except Labour aren't loosing seats in the North, and only won them in the South when they were a Tory-lite party of Tony Blair.



They came second in May (in spite of that large pesky Asian population), so what will the surprise be?



When did I say debate wasn't a marker of intelligence. I said oratory skills are not a marker of intelligence. You know what else is a good marker of intelligence? Being able to read and follow what someone is writing.



Farage just peddled out the same tired and rehearsed arguments ad nauseum. There was nothing spontaneous, nothing reactive, very little thinking.

Debate can be a good marker of intelligence, but not a high profile political debate on television, where each candidate is briefed and goes through days of rehearsal so they can perform.

And I haven't seen Corbyn debate, so I have no idea what his skills are like in that area. Certainly his more grown up approach to PMQs is refreshing and might actually lead to PMQs becoming a useful forum for debate, as opposed to the circus of hooting and braying that it had become of late.



Am sure he was intelligent for his time, and due to the new and innovative insights he brought, not the way he articulated them.



And as already indicated to you, the people who are ardent euroskeptics are greater in number than those who are ardent europhiles; many people are in the middle, and it's easier to attack the EU with dogwhistle politics, than to defend it with nuance that reflects its complexity (am sure all of this is lost on you). Assessing the contents of the debate or the performance of each side through public polling is just hilarious. But then, I expect such simplistic thinking from a UKIP supporter.



How flattering that you trawl through my thousands of posts across two years. Must have really rattled you. Great to know you allegiance to your values are so easily shaken. I also guess having had all your arguments destroyed on this thread that you desperately want to take the thread totally off-topic (that's fine, it's your thread, and it's loads of fun ripping into the nonsense that form your arguments)

If you read the contents of this thread, you would see how I clarified my position on elitism.

Elitism is fine when it is used to ensure elite candidates get into elite jobs. My objection to your original post (which as we have seen through this thread, has been totally shredded to pieces to the point you cannot defend any of it), was that it assumed graduates of Oxbridge are by their right more suitable for government than graduates from other universities, which is plain nonsense, that I think even you yourself would concede.

As for medical education, you again show how you fail to analyse even quite basic situations, instead going for the simplistic thinking.

Medical education is a vocation that guarantees you a position as a practising doctor, which from day one meaning having people's lives in your hands. Given the challenging nature of clinical medicine, everyone would be agreed that obtaining such an education should be rigorously gatekept, so as to ensure only the best and most capable candidates have access to it, and thus to caring for the nation's sick. The quality of such education is also highly regulated.

In the UK, access to it is done pretty well, with the process of selection being rigorous as well as meritocratic. The Eastern European medical schools, which offer a medical degree taught through the medium of English, offer no such selection process, instead taking UK candidates that can pay the tuition fees, and expanding places to fit demand (they market them to people in the UK that failed to get their A-Levels). Candidates thus get into medical education with Cs, Ds, or even Es at A Level, and importantly, then have the right to gain employment in the UK when finished. This is before we look at the fact that these institutions do not prepare their UK graduates for clinical medicine, since as students they were unable to communicate with patients (an absolute necessity of training to be a doctor).

A degree from Oxbridge doesn't guarantee you anything, and the path into government is diverse (there are no prerequisite qualifications or education). A medical degree guarantees you a job as a doctor, and the path into medicine is only via a medical degree. That is why elitism is appropriate in certain situations.

Anyway, as has been painfully obvious to everyone, you fail to grasp simple, let alone complex concepts, and instead prefer positions that rely on simplistic thinking at best, highly prejudiced thinking at worst.



Right so let's focus on the bits of my post that you didn't respond to and ran away from.

Were you ignorant, or were you lying, when you said that Corbyn's shadow cabinet was "almost exclusively red brick, not Oxbridge"?

Would you consider Hitler one of the most intelligent men in Germany given his oratory skills and ability rouse support for himself in debate?

Hmmm. I posted at 6.30 last night and then went out on the lash. You spent your Saturday evening on the internet writing this "trash" (to use your favourite word). What an exciting life you must lead.

Don't worry, you will get a point by point rebuttal of every single misrepresentation, distortion, ad hominem attack, logical fallacy and straw man argument you advance in this farrago of piffle. If you want pettifogging, arguing the toss, (and from this post you clearly do) I'll give you it. But when I have the time to spend ripping you a new one. Which isn't now on a lovely sunny Sunday.

Returning to the thrust of this thread, and its first point. I wonder whether the man the Sunday Times calls today "the leading novelist of his generation" has been reading TSR? He clearly agrees with me (it is behind a paywall so no link):

"He is undereducated. Which is one way of putting it. His schooling dried up when he was 18, at which point he had two E - grade A Levels to his name; he started a course at North London Polytechnic, true, where he immersed himself in trade union studies, but dropped out after a year. And that was that...In general his intellectual CV give an impression of slow minded rigidity."

Martin Amis Exeter College. Oxford.

I'd be very interested in how your hero Nigel Farage performed at A Level. He went to an elite private school, yet seemed to drop out of education, and the results of his A Levels cannot easily be found in the public domain.

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

I haven't been yet able to find the time to give a response to your long post above, but I will. Please don't "run away" as you like to put it.

Supposing Farage had got two E's at A Level, like Corbyn, so what?

I assert that Corbyn only got two E's and is pretty stupid.

Even if Farage had two E's also, it would not prove that he is stupid.

That is the Association Fallacy.

Why don't you want him to win?

David Cameron has more important things to worry about. Ed Miliband thought the average weekly shop was £60 and not over £100.

In the meantime, can you at least clear up what anybody on this thread would be thinking and this is whether you lied or whether you were ignorant when you said Corbyn's shadow Cabinet is "almost exclusively red brick, not Oxbridge"? We all know that UKIP supports are either liars, ignorant, or a bit of both, but we'd all like to know which of these you are.

I wouldn't care.

And here we reach another question. Are you being absent-minded or hypocritical when judge others on their academic credentials?

So if the 2 Es have nothing to do with his alleged stupidly, why have you raised it (on more than one occasion I believe)?

And so we reach another question; are you biased, or just a bit dimwitted?

Absolutely something you should be considering next time you make such a fool of yourself.

Anyway, another fail by a UKIP supporter