Jeremy Corbyn's intellectual credentials... or lack of.

Actually he 'passed out' 8th in his year, out of 150. Not much of a result for someone who had tried twice before and was hailing from a background of extraordinary privilege even among his Sandhurst contemporaries. The idea that Churchill was much more academically successful either at Sandhurst or at Harrow than has been historically acknowledged is a nonsense with no evidence to support itself. He is known to have demonstrated intelligence but not academic achievement, and it is the latter that is being discussed in the conversation you are intruding upon.

Are you sure on this one? I'll admit the only place he's actually good is in opposition at PMQ. I'm not exactly fond of the other guy either.

What Corbyn said about not firing certain missiles in retaliation on live internation television and thereby undermining deterrence is literally beyond stupidity. Even if he doesn't agree with it and even if you wouldn't fire them, you don't then tell everyone! I can accept an alternate/opposing viewpoint and I can accept people dropping clangers here and there but I can't accept reckless behaviour of him putting his pacifist ideas before a nations security and safety.

I haven't forgotten that, you know why? Because every other politician ever has understood the concept of deterrence, except Corbyn.

He either doesn't understand or thinks his views are both unquestionably correct and more important than everyone elses. Those are the only two options I can see. I'd be interested if you could see another.

Cameron did go to Eton. That's almost a (not so free) ticket to Oxbridge.

Although I despise Corbyn, the fact that he dropped out from LMU and still became someone would make him more sympathetic to my eyes than an old Etonian that has been favoured in life since his birth.

We shouldn't judge someone on the university he attended, but on his ideas/accomplishments. In the case of Corbyn, it's easy enough to deride him on the latter point; there's no need to use personal attack.

Intelligence =/= academic record
There are many different types and facets of intelligence.

Yes, of course. However, academic credentials are indicative of relative intelligence, especially when the contrast is as stark as it is between Cameron and Corbyn.

I have not made those decisions based on media, I have made them based on analysis of Hansard, PMQs, other MPs views, grass-roots discussion and general ideology, I do not need the media to tell me Corbyn is a moron.

The author studied PPE at Oxford. You haven't really provided anything to support the veracity of your theory besides your own opinions.

It's meant to demonstrate that the extent of Cameron's education is no real reflection on how to govern a society which is inherently so complex and requires understanding of a whole range of people.

Their respective academic careers do indicate that but I am really unclear of the relevance, especially in light of that article. Cameron's academic education has taught him a lot of stuff, he's clearly good at doing well in exams and is high functioning but that doesn't make him at the baseline more 'intelligent' or 'clever'.

Politicians need to empathise with and understand the reality of people who live within the society they are governing. The torys demonstrate their lack of understanding (or lack of caring) on this time and time again. Look at what they are doing to junior doctors, for example.

Also thanks for reading the link. I respect that.

I completely agree with him and reject the concept of nuclear deterrence. Taking a global view, nuclear war is an existential risk to humanity - not because I think a world war is likely to arise through tensions, but more because particularly with the rise of terrorism, there's a very real risk of conflict being instigated by accident or by non-state actors - and as long as nuclear weapons exist, this risk remains. I think this risk is significantly greater than the risk posed by not having any nuclear weapons in the first place.

I study history at Cardiff, but that doesn't qualify me to make sweeping statements about the suitability of all my classmates for political office. I can offer an insight, yes, but not much beyond that.

My "theory" is that David Cameron is more intellectually clever than Jeremy Corbyn, and I have provided their respective academic credentials to support this.



I agree.


If Cameron had gone to Oxford and Corbyn had gone to Bristol (a university lower in the rankings but not a million miles away, and certainly not hovering around the bottom), for example, then I would agree that we can't really conclude anything about their respective intelligence. However, because the difference is so stark, I think we can conclude that this contrast indicates that Cameron is the more intellectual of the two.


Again, I agree.


Haha, you're welcome. Thanks for providing a rational and considerate argument; it makes a pleasant change.

You do not have to be exceptionally academically bright to be accepted to Oxford, nor to graduate with a first. Hard work can attain both of these things in the absence of oustanding mental abilities, and is even easier with the private tuition which many of the people involved have access to.

It is also wrong to say that academic qualifications are necessarily indicative of one's intellect. The former is infinitely more influenced by socioeconomic circumstances than intelligence.

Going to Oxbridge means you're smart, the opposite is not true.

Not going to Oxbridge could be for a thousand reasons. My mom died 3 days before my Oxford entrance exam, ended up flopping it, I don't think that makes me stupid.

If they were in power with labour would they promote independence ?

Or is it just because they do not wish to run Scotland under Tory austerity that independence and further devolution are big on their agenda?

This is utterly deluded. You honestly think the Scottish National Party would abandon it's primary aim of Scottish independence just because they have more power in what they see as another country?

and the award for most meaningless info I've ever found on the internet goes to...

Intelligence is not important in politics neither Corbyn or Cameron are "intelligent".

Central planning fails regardless of how well planned or how "intelligent" the group of people carrying it out are. There is economic laws that cannot be broken

I agree. However, I do think that going to one of the lowest ranked universities in the country does indicate that you're not terribly clever, especially compared to someone who went to Oxford.




Of course, I agree with that. However, I strongly suspect that the primary reason why Corbyn didn't go to Oxford was not due to extenuating circumstances, but due to the fact he got two E's in his A-levels.

We've already had a thread on this. Look, nobody cares about your GCSEs when you have A levels, nobody cares about your A levels when you have your degree and nobody cares about your degree (or lack of) when you have a career track record. There's a reason for this. You've proved your capabilities in a more relevant sphere.

If you think anybody genuinely looks at a 60 something year old and dismisses his 40 year career as evidence of his intelligence because he has no degree (which nobody over like 25 cares about anyway) then you're utterly deluded.

I will say however that anybody who denies that Cameron is (also) intelligent is blinded by their hatred of anything not Corbyn.

Both are clever. You don't become the PM and the leader of the opposition respectively if you're thick. Get over it.