Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Lol srsly? There are plenty of students at Oxbridge and UCL with the same A-levels and academic ability.
    Yes seriously and the smartest ones opt for Oxbridge. Its not rocket science.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    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?
    Do you realise how stupid that Q is? If they can't hack Oxbridge, then they certainly can't hack the scrutiny of being an MP!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Also, since the OP is a supporter of UKIP (right?), care to share how many of the top tier UKIP politicians are Oxbridge graduates?
    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##.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Cameron and Osborne suck up to an actual communist regime, give them levels of control over our nuclear industry. .
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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##.
    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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melonlemon)
    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/...price-of-bread
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    David Cameron doesn't know what a loaf of bread costs. You can take your dumb comments elsewhere.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...price-of-bread
    David Cameron has more important things to worry about. Ed Miliband thought the average weekly shop was £60 and not over £100. I'm sure you didn't complain about that, even though he's a multi millionaire. Prejudice.

    As for dumb comments, you have just made my day. I've not laughed this hard in some time. Thanks!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CloakedSpartan)
    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.
    Do you really think OP would be saying this if it was Corbyn "sucking up" for business reasons? I'm not saying your points are not valid but that is not how this discourse goes. It;s about party propaganda and all the propaganda levied at Corbyn can be thrown back at the Tories, with more legitimacy imo.

    Anyway, the nuclear deal is terrible. It's **** from a purely economic viewpoint.

    https://theconversation.com/if-the-h...se-it-is-47947

    Unless the Reader in Energy Policy, University of Aberdeen is uneducated?

    Your first sentence lumps in the same category as OP. Plenty of educated people vote labour, as do plenty of uneducated people vote Tory. If by educated you mean has a degree. Which doesn't even mean that much. Most member of the public haven;t got a clue when it comes to economics whether they are "educated" or not. I have a physics degree, doesn't mean my opinion on a myriad of non physics topics have any merit over an uneducated person.

    Everyone can vote. That includes those that have no formal education and those that have an educations and think that makes them experts on everything when really they know very little. Most people have to vote for a party with a very bare understanding of the issues of the day. That's democracy.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    And here I was thinking that the public were sick of the "oxbridge elite" being in charge? :rolleyes:

    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    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

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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. )
    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.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Whilst Corby is reduced to reading out the contents of his in box at PM's Questions, in an embarrassingly cringeworthy manner.
    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.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    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?

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    As above.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    So it matters to all of us that they are bright and financially competent.
    And you seem to determine that on attendance to Oxbridge.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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##.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    Yeah, all that infighting within a failing political party is great BBC1-tier entertainment. And if we want to see infighting within a joke political party, you can always turn to Channel 5-tier entertainment to see what goes on in UKIP
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by looseseal)
    And here I was thinking that the public were sick of the "oxbridge elite" being in charge? :rolleyes:

    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.
    I completely agree (and I don't want him to win, I just want a fair fight)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    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.
    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 includingthe 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 .
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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/l...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?
    Oxbridge often suggests somebody is wealthier and out of touch, not that they can run the country better. Oxbridge graduates have got us nowhere so far, adding some new blood and changing things up is definitely needed.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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. )
    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.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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
    Ah, so you saying they are a joke single issue party. Great.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    They all have policies which they openly discuss. What planet are you on?

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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?
    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.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    They came second in May (in spite of that large pesky Asian population), so what will the surprise be?

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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!
    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.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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 includingthe Socratic dialogues?
    Am sure he was intelligent for his time, and due to the new and innovative insights he brought, not the way he articulated them.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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 .
    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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stochasticking)
    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.
    It's not just the traditionalist and conservative media that attack him. The Guardian has been one of his strongest source of attack this year.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 4, 2016
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.