Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Nope. Wrong!

    He was elected by 251,417 people. (One of whom was me, trying to screw the Labour Party, so actually the real number was 251,416).

    You tell me how that is the "largest and broadest" mandate ever when the electorate in 2010 was 45.6 million?

    "Mandates" come for political leaders when they win General Elections.

    And his support is far from "broad". It is a narrow tiny group in national terms, thin on the ground in most of the country (Scotland, Wales, the North, the Shire Counties, the Home Counties) and totally unrepresentative of the diverse and complicated nation he aspires to lead.

    But never will.
    There is also the argument that the PLP has a far, far bigger political mandate
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    Cameron is academically smarter than Corbyn based on grades and the fact he went to Oxford, yes. I don't dispute that he has more to validate his intelligence than Corbyn does.

    I dispute that his type of intelligence and even the PPE degree is good for running a country or being in political power. See article I linked re PPE.
    Corbyn has almost zero emotional intelligence. Anyone who aspires to be taken seriously as a politician in any country other than the Islamic States does NOT describe Bin Laden's death as a tragedy.

    He may think it, no doubt he does. But you don't say it on television. That shows a stunning lack of emotional intelligence, and an extraordinary inability to understand how his words will be perceived by voters and used against him by his opponents.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Corbyn has almost zero emotional intelligence. Anyone who aspires to be taken seriously as a politician in any country other than the Islamic States does NOT describe Bin Laden's death as a tragedy.

    He may think it, no doubt he does. But you don't say it on television. That shows a stunning lack of emotional intelligence, and an extraordinary inability to understand how his words will be perceived by voters and used against him by his opponents.
    Yeah basically he's not a sociopath.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    No, the two are not comparible. This is mainly because, in deterrance terms and using your gun analogy, if you got shot and instantly died, you could still retaliate and kill the shooter. The shooter, knowing an attack would kill them also, doesn't attack in the first place. Got it?

    This is why your nukes are onboard a submarine where only those on the sub know its location.

    Gun law is different too because the nasty people with guns are also under your jurisdiction. North Korea isn't under ours.
    Yeah I get it and thanks for your response.

    But if they killed you and your gun is in the safe you can't kill them in defence because you're dead. Unless we walk around literally prepared for that eventuality?

    And as we've seen with the dynamic that the gun laws create does it not just imbibe the use of violence through arms? Can that not be translated to an international scale in any way?

    I do agree though that that's an intra-county phenomenon (guns in America) and nuclear warfare is inter-country. So a lot more complex.

    It was just a thought with no real basis other than my brain spill so thanks for your reasoned response.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    Yeah basically he's not a sociopath.
    I don't understand that point?

    Mine was that Corbyn didn't appreciate the emotional response his comments on Bin Laden (for example) would arouse.

    Do you dispute that??
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    I don't understand that point?

    Mine was that Corbyn didn't appreciate the emotional response his comments on Bin Laden (for example) would arouse.

    Do you dispute that??
    I think it's a lack of tact yes, something that is drilled into the Tory politicians. Sometimes their party line towing and go to lines are actually applaudable it's so slick.

    I think his comments have been misinterpreted slightly. Most of it is in connection to him (and families of victims) wishing to see people like OBL brought to justice.

    However, after being a back bencher for so many years, where his personal views were pretty innocuous, he does need to learn how to present himself in a way that doesn't alienate or repel the electorate.

    It does represent that he's honest imo which is something to be lauded but if your honesty represents unrealistic and unpopular views then that is not good for his position as LOTO. And that's what he needs to work on. The sociopathic element of leadership. Being who people want you to be, which Cameron is arguably very good at.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Corbyn has almost zero emotional intelligence. Anyone who aspires to be taken seriously as a politician in any country other than the Islamic States does NOT describe Bin Laden's death as a tragedy.

    He may think it, no doubt he does. But you don't say it on television. That shows a stunning lack of emotional intelligence, and an extraordinary inability to understand how his words will be perceived by voters and used against him by his opponents.
    ‘British soldiers are not taught to murder unarmed people in the act of surrendering.

    ‘Bin Laden should be put on trial; not in Britain, but in the place where he organised the biggest and most terrible of his massacres, New York.

    ‘He should be put on trial, because a trial would be the profoundest and most eloquent statement of the difference between our values and his. He wanted to kill as many innocent people as he could.

    ‘We want justice.’ ~ Boris Johnson


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/p...him-first.html

    Unfortunately not even the best of us can see into the future. Corbyn said those things years ago. He never envisaged being leader fo the labour party.

    What he says now though needs to be carefully considered.

    But it's an uphill battle when the media hates your guts.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    ‘British soldiers are not taught to murder unarmed people in the act of surrendering.

    ‘Bin Laden should be put on trial; not in Britain, but in the place where he organised the biggest and most terrible of his massacres, New York.

    ‘He should be put on trial, because a trial would be the profoundest and most eloquent statement of the difference between our values and his. He wanted to kill as many innocent people as he could.

    ‘We want justice.’ ~ Boris Johnson


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/p...him-first.html

    Unfortunately not even the best of us can see into the future. Corbyn said those things years ago. He never envisaged being leader fo the labour party.
    What Corbyn said [Also from the Telegraph] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...a-tragedy.html


    In a clip from the Press TV show The Agenda, Mr Corbyn is heard complaining that there had been "no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him and put him on trial, to go through that process". He went on: "This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy."The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantanamo and Bagram.

    Not wanting to split hairs, the difference between Boris's speech and Corbyns is that

    A: Corbyns was made on the Iranian owned press TV which of course sponsors the group Hezbollah and Iran isn't a particularly nice country

    B: It is implicit in that the West is responsible and should bare the brunt of the blame (Guantanamo Bay, whilst still an abomination is a playground compared to what went on under Saddam Houssain)

    C: By grouping together the assassination of Bin ladin, 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan he seemingly believes there is no moral difference between the following.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Academia is utter nonsense anyway
    ??
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Even if Corbyn isn't especially clever (which I'm not conceding), his policies have support from those who are clever. He has widely respected economic advisors and I don't doubt other members of his advisory team, including his shadow cabinet, have strong degrees. Furthermore, he has not insignificant support from actual Oxbridge students and graduates - for instance, myself (I recently graduated from Oxford, coming very close to a first).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRforum)
    So if Cameron was a socialist and Corbyn a conservative you would still say he is smarter? Surely on principle you would have to or else your whole argument is just character assassination.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'd have no problem saying Noam Chomsky is smarter than Barry and Neil down the pub, despite Barry and Neil having similar political ideals to what we'd say is the best and Chomsky talking out his arse for a number of decades.

    Similarly I'd expect most socialists would acknowledge that Milton Friedman is probably smarter than that idiot Brummie trade unionist off of First Dates last week.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Even if Corbyn isn't especially clever (which I'm not conceding), his policies have support from those who are clever. He has widely respected economic advisors and I don't doubt other members of his advisory team, including his shadow cabinet, have strong degrees. Furthermore, he has not insignificant support from actual Oxbridge students and graduates - for instance, myself (I recently graduated from Oxford, coming very close to a first).
    If you're referring to that letter which some economists and other academics signed, they weren't pledging support for his policies, but rather signing in dispute of the contention by some elements of the media that anti-austerity is not a mainstream view. If you actually read the letter they signed, this is clear.

    I know a lot of his supportes were giving it the "see! See! Economists support Corbyn!" But sadly that was a lie.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    Yeah basically he's not a sociopath.
    Danny Dyer's probably not a sociopath either but I wouldn't want him running the country......
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    I'd have no problem saying Noam Chomsky is smarter than Barry and Neil down the pub, despite Barry and Neil having similar political ideals to what we'd say is the best and Chomsky talking out his arse for a number of decades.

    Similarly I'd expect most socialists would acknowledge that Milton Friedman is probably smarter than that idiot Brummie trade unionist off of First Dates last week.
    I'm talking politically smart not general intelligence. I'd rather have Barry and Neil or Friedman in charge over Chomsky and a trade unionist.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thaladan)

    Let me put it this way: suppose you presented me with two random politicians who I knew nothing about, and you explained that one had a first from Oxford, while the other had two E's at A-levels and went to one of the lowest ranked universities in the country. Personally, I be initially more inclined towards the former, and I would hope that his political views matched my own. However, if his political views did not match mine, while the second politician's did, then I might be a little disappointed but of course I would favour the latter.
    If you have no other element but their grades to judge them, then yes, but this situation is unlikely to happen.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thaladan)
    My mum is from a middle-class family, my dad from a working-class one. I went to a state school, and am now at Cardiff University, and am hoping to go to the University of Birmingham next year. Happy?
    snob
    snɒb/
    noun
    noun: snob; plural noun: snobs

    a person with an exaggerated respect for high social position or wealth who seeks to associate with social superiors and looks down on those regarded as socially inferior.
    You don't have to be rich to be a snob, but to be not so well off and a snob is a pretty lame thing to be tbh :sad:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Nope. Wrong!

    He was elected by 251,417 people. (One of whom was me, trying to screw the Labour Party, so actually the real number was 251,416).

    You tell me how that is the "largest and broadest" mandate ever when the electorate in 2010 was 45.6 million?

    "Mandates" come for political leaders when they win General Elections.

    And his support is far from "broad". It is a narrow tiny group in national terms, thin on the ground in most of the country (Scotland, Wales, the North, the Shire Counties, the Home Counties) and totally unrepresentative of the diverse and complicated nation he aspires to lead.

    But never will.
    No, constituencies usually have an order of magnitude less people than that. Only morons (and Tories, who can't think in any more complex terms than individuals) vote for the party leader.

    One votes for some component of one's MP and the party to which they belong, and only those entities can be said to have a mandate. In fact, one of the major electoral deficiencies we suffer from is that no cabinet minister, including the Prime Minister, has a popular mandate for their position.

    Incidentally, would you mind tellng me what it is in you that makes you so spiteful, petty and vindictive as to sign up for a rival party just to scupper their election? What a contemptible, yet apt, advertisement for the Conservative Party you are.

    It is a shameful way for a grown man to conduct himself and a slap in the face to all those struggling families for whom Labour party representation is a matter of life or death. As Corbyn likes to say, it may be funny for you but it's not funny for them. Grow up.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    I'd have no problem saying Noam Chomsky is smarter than Barry and Neil down the pub, despite Barry and Neil having similar political ideals to what we'd say is the best and Chomsky talking out his arse for a number of decades.

    Similarly I'd expect most socialists would acknowledge that Milton Friedman is probably smarter than that idiot Brummie trade unionist off of First Dates last week.
    The difference is that you completely dismiss Chomsky in favour of the two blokes down the pub just because the latter agree with you.

    I, however, would always have more time for Friedman than for the Brummie trade unionist, recognising that here was aomeone who had actually done a bit of thinking about things rather than just picking up a copy of the Daily Mail or Socialist Worker every so often.

    By the way if you love Friedman where is your support for the universal basic income I am always banging on about or didn't you read that far either?

    Although I will say even an idiot Brummie trade unionist has probably looked into things more deeply than a couple of random guys down the pub, by virtue of being a trade union official.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRforum)
    You don't think it's worthy because you don't have any arguments. If you do prove it, I can quite as easily say Keynesians are stupid and not worthy of my time.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    At least Keynesians include references and data in their essays. Forgive me for not blindly believing the unreferenced, unsubstantiated, self-satisfied tripe I have read at the Mises Institute web page.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    If you're referring to that letter which some economists and other academics signed, they weren't pledging support for his policies, but rather signing in dispute of the contention by some elements of the media that anti-austerity is not a mainstream view. If you actually read the letter they signed, this is clear.

    I know a lot of his supportes were giving it the "see! See! Economists support Corbyn!" But sadly that was a lie.
    Yes, I read the letter. I'm referring to his team of economic advisors, notably Marana Mazzucato and Joseph Stiglitz.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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