Labour Candidates

Gotta be careful when comparing correlation and causation and especially drawing further conclusions. Sure people from Oxbridge turn up in high society - but is that because the offspring of people in high society tend to go to Oxbridge in the first place? The fact that they end up in high society may have more to do with the fact they went to Oxbridge rather than obtaining high society on some more objective merit.

Exactly.

I didn't intend to claim all the cleverest people attend Oxbridge, I meant (in different wording) that people who go there are pretty much all among the cleverest. And furthermore, of that category notionally called the 'cleverest' the ones that attend Oxbridge are no doubt the best educated. A failing of the system, maybe, but I still wouldn't mind them running the country.

You might get clever people who didn't attend Oxbridge, but are they as likely to have the combination of high self motivation, ambition, intelligence, confidence etc as people of the same potential intelligence who were not fortunate enough to get that chance?

edit: and for record (not that it should matter) I'm a university dropout who now works alongside graduates as colleagues/peers day-in and day-out and have the same responsibilities as them but get paid less for my level of experience because I don't have a degree. By rights I should hate that fact and claim that any level of university education is uneccessary for success, but from experience the graduates that are from Oxbridge that I work with really do have their **** together.

That could and should be contended, because it depends on what educational subject you are on about.

Oxbridge isn't top of the world for everything.

Anyway, the point i was making is having a degree isn't a prerequisite in my mind for the job. It isn't for an MP anyway.
 
Last edited:
Most politicians are a bunch of lazy snobs who come from rich family and had a private education at some backwards school of toffs.
Usually because daddy has connections as well.
 
It doesn't matter, Cambridge is Cambridge - the degree cert. doesn't even state the subject. It's a just says BA irrelevant of whether you did art history or theoretical physics.


That's true, your degree subject is irrelevent. It is enough that you graduated Oxford.

In reply to TWfox and others, an Oxford degree opens doors that remain closed for others regardless of your ability or experience, just the fact that you went to Oxford is enough. Cambridge is the same I assume.
 
Most politicians are a bunch of lazy snobs who come from rich family and had a private education at some backwards school of toffs.
Usually because daddy has connections as well.

I only know two MPs well, and neither are at all lazy or snobbish. One is a self made millionaire (owns some encryption algorithms for online banking from the 90s and studied Physics at Oxford) and the other just an ordinary bloke, an accountant and postman with a degree from Hull.

My great granddad was a Labour MP just after WWII he certainly wasn't a snob/toff!
 
^Agreed. (For probably the first time too! ;))



:confused::confused:


I'm sure we agree on other things also.

People get confused with Oxbridge because they assume they operate in the same way as other Universities and that is just not the case.

The amount of freedom to study is huge, for example I studied Physics, yet I also took classes in Literature, History, Classics and a few other things also. As long as you attend your tutorials and your essays are done, you an study whatever you want. At least back in the eighties anyway.

The degree names can be confusing also, for example I have a M.Phys which is an Undergraduate degree but is refered to as a Masters. Whereas a Batchelor of Divinity or Music is a Postgrad degree.

There is an order of standing that is pretty complex and make no sense either.
 
Diane Abbot would make a great leader of the Labour party, she's got my vote :)

As for the oxbridge thing, it makes sense, but it shows just how hypocritical Labour and it's supporters were being during the election campaign.
 
I'm hoping he's being sarcastic as they'd never get in power with her at the helm, in which case I agree with him ;)

Edit: V V Perhaps not then :p
 

Because although I disagree with her massively economically, she's the only one out of the lot who supports civil liberties and social freedom in a meaningful way.

There is the issue that JohnnyG said as well... but I don't see that as a negative.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, PPE and SPS at Oxford and Cambridge respectively are pretty much the easiest degrees at Oxbridge, certainly when I was there most of the students of those subjects seemed to spend their days getting up at midday and drinking tea while the NatScis, Engineers and other proper degree students were getting on with their work :D
 
I wouldn't worry labour not getting in for a long time :)


have you seen how they are NOW banging on about how they got it wrong on immigration, makes me feel sick/laugh.
 
^What else can they do? They have to try to self analyze and step away from those failed policies and mantras from their era, however what exactly they latch onto next god only knows.

Because although I agree with her massively economically, she's the only one out of the lot who supports civil liberties and social freedom in a meaningful way.

I agree.

She does seem very strong on that side, which I applaud.
 
I don't expect her to become leader, but at the very least she will pull the debates towards the left, which (in my opinion) can only be a good thing when you have people like Burnham and David Miliband there..
 
To be fair, PPE and SPS at Oxford and Cambridge respectively are pretty much the easiest degrees at Oxbridge, certainly when I was there most of the students of those subjects seemed to spend their days getting up at midday and drinking tea while the NatScis, Engineers and other proper degree students were getting on with their work :D


I couldn't agree with this assessment more. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom