[Closed] Do you Vote? - Paxman Vs Brand-Newsnight

Sorry, didn't listen to all of it. Had to floss the cat.

Did he (Brand) come up with any solutions or is it all someone else's fault ?

That's exactly how the EDL started: a smart Alec mouthpiece for the disaffected masses becoming the figurehead of an antiestablishment movement badly disguised as politics

No; the EDL 'started' as an attempt to make far-right wing extremism more palatable, by pretending not to be the BNP/NF/BM. It's subsequently been exposed as exactly what anyone with half a brain knew anyway, been abandoned by it's leader, and is still exactly what it always has been; a fascist network for racist thugs.

Comparing Russell Brand to the EDL really is clutching at straws.

I gave it a watch, to be honest, I preferred him live at the O2 arena. I think he should go back to his earlier style.

I used to hate everything about him, but I'm really warming to him.

I wish he could get away from the flowery language- people use words like that when they want to seem clever. He's got no need to do that... So ironically it makes him look less clever than he really is.

Shibboleth - Member

That interview does nothing apart from fuel "disenfranchisement"

How does an interview fuel disenfranchisement? You know what actually does that? Lack of representation. Talking about something doesn't create it, it just draws attention to the fact that it's already there.

I used to hate everything about him, but I'm really warming to him.

Me too, every time he pops up I like him a little more.

I have time for his ideas. I hope he's not just blowing smoke, it'd be nice for something to change, I feel helpless (politically/financially/spiritually) at the minute. I wouldn't vote for him, if you get me.

Either way, this coming issue of New Statesman will no doubt break all sales records.

I liked it, I'm just glad somebody is talking about the real problems of our society somewhere other than a Socialist Worker Party meeting in the back room of a pub.

He made it quite clear he wanted to start people talking, and also made it quite clear that others more knowledgable than him are able to provide solutions where he couldn't.

I think to some degree he's achieved that. A doubt there are many that would have been given the platform, let alone made it on the radar.

the forgotten Zappa album!

Now there's a man who had some interesting stuff to say on politics - oh and he encouraged people to vote.

Brand definitely has a career in politics ahead of him. He's full of shit, is a excellent orator and addresses problems without offering solutions. Long words wont solve the main problem of over population.

No; the EDL 'started' as an attempt to make far-right wing extremism more palatable, by pretending not to be the BNP/NF/BM.

I wish he could get away from the flowery language- people use words like that when they want to seem clever. He's got no need to do that... So ironically it makes him look less clever than he really is.

I like the fact he uses flowery language. It emphasises another difference in the way politics can be discussed.
Not everyone's taste, but doesn't detract from what he's saying in my opinion.

Long words wont solve the main problem of over population.

And what's your workable solution to that?

Okay,

I've just watched the interview and formed my own opinion.

I "get" what hes saying, the whole tax thing - 100% tax needs to be controlled better.

But honestly, he comes across like any student who's had a bit too much to smoke one evening.

I get what he's saying, but he is quite possibly the worst person ever to appear on national TV to represent this idea.

ooooooohhhh the "bankers" the "corporations" oooooo

Yeah everyone hates the "bankers" i'm going to go voice my anger at a teller down my local HSBC.

Paxman was ****ing having a absolute laugh the whole way through the whole way through.

Embarrassment to watch, imo - sounds like any rant I've heard down the local pub after a few rums.

P.s: beware the corporations and bankers.

- Someone who is quite on his side but think he's a prik m8.

P.P.S: His language isn't really that flowery, is it?

Brand definitely has a career in politics ahead of him. He's full of shit, is a excellent orator and addresses problems without offering solutions.

Is that what people look for in a politician then ?

Is that what people look for in a politician then ?

Seems to have been the winning formula since written history began...

But honestly, he comes across like any student who's had a bit too much to smoke one evening.

You could wade through his deepest thoughts and not get your ankles wet.

Long words wont solve the main problem of over population.

Except it isn't one, if predictions are right we'll peak in 2050 and then go into gradual decline until potentially we no longer exist. We'll probably survive though, the earth will survive and recover - we might learn from our mistakes. Everyone wins, except some polar bears and a myriad of other creatures who A) Nature will have wiped off the face of the planet one day anyway and B) who's DNA we could just collect, store and then rewild when things recover.

Unless you consider offing or sterilising 6.5 billion people to speed up the process and never really learn a lesson about the consequences of our actions an acceptable and needed solution to our "problems". Which it really isn't, sustainable consumption is. If there's 500 million of us come 2020, we in our greed would probable be consuming at 14 times the rate.

Doomers.

You could wade through his deepest thoughts and not get your ankles wet.

Nice turn o phrase there, Rusty. Is it yours? Either way I'm nicking it!

I agree it's lots of bluster and not much substance. However, it's good to see some good old sixth form rebellion instead of apathetic shrugging.

But honestly, he comes across like any student who's had a bit too much to smoke one evening.

You lot must have been to some pretty fancy colleges and universities..
The longest word I've ever heard a student use round here is Lambrini

WONUNDRED!!

[img] [/img]

Russell Brand is basically summing up the position of lots of people who feel outside the system in his own unique way. Sadly he cannot really back it up with any real thoughts of substance. Revolutions tend to be messy affairs and usually lead to large amounts of suffering and a survival of the fittest contest which usually sees a lunatic without any qualms rise the top. It is not such a 'sexy' standpoint but we would be better off with such energy being used outside of the usual parties but inside democracy, but that is a little too hard for most to try. He generally does have some good points, but I would love to see someone a little more heavyweight ellucidate the argument. But then that would probably alienate much of the support!

I've always liked auld Russ. He's a good apple.

He generally does have some good points, but I would love to see someone a little more heavyweight ellucidate the argument.

And what's your workable solution to that?

Gaia theory.

http://www.futureagenda.org/pg/cx/view#0

Brand's doing great. It doesn't matter whether you agree with him or not, he's got people talking, something that isn't happening much these days.

In terms of changing our socio-political set-up, I think evolution rather than revolution is the way forward.

Oh, and let's have more 'mutuality' in society, where things are run for the benefit of everyone, rather than a few...

In terms of changing our socio-political set-up, I think evolution rather than revolution is the way forward.

I was crushingly disappointed that Brand didn't use that.. it was the whole 'revolution' thing that derailed it..

Brand's doing great. It doesn't matter whether you agree with him or not, he's got people talking,

+1

Though I do fear that he's encouraging others not to vote out of frustration with the available options.

The last three years should have proved to everyone that the "least worst" option is way better than the worst one.

In terms of changing our socio-political set-up, I think evolution rather than revolution is the way forward.

A mate insisted on watching the Brand interview whilst he was round at my house the other day.

Brand's very good at talking around a point and not taking a position. It's pretty obvious that he's got nothing to back that up. The entire interview consisted of this:
Brand: "x, y and z are terrible"
Paxman: "and what do you think we should do about it?"
Brand: "it's not my place to say what the solution is, the thing is that x, y and z are terrible".

You'll see the same style of argument used by idiots everywhere. ie: the EU, immigration, supermarkets vs local shops, the financial system etc...

Evolution rather than revolution - so does that mean that all those folk selling books on "thriving on chaos", advising us to "manage change" and to absorb the communicates revolution etc were mere charlatans?

I could have sworn they were telling me that we live in times of unprecedented change and revolution. 😉

You'll see the same style of argument used by idiots everywhere. ie: the EU, immigration, supermarkets vs local shops, the financial system etc...

Worse than that are the idiots who think they have a great solution no matter how ridiculous that solution is...

I just think it's amusing that there's so many people demanding that he validate himself by giving solutions..
You'll see the same weak and hackneyed style of argument used by reactionary right wing idiots everywhere when they are confronted with the idea of change..
The man didn't at any point claim to have any solutions

You don't demand that your milkman fits your new double glazing do you, just 'cos he pointed out that you had a few cracked panes in the old windows..?

To be fair there is a big difference between the theoretical milkman and brand. Anyone can have a rant, even about things they know nothing about (isn't that what STW is partly for?!?) but Brand is SETTING HIMSELF up to be more than that, so it is perfectly reasonably for him to be tested appropriately IMO. And in is case he came up short. May be he had too many short beforehand?

But this is another area for easy talk. Take the fact that politicians are divorced from us? Really? On the day of the Syria vote I emailed my MP - she's a Tory for better or worse. Within 20 mins she responded. I told her why she should vote against action and she explained why she was voting for. We exchanged 2 emails each within one hour.

Would that have happened 20 years ago?

yes 20 years ago your MP would have ignored your views as well 🙂
The assistant would have sent a letter though rather than an e-mail

Do you think it really was them? = Genuine Q btw or just the researcher

When I e-mailed my MP, I knew him before he was an MP due to a work thing, so I asked a question about it and they could not answer it - just saying like.
It was not them replying in my case

I also sent a couple of emails when the original problems with disability benefit reform started, and I wrote to ask for advice on how to manage the problems that would arise for people affected..

I got a nice email, telling me that my MP, and the relevant government minister were dedicated to helping vulnerable members of the community.. which was lovely as we watched a family member nearly made destitute

The tone of the response suggested it was her (we have previous!!!) especially as I noted that my voting patterns would be determined by the vote! Yes, in the end she voted with the government - she ignored me! - but I was interested that she (or the researcher) did at least make a stab and explaining why and on such a busy day. Oddly I felt engaged in the political process as a result.

I live in such a safe Tory seat that one vote hardly matters, but unlike Brand I will still choose to exercise that right.

But this was one illustration of how we are all much more engaged in the political process than the easy rhetoric would suggest. MPs are much accountable and scrutinised than in the past. As our their families (sadly). Plebgate is a good if totally absurd example of this.

i always vote but it is mainly a respect thing for those who died for our right to do this.

The only time I have never voted was the Police commissioner thing and i did turn up but apparently abstaining counted towards the turnout % [ they had to ring to check this]so i opted not to bother as I figured that was the best signal!

this was one illustration of how we are all much more engaged in the political process than the easy rhetoric would suggest

I get your point [it has some weight to it and it is a good one to be fair] but it only matters if it influences them!

Where on earth would this wealth come from if it wasn't for financial institutions and global corporations??

Very entertaining, is Mr Brand, unlike quite a few who have responded to this thread,but at least he makes you think and and have a laugh at the same time.

The trouble with evolution is those with power will do everything within their power to protect their power.

indeed we often praise our democracy as ace because it has evolved
What this means is that the families of the powerful in the 16 th C are still,largely, the elite today and very little has changed

they throw the odd crumb, to keep their position, but they never give true access to the table

Brand is irritating but I agree with much of what he says and at least someone is saying it.

It's nonsense to suggest you can't criticise the status quo unless you have perfect solutions to every problem.

The tone of the response suggested it was her (we have previous!!!) especially as I noted that my voting patterns would be determined by the vote! Yes, in the end she voted with the government - she ignored me! - but I was interested that she (or the researcher) did at least make a stab and explaining why and on such a busy day. Oddly I felt engaged in the political process as a result.

Pretty good example of how the political system lets people think they are engaged when in reality their contribution is utterly meaningless. I've written to my local MP several times and only ever received stock replies which don't answer my questions and parrot the party line they've been instructed to follow by their whips.

I live in such a safe Tory seat that one vote hardly matters, but unlike Brand I will still choose to exercise that right.

Again perfectly proving his point - by voting (Tory no doubt 😉 ) you are adding legitimacy to a system where you know your vote is effectively meaningless.

The incredibly low turnout in the the police commissioner elections at least sent a message that the public had no faith in the system.

"Naive, populist drivel"

To be fair if this WAS a democracy, if it is popular, it would be the way things work!

so amend your sentiment please, its either:

Not populist drivel
or
The system is rigged to serve those in power?

just sayin!

I wouldn't watch his stand up but I would watch him on Question Time. I'm with those who like him a little more each time he does something like this. He's different to the majority of those involved in politics and that makes him 'interesting'.

Well grum, I was thinking about your comment (and my meaningless contribution to democracy) while cutting grass this afternoon and more of what Brand was arguing against and for.

As I was in danger of coming up with some misconceptions especially about his choice of the word revolution (cutting grass I thought that was a completely inappropriate choice and one only befitting a drunk adolescent) I thought I had better adopt that classic THM tactic of reading what he actually said!! So I take the revolution criticism back - in the article, he is talking about a revolution of consciousness. Ok thats BS but at least harmless BS, Not sure that came across in the Paxman interview (...talks like a drunk?).

Then your comments, which made me think. Ok grum what you are proposing is basically apathy or perhaps at the more extreme level anarchy. Funnily enough Brand picks up on this in the NS article and defends apathy for much the same reason as you do (the legitimacy argument). Interesting, even if I dont agree.

But ultimately, my thoughts turned to the idea that Brand should look hard at his own life and be careful what he wished for. Hats off to him for recovering from a lousy early life. But equally, how many societies would ultimately tolerate, indulge and reward his chosen lifestyle to the degree that ours has? As he puts it, he has benefitted from the crass ([i]my word)[/i] culture of celebrity that ([i]in his words[/i]), "[i]has just banjoed the arse of another sacred cow and a Halloween-haired, Sachsgate-enacting, estuary-whining, glitter-lacquered, priapic berk...who has been undeservedly hoisted upon another cultural plinth."[/i]

Did I say he wrote like a don? Anyway with that self-description (tongue-in-cheek or not) he should perhaps be grateful for our tolerance and indulgence. Not many societies would!

What this means is that the families of the powerful in the 16 th C are still,largely, the elite today and very little has changed

But more generally I'm with Brand. If anyone was facetious in the interview it was Paxman.