Paxman v Brand

I tweeted this out yesterday. The guy is an odious cretin of the highest order, self serving and narcissistic.

I think he would fit well under the UKIP umbrella:

"Vote for us because the other lot done it wrong"

Because he's raising valid points about the flaws in our governing system that affect us all. People are far too focussed on who's saying these things as opposed to what's actually being said.

Such as?

I dislike the messenger but when you actually read what he writes he has some very valid points. Read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Brand is impossible to argue against as he advocates the creation of a world that nobody in their right mind wouldn't want.

"So, who's for everyone being equal and living in peace and harmony and getting rid of all the bad guys?"

"Oh, go on then you persuasive thing you....tick...."

Unless Brand has stumbled across a secret serum that reverses tens of thousands of years of human evolution then he can point out all the bad stuff happening on the planet for as much as he likes but the human race is set on a course to certain oblivion and there's nothing he can do about it.

Have a nice day y'all

Because he's raising valid points about the flaws in our governing system that affect us all. People are far too focussed on who's saying these things as opposed to what's actually being said.

What flaws? We live in a democracy and he has the profile to put himself forward to be elected to campaign for change.

I dislike the messenger but when you actually read what he writes he has some very valid points. Read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Yet offers precisely no realistic solutions. Anyone could point out the blindingly obvious on youtube.

Unless Brand has stumbled across a secret serum that reverses tens of thousands of years of human evolution then he can point out all the bad stuff happening on the planet for as much as he likes but the human race is set on a course to certain oblivion and there's nothing he can do about it.

 

Have a nice day y'all

You may well be right about that, trousers: let’s face it, anyone who’s watched the news this week will have witnessed what a fucked up world we live in. Nevertheless, we only need to rewind the clock-of-time back a few centuries or so to find people being broken on the wheel, hung drawn and quartered, burnt at the stake, transported to Australia (ffs!) for the most ridiculous of ‘misdemeanours’. Generally speaking, these things no longer happen; therefore, perhaps there is hope that humanity is moving forward and will one day get its act together – with or without Brand’s help.

I dislike the messenger but when you actually read what he writes he has some very valid points. Read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Yet offers precisely no realistic solutions. Anyone could point out the blindingly obvious on youtube.

Try it then. Let's see your version of the Trews.

Yet offers precisely no realistic solutions. Anyone could point out the blindingly obvious on youtube.

That's not strictly true. The one clear solution he does offer is: Do Not Vote.

I was at a preview screening of the movie Selma last night, which was about the 1964 marches in segregationist Alabama, led by Martin Luther King, in protest at the denial of voting rights to black Americans. In fact, blacks had the right to vote already but were persistently obstructed by voting registration officials demanding all kinds of ridiculous information from black applicants designed, supposedly, to demonstrate sufficient knowledge to use the vote wisely. One demand - a true story - was made of a middle-aged black woman that she name all 67 of the circuit judges in the state of Alabama.

Several people - black and white - died or were badly injured in Alabama in the effort to secure what became the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And yet black voters still find their efforts to register in the South frustrated (the 2000 Presidential election was arguably stolen by obstructing black voters in several Florida districts).

In this country, the struggles for universal suffrage also cost lives and were hard fought. The idea that it's a smart thing to do to just disengage from this essential democratic right is shockingly ignorant of history as well as of the continuing centrality of free and fair voting to the well-being and protections of citizens.

The electorate, contrary to some of Bland's acolytes, are not 'morons'. They are a fundamental guarantee of political freedoms, even when - or especially when - those freedoms are challenged.

Try it then. Let's see your version of the Trews.

I have no desire to, primarily because I see no value in Russell doing it other than finding it vaguely amusing on occasion (in fact it's quite patronising, as if people are unable to figure it out themselves.) so why would I join in as well? If your argument is "do it yourself otherwise you can't criticise" then that's the exact same argument people are using against Brand and Parliament. Do you think it would be difficult to find idiocy in Daily Mail headlines for example or lampoon Fox News?

That's not strictly true. The one clear solution he does offer is: Do Not Vote.

 

I was at a preview screening of the movie Selma last night, which was about the 1964 marches in segregationist Alabama, led by Martin Luther King, in protest at the denial of voting rights to black Americans. In fact, blacks had the right to vote already but were persistently obstructed by voting registration officials demanding all kinds of ridiculous information from black applicants designed, supposedly, to demonstrate sufficient knowledge to use the vote wisely. One demand - a true story - was made of a middle-aged black woman that she name all 67 of the circuit judges in the state of Alabama.

 

Several people - black and white - died or were badly injured in Alabama in the effort to secure what became the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And yet black voters still find their efforts to register in the South frustrated (the 2000 Presidential election was arguably stolen by obstructing black voters in several Florida districts).

 

In this country, the struggles for universal suffrage also cost lives and were hard fought. The idea that it's a smart thing to do to just disengage from this essential democratic right is shockingly ignorant of history as well as of the continuing centrality of free and fair voting to the well-being and protections of citizens.

 

The electorate, contrary to some of Bland's acolytes, are not 'morons'. They are a fundamental guarantee of political freedoms, even when - or especially when - those freedoms are challenged.

I agree with Verbal for only the second time ever. The fact that they were so keen to stop the blacks from voting just shows how powerful the vote is.

I reckon he regrets saying the dont vote cos pretty much all but hardcore anarchists would agree a ludicrous position to take.

I have no desire to, primarily because I see no value in Russell doing it other than finding it vaguely amusing on occasion (in fact it's quite patronising, as if people are unable to figure it out themselves.) so why would I join in as well? If your argument is "do it yourself otherwise you can't criticise" then that's the exact same argument people are using against Brand and Parliament. Do you think it would be difficult to find idiocy in Daily Mail headlines for example or lampoon Fox News?

My argument was based on your claim that anyone can do what he does. You are anyone. Do what he does, or moderate your hyperbole.

My argument was based on your claim that anyone can do what he does. You are anyone. Do what he does, or moderate your hyperbole.

I don't have to prove anything to you. I have no need to do things like pick holes in the logic of Fox news, enough people do that already but I'm confident that the vast vast majority could do if they wanted to.

That's not strictly true. The one clear solution he does offer is: Do Not Vote.

 

I was at a preview screening of the movie Selma last night, which was about the 1964 marches in segregationist Alabama, led by Martin Luther King, in protest at the denial of voting rights to black Americans. In fact, blacks had the right to vote already but were persistently obstructed by voting registration officials demanding all kinds of ridiculous information from black applicants designed, supposedly, to demonstrate sufficient knowledge to use the vote wisely. One demand - a true story - was made of a middle-aged black woman that she name all 67 of the circuit judges in the state of Alabama.

 

Several people - black and white - died or were badly injured in Alabama in the effort to secure what became the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And yet black voters still find their efforts to register in the South frustrated (the 2000 Presidential election was arguably stolen by obstructing black voters in several Florida districts).

 

In this country, the struggles for universal suffrage also cost lives and were hard fought. The idea that it's a smart thing to do to just disengage from this essential democratic right is shockingly ignorant of history as well as of the continuing centrality of free and fair voting to the well-being and protections of citizens.

 

The electorate, contrary to some of Bland's acolytes, are not 'morons'. They are a fundamental guarantee of political freedoms, even when - or especially when - those freedoms are challenged.

RB's point is that voting legitimises a system which is run for the elites, and that by not voting, you deny it that legitimacy.

The smallest attempt at reforming the voting system was turned into a scarefest. When the Labour Party asked for my help in campaigning, they didn't want me to speak to people in Liverpool. They don't matter. They wanted me to go to Warrington instead, because it is one of the few places that votes do matter.

No-one asked us if we wanted to have two wars, or pay 45bn of public money to save a group of addicted professional gamblers. No-one asked if we wanted to become part of a federal state like the EU. No-one was asked if we wanted to privatise the NHS.

Representative democracy is at best, the chance to pick your dictators, assuming you live in a place where your vote matters. At worst, you're just expressing an opinion. There are better ways to do that.

I actually agree with the spirit of your post, but practical implementation renders it redundant.

I don't have to prove anything to you. I have no need to do things like pick holes in the logic of Fox news, enough people do that already but I'm confident that the vast vast majority could do if they wanted to.

You've proven that you're talking crap. More than good enough for me.

Bowl overarm next time, mush.

You've proven that you're talking crap. More than good enough for me.

 

Bowl overarm next time, mush.

Utter codswallop from you as per.

Utter codswallop from you as per.

Make a YouTube vid and have hundreds of thousands of people watch it.

Anyone can do it.

Make a YouTube vid and have hundreds of thousands of people watch it.

 

Anyone can do it.

People watch that because he is a well known celebrity and is a hot topic in the media eye at the moment, not because he has something novel to say. Anyone could do what he does and if they had the same celebrity as him they would get the same amount of views as well.

RB's point is that voting legitimises a system which is run for the elites, and that by not voting, you deny it that legitimacy.

 

The smallest attempt at reforming the voting system was turned into a scarefest. When the Labour Party asked for my help in campaigning, they didn't want me to speak to people in Liverpool. They don't matter. They wanted me to go to Warrington instead, because it is one of the few places that votes do matter.

 

No-one asked us if we wanted to have two wars, or pay 45bn of public money to save a group of addicted professional gamblers. No-one asked if we wanted to become part of a federal state like the EU. No-one was asked if we wanted to privatise the NHS.

 

Representative democracy is at best, the chance to pick your dictators, assuming you live in a place where your vote matters. At worst, you're just expressing an opinion. There are better ways to do that.

 

I actually agree with the spirit of your post, but practical implementation renders it redundant.

And the system that you would prefer to representative democracy is.... ?

And the system that you would prefer to representative democracy is.... ?

Presumably a dictatorship under pressure from street protest only. I don't know.

He thinks the British electorate are, in his exact word, 'morons'.

That must include, for example, the Scots, who not only came close to winning independence using their votes but in losing managed to extract further concessions on devolution from the Westminster government. It must include the constituents in my council wards, where a solid Tory majority was overturned at the last local election because everyone was incensed at the previous council's kow-towing to the NHS Trust's attempt to destroy a major and well regarded teaching hospital.

And the most moronic voters of all - how stupid can you get? - are those who risked and in some cases lost their lives in the fight for the vote or in defence of it.

'Not voting' doesn't deny anyone legitimacy - it just leaves them in power with a lesser sense of threat from a watchful electorate. And actually, voting has rarely been more of a lightning rod issue. With the Scots result, the issue of English votes for the English, and other devolution questions, have reasserted the power of the voter. In London, the role of the elected Mayor has been critical in driving a more co-ordinated economic development of the city. It's a now a role model for stimulating real growth and infrastructure in the regional cities.

As any voter knows who's passionate about something, voting isn't the only part of the equation. Street protests, boycotts and other measures, up to and including civil disobedience, are all part of the armoury of a democratic citizenry. But you take the vote out of the equation and those other liberties will quickly disappear. Just ask the Egyptians.

So who's side to take? Martin Luther King, Emmeline Pankhurst, Nelson Mandela, the protestors of Tahrir Square, the Australian Aboriginal campaigners for the vote who only achieved their objective in 1962? Or a chest-hair-straightening comedian/actor and acolytes casting all voters as 'morons'?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/proof-that-russell-brands-revolution-may-actually-be-working-9935076.html

Proof that Russell Brand's revolution may actually be working

And the system that you would prefer to representative democracy is.... ?

An option on the ballot paper that said "none of the above".

Yet offers precisely no realistic solutions. Anyone could point out the blindingly obvious on youtube.

The problem is all the people we have elected seem to just ignore the blindingly obvious, or choose to do nothing about it.

As for being an MP, Brand will probably have more effect doing what he is at the moment, using his fame and wit, than being a lone voice in Parliament. It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, maybe in today's world the media is mightier than the ballot box?

It is obvious the current system is f*cked up and unsustainable when a banker can earn in one day what a nurse earns in a year just because he knows how to play the system. We can either do f*ck all and say "that's just how it is" and sleepwalk into the next crash or we can TRY and do something about it. Maybe by doing what he is, Brand is making our politicians wonder why some hairy former crack-head is more popular than they are. Every time he embarrasses one of them on question time he is getting his point across.

And the system that you would prefer to representative democracy is.... ?

Why is it either or? This is not a case of anything being mutually exclusive, as my point about changing the voting system should have illustrated. Representative democracy can be a fúckton better than it is today. 78% of MPs are millionaires. How representative is that? We had the spectacle of Aitken going to chokey and still retaining his position. How represented were his constituents while he was serving time at a soft nick? The right of recall would have sorted that instantly.

The electoral system is also a fúcking joke. Our resident propagandist, now joyfully unemployed in that sector, loves to pull me up on my claim that the British public are morons. Let me add to the legend he's trying to spin. If you voted no to AV, you're a fúcking moron. You're actually worse. You're a thick self-basting c**t putting yourself in the oven for Christmas, or you're so enamoured by the self-interested arguments of the duopoly that you voted no to help them. Still a fúcking moron.

The problem is all the people we have elected seem to just ignore the blindingly obvious, or choose to do nothing about it.

 

As for being an MP, Brand will probably have more effect doing what he is at the moment, using his fame and wit, than being a lone voice in Parliament. It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, maybe in today's world the media is mightier than the ballot box?

 

It is obvious the current system is f*cked up and unsustainable when a banker can earn in one day what a nurse earns in a year just because he knows how to play the system. We can either do f*ck all and say "that's just how it is" and sleepwalk into the next crash or we can TRY and do something about it. Maybe by doing what he is, Brand is making our politicians wonder why some hairy former crack-head is more popular than they are. Every time he embarrasses one of them on question time he is getting his point across.

What is he trying to do exactly? What is he advocating? It's all well and good to point out what is wrong but of he doesn't offer any sort of tangible solution then it's ultimately meaningless and will bring about no change at all.

What is he trying to do exactly? What is he advocating? It's all well and good to point out what is wrong but of he doesn't offer any sort of tangible solution then it's ultimately meaningless and will bring about no change at all.

He's making people talk about things and think about things. OK he polarises opinion, but he's probably got people talking about politics more than they have done for a long time. If that's all he achieves that's still commendable, whether you agree with him or not.

What is he trying to do exactly? What is he advocating? It's all well and good to point out what is wrong but of he doesn't offer any sort of tangible solution then it's ultimately meaningless and will bring about no change at all.

Probably put pressure on our politicians to try and tackle the problem instead of take the easy, short-term option and just ignore it.

Probably put pressure on our politicians to try and tackle the problem instead of take the easy, short-term option and just ignore it.

So how would you put pressure on in a meaningful way that would actually create change? What would you suggest?

He's making people talk about things and think about things. OK he polarises opinion, but he's probably got people talking about politics more than they have done for a long time. If that's all he achieves that's still commendable, whether you agree with him or not.

Well if that's all it is, then I agree he is probably succeeding. My suspicion though is that he thinks he is doing something greater than that and I don't believe that he is. It's still not going to lead to the overthrow of society which is what he seemingly wants.

And tbf to him, as far as I am aware he wasn't advocating not voting he said that currently there is nothing worth voting for (which does sort of beg the question why don't you try and do something about it.)

This is an interesting article from the US. Political scientists reckon that the elites get their own way, and if you're not part of that group, you're effectively powerless.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2014/04/21/oligarchy-nation

78% of MPs are millionaires. How representative is that?

According to Mr Brand, being wealthy doesn't inhibit one's ability to represent less well off people.

(Said Trousers missing the point entirely but thought he'd come up with some nonsensical reply anyway)

According to Mr Brand, being wealthy doesn't inhibit one's ability to represent less well off people.

 

(Said Trousers missing the point entirely but thought he'd come up with some nonsensical reply anyway)

I think the big difference is that Brand has actually been poor at some point in his life. It's a far cry from the old money that is making a mint from the privatisation of almost everything.

I think the big difference is that Brand has actually been poor at some point in his life. It's a far cry from the old money that is making a mint from the privatisation of almost everything.

So 78% of MPs are millionaires. But actually your issues seems to be that they are the wrong kind of millionaires, is that right? Presumably having earned their money in various industries, rather than through celebrity.

So 78% of MPs are millionaires. But actually your issues seems to be that they are the wrong kind of millionaires, is that right? Presumably having earned their money in various industries, rather than through celebrity.

I made the point about the 78% of MPs being millionaires because a millionaire is unlikely to perceive the world in quite the same way as someone struggling on the average wage. That goes double for those born into a life of privilege, and have never had to share the concerns of most of the people they are supposed to represent.

If you voted no to AV, you're a fúcking moron. You're actually worse. You're a thick self-basting c**t putting yourself in the oven for Christmas, or you're so enamoured by the self-interested arguments of the duopoly that you voted no to help them. Still a fúcking moron.

Weird that you've been tempted into yet more juvenilia about the 'moronic' British electorate. You haven't quite got the hang of this democracy thing, have you? A democratic sensibility means disagreeing with the vote if it goes against you or your interests but accepting it all the same - and learning to fight another day. There will be other chances. That's how democracies work.

What it doesn't mean is slagging off with the most stupid of playground insults people who, in their majority, happened to vote against something I'm unclear you even want. (As the electorate are, in your word, 'moronic', then they can't be trusted with anything at all.)

Incidentally, you might want to look up the etymology of 'moron'. You really should drop it, but I doubt you will. Have you tried these views out on your new best friends in Left Unity? My guess is they'll give you a bit of a talking to. Still, you're in the right company. And since you entitle yourself to vote but deny it to the 'moronic' British electorate, which way did you vote on the Left Unity motion last month that ISIS has 'progressive potential' because it breaks down the imperialist drawn boundaries of the Middle East?

I can guess, but hope that I'm wrong. Still, I trust you to vote - and to be outvoted.

I made the point about the 78% of MPs being millionaires because a millionaire is unlikely to perceive the world in quite the same way as someone struggling on the average wage. That goes double for those born into a life of privilege, and have never had to share the concerns of most of the people they are supposed to represent.

And that is a major issue. So few politicians come from an ordinary background as they used to, both Tory and Labour. The electorate are disengaged, many recognise the system needs a major overhaul but those who are in power have the most to lose so there is no way they will allow it.

I made the point about the 78% of MPs being millionaires because a millionaire is unlikely to perceive the world in quite the same way as someone struggling on the average wage. That goes double for those born into a life of privilege, and have never had to share the concerns of most of the people they are supposed to represent.

What's the source for this number? We're just talking about the Commons, right? Smells fishy.

What's the source for this number? We're just talking about the Commons, right? Smells fishy.

Chased this down for you. Respect For The Unemployed did the leg work. The 78% figure represents Lords and Commons. Not sure where they are getting their figures from, the information is exempt from FOI requests as it constitutes personal information.

Brand's response to paella gone cold person.

http://www.russellbrand.com/2014/12/8164/

The mob upstairs at RBS who exiled you with your rapidly deteriorating lunch have had £4bn in bonuses since the crash. Do they deserve our money more than Britain’s disabled? Or Britain’s students who are now charged to learn? Is that fair?

They were some of the questions I was hoping to ask your boss – but we got no joy through the “proper channels” so we decided to just show up.

Not just to RBS, but also to Lloyds, HSBC and Barclays. I know that the regular folk on the floor aren’t guilty of this trick against ordinary people; they’re like anyone, trying to make ends meet. As you point out though, it’s hard to get to the men at the top so we were forced into door-stopping and inadvertent lunch spoiling. The good news is that this film and even this correspondence will reach hundreds of thousands of people and they’ll learn how they’re being conned by the financial industry and turned against one another – that’s got to be a good thing, even if it makes me look a bit of a twit in the process and the national dish of Spain is eaten sub-par.

 

....

 

 

 

I’d never knowingly keep a workingman from his dinner, it’s unacceptable and I do owe you an apology for being lairy.

 

 

So Jo, get in touch, I owe you an apology and I’d like to take you for a hot paella to make up for the one that went cold – though you could say that was actually the fault of the shady shysters who nicked the wedge and locked you out, I’d rather err on the side of caution. When I make a mistake I like to apolgise and put it right. Hopefully your bosses will do the same to the people of Britain.

 

 

Pretty classy, I reckon.

Brand's response to paella gone cold person.

 

http://www.russellbrand.com/2014/12/8164/

 

Pretty classy, I reckon.

It's a good job I'm not a conspiracy theorist because, if I were, I might be inclined to believe that "Jo" is a Brand publicity stunt stooge...

It's a good job I'm not a conspiracy theorist because, if I were, I might be inclined to believe that "Jo" is a Brand publicity stunt stooge...

A good job? A shame, actually. If this was a conspiracy for publicity, that'd make you an unwitting pawn in Brand's dastardly schemes.

So how would you put pressure on in a meaningful way that would actually create change? What would you suggest?

I think the campaign to get those flats in London to be now sold to a housing association might have been strengthened by his input and publicity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11304792/Russell-Brand-film-on-RBS-bankers-funded-by-City-investors-including-former-RBS-banker.html

Russell Brand film on RBS bankers funded by City investors - including former RBS banker

Chased this down for you. Respect For The Unemployed did the leg work. The 78% figure represents Lords and Commons. Not sure where they are getting their figures from, the information is exempt from FOI requests as it constitutes personal information.

What is their definition of a millionaire? What would they prefer the percentage to be? What is an acceptable level of wealth for an MP to have? How many of them we're born into Millionaire families and how many were self made? Without knowing any of that, it's a bit irrelevant.

If they're self made then I have no problem whatsoever with them, tory or labour. Career politicians from wealthy backgrounds are a real problem in our system. They have no idea of the real life most of us live.