To actually love Russell Brand after his performance on Newsnight tonight..?

(198 Posts)
Scarletohello Wed 23-Oct-13 23:24:49

My God I only caught it by chance and I literally couldn't believe what he was saying to Paxman. He was calling for a revolution in society, for wealth to be distributed and he was so articulate and passionate about it. NO ONE is saying this stuff although there is so much anger in British society about how inequitable society has become but everyone has become so demoralised about it ( or blaming immigrants, asylum seekers etc)

I hope you guys get a chance to see it and tell me what you think of it, I am in shock right now.

( also pissed off about AF being banned too...)

TheFabulousFuckingIdiotFucker Wed 23-Oct-13 23:26:10

Hope someone posts a link, I missed it.

witsalmader Wed 23-Oct-13 23:26:22

I'd be more inclined to anything he has to say if I didn't have the impression that he's a woman hater.

gordyslovesheep Wed 23-Oct-13 23:29:46

oh I came to say something similar to Witsalamader - I have seen him talk over women and belittle them during debates - he is also saying things lots of people are saying - he's not alone and he may be clever but he's also quiet misogynistic

PresidentServalan Wed 23-Oct-13 23:33:47

The guy is a bellend! And do people really agree about redistribution of wealth? He sits there on his pile of money and lectures the world on how they should behave. Tosser.

FreudiansSlipper Wed 23-Oct-13 23:34:14

i am starting to think he is one of those men that love women but hate women to have too much power

he may want wealth shared a more equal society but he also wants women to be sexual objects and little else sad

IHaveA Wed 23-Oct-13 23:36:57

I thought he came across as a complete idiot! I hadn't realised that he was quite that thick. It was like listening to a 13 year old trying to sound cool and rebellious.

I love how he wants to tax all the evil 'companies' Funny that he didn't mention taxing wealthy individuals . hmm

Apparently society is to blame for his problems with drugs too confused

He is a prat of the highest order.

LOLisNOTaPunctuationMark Wed 23-Oct-13 23:38:55

Oh i love him dearly. Saw him perform in Edinburgh a week ago and almost threw myself at him.

He is so intelligent and kind-hearted, but is often mocked and not taken seriously because he happens to have a sense of humour.

Kyrptonite Wed 23-Oct-13 23:41:09

I love him. I would do bad things to him.

PresidentServalan Wed 23-Oct-13 23:41:38

IHaveA You hit the nail on the head with your comment about the rebellious 13 year old - you articulated far better than I did!

Caitlin17 Thu 24-Oct-13 00:42:38

I didn't see it but have read articles by him in The Guardian where he comes across as much more likeable and sensible than I would have expected.

His piece about Mrs Thatcher after her death was possibly the best I read on the subject.

LUKYMUM Thu 24-Oct-13 00:54:12

Ihavea how do you know he doesn't contribute a lot of his wealth? If you don't like him fair enough, but he was very articulate. Personally I dislike how he talks about women but all the points he made tonight were clear and relatively accurate. Not sure revolution will happen though.

D0G Thu 24-Oct-13 00:56:00

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

caroldecker Thu 24-Oct-13 00:57:48

Unless he gives away enough money to live on the median wage, then he does not believe what he is saying. If he genuinely believes in redistribution, he should give away all but the median wage (around £26,000). When he, or anyone else who spouts this crap, does that, I will believe their conviction.

CrispyHedgehogFucker Thu 24-Oct-13 00:59:46
D0G Thu 24-Oct-13 01:00:20

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bsc Thu 24-Oct-13 01:04:09

And how much of HIS wealth has he redistributed? hmm

bsc Thu 24-Oct-13 01:04:41

Or what caroldecker said! smile

Lazysuzanne Thu 24-Oct-13 01:23:29

sounds a bit 'naive A level sociology student' to me hmm

HogFucker Thu 24-Oct-13 01:32:41

Paxman looks like a gnome with a beard sad

extracrunchy Thu 24-Oct-13 01:36:22

He's funny and the combination of his and "Jeremy darling" was weirdly compelling but

1. Not voting changes nothing
2. His attitude to women is undeniably destructive
3. I bet he doesn't live on an average wage

Still would though...

extracrunchy Thu 24-Oct-13 01:37:13

Also Paxman's beard - why?!?!???!?

Chakkarollo Thu 24-Oct-13 01:47:05

He was very good on question time a while back

rootypig Thu 24-Oct-13 04:15:09

I thought he was fucking brilliant and made Jeremy look like a massive hypocrite. Which he is.

bsc he is known for giving wads of cash to beggars

HogFucker Thu 24-Oct-13 09:50:47

Paxman looks old. Still would though grin.

HogFucker Thu 24-Oct-13 09:52:12

Just looked up-thread and saw Extracrunchy's 'still would though' - ..... but about Brand shock NOOOO!

HogFucker Thu 24-Oct-13 09:53:19

........ though I suppose if he kept his mouth shut ......

Nancy66 Thu 24-Oct-13 10:00:32

He lost me at 'I don't vote'

HotCrossPun Thu 24-Oct-13 10:07:51

He's a dish. And I love how passionate and articulate he is.

Paxman isn't too bad either!

cranberryorange Thu 24-Oct-13 10:27:44

YANBU, Russell Brand is fantastic.

Vive Le Revolution!

DoctorTwo Thu 24-Oct-13 10:45:04

I agree with much of what he had to say, but not with wealth redistribution. We should redistribute risk. Look at recent deals like Hinkley, where those idiots in charge have guaranteed a minimum price for electricity to EDF and their Chinese partners. Given that EDF is 85% owned by the French government this deal means we, as taxpayers, are subsidising the French for the next 35 years. More and more we are seeing risk and corporate losses socialised, whilst profit is being privatised.

ifyourehoppyandyouknowit Thu 24-Oct-13 10:45:23

Not voting through apathy and not voting through 'weariness' result in exactly the same thing. He doesn't quite seem to understand the point of voting. If no one bothers voting, nothing will ever change.

I appreciate his passion. But he's a tit if he thinks he's going to change anything this way.

Also hate his fucking hair. Hate it hate it hate it hate it.

flatpackhamster Thu 24-Oct-13 10:57:13

I don't think enough attention is paid to junkie comedians and their view of the world.

The reason 'no-one is saying this stuff', OP, is because it the politics of the myopic teenager.

EverythingUnderControl Thu 24-Oct-13 11:09:40

He sounded like Wolfie Smithhmmgrin

I used to like Russell Brand a lot in the old days and thought he was very original.

But then he --sold --out- went to Hollywood and became a terrible 'Ak-tor'. Well it's made him a pile of money I guess, good for him. But in the process he's become a parody of himself and he must be aware of that to some degree.

He seems to want to come back but into what? Politics??confused Last night he just sounded a pleonastic berk looking for an edgy platform to climb onto. I'm not sure he's always as clever as he thinks on every subject. He was great at comedy. I wish he'd just left it at that.

Lazysuzanne Thu 24-Oct-13 11:11:20

I think he makes good points, but it's hard to take him seriously when he opetates via an idealistic, hair flicking, hypomanic joker personna

Lazysuzanne Thu 24-Oct-13 11:12:44

lol @ the Citizen Smith comparison grin
very true!

flatpackhamster Thu 24-Oct-13 11:13:56

EverythingUnderControl

I had never heard of the word pleonastic, but it's super and I plan to use it pleonastically, again and again and repeatedly ad infinitum.

EverythingUnderControl Thu 24-Oct-13 11:15:30

grin

Trigglesx Thu 24-Oct-13 11:21:05

If he's saying "don't vote" then he really is being stupid. One of the biggest ways we can make a change is by voting. The older generations understand this, which is why the Conservatives make sure they try not to make too many sweeping changes to the older generations.

As soon as you see huge turnouts for all ages, especially 30 and under, you'll see changes IMO.

Lazysuzanne Thu 24-Oct-13 11:22:48

I'm not sure if I'd even describe him as pleonastic, I think manic, frenetic or effervescent describes him more accurately!

EverythingUnderControl Thu 24-Oct-13 11:32:35

I felt embarrassed for him. Bombarding the interviewer with too many words doesn't make your argument water tight.

Jeremy just looked mildly bemused, not at all convinced.

UriGHOULer Thu 24-Oct-13 11:47:14

I like him, I think he cares, but if he's trying to engineer a change though politics, it won't happen. The change will come, is already happening through the convergence of science and spirituality.

He should stop getting irate and be happy. Irate does not suit him smile

wamabama Thu 24-Oct-13 11:57:36

I didn't think he came across very articulately at all. It was as if he hadn't really thought his argument through properly. I agree with what he was saying but he didn't put the argument across with any real eloquence and it just made him sound like a teenager wanting anarchy. He didn't know how to answer at all, it was all a bit "Well I don't know the answers or how it will all work but I know it needs to happen all the same.".

It's a shame because his piece on Thatcher was one of the best written articles I've ever read. I expect more of him really, he's clearly an intelligent man and he cares.

DoJo Thu 24-Oct-13 12:03:11

The only clever thing about Russell Brand is how he's managed to convince people that he's bright, simply by using the odd long word (often incorrectly and out of context) and trotting out fairly naive, idealistic notions mixed in with truisms which make people believe that he has actually put some thought into what he is saying. It is all designed to sound impressive without actually having any substance. It frustrates me, because there are plenty of 'slebs' who have a genuine understanding of politics but because they don't blow as much smoke up their own arses as Russell Brand does, they don't get the exposure.

ifyourehoppyandyouknowit Thu 24-Oct-13 12:06:02

If you sat in any first year sociology or politics seminar you'd hear the same thing over and over again. He sounds like someone gave him the newest edition of Giddens for his birthday.

DoJo Thu 24-Oct-13 12:18:57

Do you mean first year of secondary school, or university? If the latter, then I think you are being very generous...! grin

KirjavaTheCorpse Thu 24-Oct-13 12:21:21

Shh Paxman. Shh.

FunnyRunner Thu 24-Oct-13 12:23:51

I do have a bit of a dirty crush on him grin Didn't see him on NN.

Crinkle77 Thu 24-Oct-13 12:24:19

I have to agree with president. It's all well and good having principles when you are loaded.

FunnyRunner Thu 24-Oct-13 12:24:20

RB that is, not Paxman. Paxman looks like his face is made of play dough.

dutchyoriginal Thu 24-Oct-13 12:26:49

grin and big smile @ Flatpackhamster

bleedingheart Thu 24-Oct-13 12:27:50

What DoctorTwo said. I am so sick and tired of the risk being removed from owners/ shareholders and passed on to ordinary citizens.

Not voting is not going to solve that.

semirurallife Thu 24-Oct-13 12:29:27

to the skeptics of Mr B himself - shoot the messenger? can't you separate the message from the messenger.. so some of its sounds 6th form-ish -big whooppee - he probably didn't do A levels; doesn't make his observations wrong. so he's a buffoon, but who else would get on newsnight to say it?
I don't get it, do those who think he has to give up his money/ live on the median wage LIKE inequality? is it wrong for anyone to dream of a better world?
sometimes I think we should split this country in two, one socialist, the other stab-each-other-in-the back exploitative capitalists. know where I'd rather live...

EverythingUnderControl Thu 24-Oct-13 12:32:37

Dreaming for a better world is as far as it'll go if you don't even bother to vote.

LifeofPo Thu 24-Oct-13 12:33:20

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

usuallyright Thu 24-Oct-13 12:38:49

lol, Russell brands political opinions sound like an A level politics essay which got a B-
I'd like him to lead by example and distribute his wealth around. Didn't he have a 3 day wedding with Katy Perry, with elephants and shit?
Yeah, whatevs Russ, don't give up the (crap) comedy.

flatpackhamster Thu 24-Oct-13 12:41:03

semirurallife

to the skeptics of Mr B himself - shoot the messenger? can't you separate the message from the messenger.. so some of its sounds 6th form-ish -big whooppee - he probably didn't do A levels; doesn't make his observations wrong. so he's a buffoon, but who else would get on newsnight to say it?

Why does a junkie comedian belong on Newsnight anyway? The man is a buffoon. His playground politics would sound just as stupid coming from a professor. Both of them need to be dragged to the corner of the playground and beaten with the Bat Of Clue.

I don't get it, do those who think he has to give up his money/ live on the median wage LIKE inequality?

This is a nonsense argument. Like it or dislike it, it's here to stay. The question is do you change it by letting everyone have the chance of getting rich or do you change it by pulling the people at the top down to the level of the people at the bottom? The latter is called socialism.
Inequality isn't a problem. The problem is not having the chance to better yourself.

is it wrong for anyone to dream of a better world?

Of course not. Just like dreaming you have a pony isn't a bad thing. It's when you decide that you can make people's lives magically better by taking stuff from these people over here and giving it to those people over there, and enforcing it through violence, that the dream becomes a nightmare.

What it comes down to in the end is: Who is best suited to distribute scarce resources? Is it politicians or individuals? Socialists side with the former. I don't.

sometimes I think we should split this country in two, one socialist, the other stab-each-other-in-the back exploitative capitalists. know where I'd rather live...

There's nobody like a socialist for stabbing people in the back. Just ask Ed Miliband.
Which socialist countries have you lived in? East Germany? Romania? Cuba? Venezuela? What experience do you have of socialist command economies that convinces you of their superiority?

cabernetshiraz Thu 24-Oct-13 12:41:45

I saw his messiah tour recently... He's a genius!

Wouldn't go 'there' though... he must be riddled :O

Takver Thu 24-Oct-13 12:43:48

flatpackhamster - what about Sweden and Norway? (Can't comment on RB, didn't hear him.)

LifeofPo Thu 24-Oct-13 12:46:56

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ccsays Thu 24-Oct-13 12:48:38

flatpackhamster what does the fact that he's an ex heroin user got to do with anything? hmm Why are the opinions of a 'junkie' (or a comedian for that matter) less valid than anyone else's?

DoJo Thu 24-Oct-13 12:49:00

semirurallife Saying that some elements of the system aren't fair isn't an original Russell Brand idea. Saying that the system isn't fair and you aren't gong to contribute to the system which could change it, and you don't have any suggestions as to how to improve it, isn't being a messenger of anything.

ifyourehoppyandyouknowit Thu 24-Oct-13 12:49:22

If he cared so much about engaging people and making a real change, he should try and actually say it in a way that people understand. How can he sit there and say that the look and feel of parliament makes the poor feel uncomfortable, when he sounds like he ate a thesaurus and has a nasty case of the runs.

semirurallife Thu 24-Oct-13 13:02:13

flatpackhamster I wasn't going to make this a personalized thing but I shall try to explain...
inequality is not a natural fact; it is a social and political one. and there is not only one variant of socialism. In Cuba, there is no adult illiteracy, as there is here. Life expectancy there is not determined by your income, as disparities in the life expectancy between residents of Kensington and Chelsea and more deprived areas show it is often here. and you can look at tribal societies in southern Africa and in the Amazon who live in what you might call socialist states, who live with a great deal more harmony and accord than we do.
I don't think I said we should take an outmoded form of doctrinal politics and reproduce it in 21st century Britain; I was merely observing that the polarization of views, and the mocking of Brand for mentioning the s word, rather shows that we are very narrow in what we consider balanced political debate. Why can't we talk about renationalising rail and gas supplies, when in fact the government is subsidizing private companies to make vast profits out of both? whether or not the man is a crank or a comedian is neither here nor there. anyone who puts forward such ideas seems labelled thus

pictish Thu 24-Oct-13 13:09:10

Paxman loves him there.
There's nothing wrong with what he's saying. I didn't expect him to have the answers - he's not a politician after all. He has been asked for his opinion, so he's giving it. And he gives it well.

Perhaps he is naive, but it's less naive than people believing all our ills are down to those on benefits, and immigrants.

As for It's all well and good having principles when you are loaded - well I cannot agree with that. So wealth cancels out your right to principles and an opinion? What? You can't be serious.

Takver Thu 24-Oct-13 13:13:38

Thanks for that semirurallife. I love the way if anyone mentions 'socialism' people pop up and say 'well, would you like to live in Cuba?'

Its a bit like saying to anyone who is a supporter of free market capitalism 'Why don't you go and live in Haiti'.

No-one ever says 'well, would you like our country to end up like Norway / Sweden / Denmark' - because too many people might say 'Yes!' (though admittedly once they had paid their taxes and bought a beer they might change their mind grin )

Takver Thu 24-Oct-13 13:18:34

I also don't get this 'if you believe in a more equal society you should give all your money away' thing.

I would happily be taxed more heavily - those taxes would then be spent on social infrastructure / redistribution etc. All things I would benefit from personally as well as everybody else. If we lived in a more equal society with a generous welfare state, RB and others might for example not feel the need to have money put aside for retirement, ill health etc etc.

Another example - as it happens, I'm not in a position to send dd to private school, and happily I live in an area where there isn't massive inequality and the schools are fine. However, I don't accept that someone who lives in an area with really dreadful schools and does send their dc private cannot still believe in state education. It would be a bit like saying if you live in a country with a very minimal state healthcare system you can't campaign for it to be improved if you yourself pay to go to the doctor when you are sick.

treas Thu 24-Oct-13 13:33:41

To be fair to him he does hand out large sums of money on a weekly basis to those living on the streets. Even leaves money behind to be distributed when he goes on tour etc.

carlajean Thu 24-Oct-13 13:37:34

Why is RB on News night at all. Leaving aside whether you find him entertaining/sexy/intelligent ( no to all of those from me) why should we be paying attention to somebody who is essentially a media whore. So he goes on TV and gives us the benefit of his opinions - so what? Is he actually going to do anything about it? He doesn't even vote. I would respect him if he actually stood for anything apart from 'look, I'm Russell Brand, aren't I
wonderful, and, hey, I use lots of long words as well'.

carlajean Thu 24-Oct-13 13:43:16

...and giving people chunks of money on an ad lib basis changes nothing. It just makes you a Lady Bountiful.

LifeofPo Thu 24-Oct-13 13:45:49

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Okies.

Takver The nordics you mention are not socialist countries they are social democracies and are quite keen on capitalism. And behind the rather splendid gloss of shiny teeth, interesting jumpers and gloomy detective shows they have a huge number of problems. They are taxed a lot more - but do not think for a moment that they dont have problems. As for the other places. They practice socialism which requires a central command economy and in fact more of them are becoming dictatorships because ultimately the socialist model fails.

What brand was talking about was revolutionary socialism with ananrachist view (dictatorship of the proletariat for those that know their Marx). Taking things away from people by force is revolution - it has been tried an awful lot. Sooner or later it all falls apart as the redistribution needs more and more force and more and more repression of human rights to work. You see you can tax people till they squeak, but sooner or later your neighbour will covet your last bean and claim that you are a (hoarder/speculator/evil banker/ counter revolutionary/ delete as appropriate) and demand that the secret police come and smash down their door.

The reason why people who advocate this are told that they should set the example is because they are invariably hypocrites to a degree that it boils your piss dry. Toynbee - remove choice by closing free schools - chose a nice private school for her kids. Guardian - close tax loopholes make the evil companies pay - apart from the Guardian and its off shore trust. Hodge of the PAC grandstanding against google fame - ask her about her offshore trust. Diane Abbot - kids went to private school. You see it is very easy to come over all "smash the evil capitalist system" but only after my cash is in the cayman islands?

Oh and if you want to pay more tax - you can. Dont need to vote. Just make your cheque payable to HMRC. They will put it with the rest of a very small pile under the heading - naive, self indulgent fools with more money than sense.

carlajean Thu 24-Oct-13 13:47:49

So what's RB actually doing about it then?

treas Thu 24-Oct-13 13:52:15

...and giving people chunks of money on an ad lib basis changes nothing. It just makes you a Lady Bountiful.

Or just practising what he preaches - however, naive and misguided you think it.

RB is a self serving cock.

He's setting himself up to take over the mantle of king complete cock from Sir bobbono!!

Mandy2003 Thu 24-Oct-13 13:58:58

I'm listening but not watching this on YouTube. When he's making more serious points at length he sounds very, very much like a young Ken Livingstone!

RB is welcome to do as he wishes with his money. I resent and fundamentally disagree with him telling me how i should dispose of mine. No matter how good the cause! Further, for him to suggest revolution and asset confiscation is childish - "c minus" RB get past chapter 2 of politics for showbiz.

There is no such thing as government money. Only money it has taken from taxpayers with threat of punishment. We put up with it as long as we see results. However - i cannot abide those who promote more and more confiscation safe in the knowledge it wont affect them - only poor bloody muggins.

PresidentServalan Thu 24-Oct-13 14:03:24

And if he chooses not to vote, he has no right to a political opinion.

I would do Paxman though! grin

PresidentServalan Thu 24-Oct-13 14:07:18

He is minted and that's fine but it comes across as patronising that he talks about how poor people feel about anything.

flatpackhamster Thu 24-Oct-13 14:07:37

semirurallife

^flatpackhamster I wasn't going to make this a personalized thing but I shall try to explain...
inequality is not a natural fact; it is a social and political one.^

Inequality is a natural fact. Take primates. Chimps compete with other members of their social group for access to food and mating rights. Some get more than others.

and there is not only one variant of socialism.

No, indeed. In some variants only a handful of the population are tortured or starved, in others it's large percentages.

In Cuba, there is no adult illiteracy, as there is here. Life expectancy there is not determined by your income, as disparities in the life expectancy between residents of Kensington and Chelsea and more deprived areas show it is often here.

Cuba is often cited as a fine example of a socialist state. However, Cuba spent decades being directly subsidised by the Soviets - then by Venezuela after the collapse of the SU.

It's certainly possible to achieve a socialist paradise when you don't have to worry about where the money to achieve it is coming from.

and you can look at tribal societies in southern Africa and in the Amazon who live in what you might call socialist states, who live with a great deal more harmony and accord than we do.

But they aren't states and you shouldn't try to compare them. The main reason is that they are operating at the natural social group size for humans (about 75-150 people). Beyond that, it's hard for everyone to know everyone else and their business. In a tribal society everyone is related, albeit distantly, and when you help someone out you're doing it because they're part of your group. The same doesn't apply when you're being taxed at 50% in order to pay for people you don't know, have never met, never will meet and have nothing in common with.

By and large the rule of thumb is people are happy to help out when they're related (or closely connected), less so when they're distantly related and not at all when they've got nothing to do with the other person.

You can't simply scale up and expect it to work. Of course they live in more harmony and accord.

I don't think I said we should take an outmoded form of doctrinal politics and reproduce it in 21st century Britain; I was merely observing that the polarization of views, and the mocking of Brand for mentioning the s word, rather shows that we are very narrow in what we consider balanced political debate.

Well, why not include Nazism in the political debate then? Both socialism and Nazism employ the same principles - subordination of the individual to the state and demonisation of anyone who does not fit the state's approved definitions of behaviour or thought.

Why can't we talk about renationalising rail and gas supplies, when in fact the government is subsidizing private companies to make vast profits out of both?

You can talk about it all you like. Unlike in a socialist state, nobody's here to tell you what you're allowed to talk about.

I don't want to get off the subject (which is why Russell Brand is ghastly) but a quick point about nationalised railways - the Beeching Axe could never have happened under a privatised system.

whether or not the man is a crank or a comedian is neither here nor there.

Actually, it is. Does he really have a place on the BBC's flagship politics programme? Really? Is there nobody with a greater understanding of the world they could have found?

anyone who puts forward such ideas seems labelled thus

Mmm. Indeed.

flatpack - i think i luff you a little bit

Takver Thu 24-Oct-13 14:12:58

"Takver The nordics you mention are not socialist countries they are social democracies and are quite keen on capitalism"

I have no idea about Russell Brand (though stimulating discussion about politics has to be a good thing), but 99.99% of people campaigning for 'socialism' in this country are aiming for Scandinavian style social democracy.

In the same way, 99.99% of those promoting free market capitalism are aiming for a loosely regulated society which still has state maintained roads, armed forces, police, central bank etc. Very few want a genuinely free market with no state intervention.

It would be naive of me to criticise the right by claiming they want some kind of libertarian jungle: similarly one cannot criticise the Left by claiming they are planning a state socialist dictatorship.

carlajean Thu 24-Oct-13 14:14:57

Me too.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 14:21:46

"Why is RB on News night at all. Leaving aside whether you find him entertaining/sexy/intelligent ( no to all of those from me) why should we be paying attention to somebody who is essentially a media whore."

Exactly, carlajean.

I think it is the typical BBC left wing propaganda/promotion. I think they hope that by giving a clown like him publicity that he will be able to pull in the voters "from the streets", where he claims to have come from. They hope that they can make being against the Tories trendy.

Unfortunately, they do not realise that it will backfire on them and that the public will vote in the opposite direction.

He said "the planet is being destroyed", but that is now passe, old hat, yesterday's spin, the public in great numbers no longer believe it. He tried to be populist and Paxman mentioned "populist". Brand was right about the elite, the 1% and the 99%. But he then ruined it with "the planet is being destroyed". That spin no longer washes with the masses. He mentioned "Occupy Wall Street", but "Occupy Wall Street" just followed on from the original anti-Wall Street, ant-elite, populist party - the Tea Party.

Brand is trying to steal the clothes of the populist and pretend that he is anti-elite. But he failed, because he used the elite's argument "the planet is being destroyed" (which politicians like Gordon Brown would probably agree with) and because he was given lots of uncritical airtime on the elite BBC news programme, Newsnight, and because he is a Hollywood star who claims he "came from the street". There are lots of people like him in the "metroplitan classes" but very few like him "on the streets". The public are much too smart to fall for spin.

The real populist parties are right wing parties like UKIP. All across Europe, right wing parties are growing while left wing elite parties are declining. I think this was an attempt by the left wing establishment and the BBC to stem the tide and to try to paint the left as populist and anti-elite.

The New Statesman has apparently made Russell Brand a guest editor. That sums up how vacuous and desperate the left are. They aren't serious and are not serious about helping the public get through austerity and get real change. I looked at the New Statesman the other day and couldn't believe what I saw. It was like a trendy lifestyle magazine with trendy articles on things like "Why I hate the World Cup?" and other insiginificant side issues that were only about posing and being pretentious rather than addressing the serious problems that the people face. It was full of Oxbridge intellectuals posing and pretending that they knew about the people "on the streets". The "metropolitan classes" have now picked the biggest sham intellectual poseur of all, Russell Brand, in the hope that he will help them attract voters.

Brans is of the left and right on, he thinks there'll be a right on revolution but he is wrong. He misunderstands what is going on. There will be a populist swing, but it will be from the left to the right.

The left want Brand to help them stem the tide. But it won't work, because times are serious, the public is serious and Brand is a clown.

I would have been really interested to hear a genuine answer from Jeremy to the question 'aren't you bored, sitting here year on year listening to this shite?' [i may be paraphrasing]. Also, I'd do both of them grin not proud me

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 14:31:36

Miliband has been told byhis advises that he is out of touch with the public on welfare cuts, and that they are playing well with the majority of the public. Cameron has finally had the courage to listento the public mood and begin to talk about rolling back the green taxes and subsidies.

And then the left promote and give a platform to Brand, who says the exact opposite and promotes the old passe elite's policies while the real populists and people demand change.

Bring it on I say. Give Brand as much airtime as possible. Make every BBC Newsnight all about Brand, let him explain how the "planet is being destroyed" and then watch how the left's chances are thoroughly destroyed.

hiddenhome Thu 24-Oct-13 14:36:03

Oh dear, the silly sod poor love sounds like a sociology student grin

Lazysuzanne Thu 24-Oct-13 14:36:47

Claig, yes I thought his 'the planet is being destroyed' line was very old hat.

Paxman just sat back and let Brand paint himself as a light weight and a clown

But they aren't are they - RB isnt and a whole plethora of people from MN to the front benches of the opposition are clamouring to take more and more of peoples money away cos they know best.

And look at the economic model of sweden. Their central bank has implemented tough austerity measures, they have removed inheritance tax, wealth tax, raised the entire retirement age to 67 (even for teachers and firemen). Their public debt is well below ours and public spending as a % of GDP is about the same as ours. And similar to the uk there has been a massive shift from the public to the private sector for employment. They introduced Free Schools well ahead of the same model here and allow both privately owned schools and hospitals to make a profit from the taxpayer. Now - steady there, don't clutch the pearls too tightly. In fact much of the Tory reform agenda has been lifted from the Swedish model.

So yeah - lets introduce a bit more of Sweden - after all they make naice middle class cars too and eat lots of herring.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 14:46:55

I am sure Paxman would rather have interviewed someone serious, but he was probably told to go and visit the clown. One of the "metropolitan classes" probably thought that the left was losing votes and the only solution was to "send in the clowns".

It was cringe-making, embarrassing and patronising as only the left can be.

But let's hope they do more of it, let's hope they invite the "thinker" Brand on to Question Time and Any Questions and This Week and on to Today and Newsnight and let's hope they make an election broadcast with the clown explaining how "the planet is being destroyed".

The left wing "metropolitan classes" in their Islington ivory towers and BBC boardrooms don't understand the people. That's why they invited Brand in, they believe his claims that he came "from the streets" and they hope that that clown can connect with us. But they are wrong and can't get anything right.

The more publicity they give Brand, the more votes they will lose. So bring it on, it will be the left's swan song.

IHaveA Thu 24-Oct-13 14:48:06

Russell Brand makes THIS recent Newsnight guest seem positively erudite.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 14:54:33

IHaveA, exactly right, and the Cookie Monster is also better looking than Brand to boot.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 14:57:11

Oh and the BBC had Brand on and predictably Brand said "I am against the Daily Mail".

Bring it on, Britain's biggest pseud versus Britain's second highest selling newspaper. The left wing elite class versus the people. There will only be one winner.

SoniaGluck Thu 24-Oct-13 14:57:38

I think it is the typical BBC left wing propaganda/promotion. grin You do know that the left believes the BBC to be right wing, don't you?

What I really would genuinely like to know is - this low tax, deregulated, strictly market-led economy that some posters are advocating in opposition to the 'nasty' socialism that Brand argues for - what would it actually look like?

DuckToWater Thu 24-Oct-13 14:58:37

I'd like a peaceful revolution though not a bloody one, thanks. Violent revolutions don't work out too well for women and children.

DuckToWater Thu 24-Oct-13 15:03:50

If the left believes the BBC to be right wing, and vice versa, it probably means it is actually quite balanced.

I find in news coverage broadly it doesn't question the incumbent government enough, or whatever colour and trots out govt press releases unamended far too often. This is partly to do with a cut in resources and partly to do with post-Iraq war, WMDs and Alistair Campbell when they got roasted for criticising the govt (and the criticism was entirely justified).

Broadly the output in programming is centre left and liberal. They do have quite right wing people like Dominic Sandbrook doing documentaries about how Thatch was great and the miners were terrible though.

EverythingUnderControl Thu 24-Oct-13 15:08:08

'Paxman just sat back and let Brand paint himself as a light weight and a clown'

grinYes, he could have swatted him like a fly but he largely just let him get on with it. For someone who craves attention that was even more damming for RB than arguing him.

Sonia

Sweden
Canada
Switzerland
Latvia
Finland
Germany
US
Singapore

Or an amalgam of all of them?

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 15:13:30

'You do know that the left believes the BBC to be right wing, don't you?'

I know that the left say that, but that is an attempt to hide the true facts. They also say "we have passed the tipping point" and we will have "cataclysmic catastrophic climate change" but people stopped believing what they say years ago.

"this low tax, deregulated, strictly market-led economy"

Low tax means that people would be able to keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets instead of handing it over to politicians so that they can use it to claim duck houses, moats and bath plugs and use it to pay for street football co-ordinators and climate change committees instead of improving care for the elderly and ensuring that nurses give people decent hospital care. It means that state 'fat cats' can't make hay with the people's money to fund their pet projects anymore.

"Deregulated" means that there wil be less red tape and regulations which inhibit the growth of small businesses who can then release staff from reading legal documents and wading through reams of red-tape and allow them to contribute productively to their core business. This will lead to growth and more profitablity for small businesses which will allow them to hire more workers and reduce unemployment.

"market-led economy" means that businesses will not be funded with the money of hardworking taxpayers and will have to stand on their own two feet. It means there will be no more waste of £100 million on a BBC database and that there wil be no more golden goodbyes and severance payments and preposterous pension payments to BBC and public sector staff paid for from the graft and sweat of the people who can't claim for second-homes or even for bath plugs.

Lazysuzanne Thu 24-Oct-13 15:25:18

Paxman was using Brand for sport, a performing monkey, rattle his cage and watch him do his little dance

Lazysuzanne Thu 24-Oct-13 15:34:05

Everything he sure could've swatted him...but who would break a butterfly on a wheel wink

flatpackhamster Thu 24-Oct-13 15:40:33

SoniaGluck

You do know that the left believes the BBC to be right wing, don't you?

Yes, they do. Which is interesting, but doesn't mean the BBC is 'in the centre'. I think both are wrong. The BBC has its own ideology and it isn't left or right. But it carries more traits of Fabian socialism than it does of free market liberalism.

What I really would genuinely like to know is - this low tax, deregulated, strictly market-led economy that some posters are advocating in opposition to the 'nasty' socialism that Brand argues for - what would it actually look like?

I really don't know. I don't think there's a 'perfect' ideal, because once you start saying 'The world should be this way' then you very quickly discover it can't be because people get in the way, and then you start shooting the people who are in the way in order to make the perfect world and the structure you create becomes more important than the people in it. And I think that's where free market liberals and socialists differ, because free market liberals say "This is how people are and so the system should let people be people" and socialists say "This is how people should be and the system will force them to be this way". Which is what makes socialism nasty.

Hayek argued that free markets can only be free with government intervention. He stated that a 'free' market meant not one where everyone could do what they wanted (which quickly leads to monopoly and abuse) but one where barriers to entry were low, so it was easy for a competitor to start up. I agree with him and I think that so much of the problems we see in industries are where governments intervene in a manner which raises barriers to entry.

middleclassdystopia Thu 24-Oct-13 15:48:22

Flatpack your argumemts are eloquent.

However they ignore the over riding fact that our planet is fucked under the current politics of capitalism.

flatpackhamster Thu 24-Oct-13 15:58:02

middleclassdystopia

Flatpack your argumemts are eloquent.

However they ignore the over riding fact that our planet is fucked under the current politics of capitalism.

The planet is not 'fucked'. Don't be so dramatic.

Socialist command economies don't maintain the environment better. They do it worse. Have you seen what the Soviets did to the Danube? The pollution? Have you seen their smelting plants and the low environmental standards which allowed them to leach pollutants in to the groundwater? How about in China? Have you see the environmental damage caused by acid leaching for rare earths to fund the West's obsession with wind farms?

Dawndonnaagain Thu 24-Oct-13 16:00:13

For heaven's sake Flatpack still spouting the same old.
Ed Milliband is not the equivalent of the old Soviet Russia, or China. Neither do they (China and Russia) represent socialism.

Lazysuzanne Thu 24-Oct-13 16:01:02

The planet ain't fucked
But economic systems are complex and possibly inherently problematic!

HolofernesesHead Thu 24-Oct-13 16:07:46

Interesting thread and interview!

Three people on this thread have said that the threat to the environment isn't real / is 'old hat' / an elite or elitist argument / is 'dramatic.' Why is that? Isn't it primarily a scientific issue and then a political one? I.e. if respected scientists are proving beyond reasonable doubt that climate change really is happening, then this is not an issue for one political party or ideology to espouse but a reality that will affect our grandchildren and their grandchildren regardless of how we vote? How do you get away from that; deny the science?

mignonnette Thu 24-Oct-13 16:09:46

All these stars flying into Britain on airplanes to tell us about global warrming and the destruction of the planet.

Clearly their planes run on Unicorns breath and fairy farts.

middleclassdystopia Thu 24-Oct-13 16:11:16

I didn't mention Socialism. I merely mentioned a possible major pitfall to Capitalism.

Do any research into carbon emmissions and climate change and science shows that we are reaching 'tipping point' with regards to saving the planet. It can be done, but privatised energy companies who are profit driven are not going to help matters.

Though I agree that nature competes for resources, there does seem to be a sort of madness at the upper end of the capitalist hierarchy.

I recommend McGilchrist's The Master and his Emissary for an interesting read about how the west has become left hemisphere thinkers. It may lead to our own destruction.

George Monbiot also discusses extreme wealth and the idea that amount is abstract. It's just being at the top of the pile that counts
I recommend

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 16:14:17

'Isn't it primarily a scientific issue and then a political one?'

No, it is the other way around. Look up the elitist 'Club of Rome' and their 1972 commissioned 'Limits to Growth' report, which influenced many of today's green movements, and then look up the United Nations Agenda 21 programme.

'How do you get away from that; deny the science?'

Dr Piers Corbyn vs spokesman for something called 'Campaign Against Climate Change' who is not a scientist.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6zSLQA-BrY

SoniaGluck Thu 24-Oct-13 16:14:55

* I don't think there's a 'perfect' ideal, because once you start saying 'The world should be this way' then you very quickly discover it can't be because people get in the way, and then you start shooting the people who are in the way in order to make the perfect world and the structure you create becomes more important than the people in it.*

Which, I would argue, is very near to where we are now. People don't seem to be very important to the current government. And I don't think that eliminating the people who oppose you is a trait peculiar to socialist régimes.

What I would really like to know, I think, is how far do we go with deregulation and allowing market forces to decide the way we organise society. Do we abolish the NHS altogether, for example, rather than just selling off bits of it?

What do we do about the elderly, the disabled? Does this model suggest we take out insurance for every conceivable eventuality?

Hayek argued that free markets can only be free with government intervention. But surely, in that case, there is no such thing as a 'free market'? And how do you lower barriers sufficiently? By abolishing hard won employee safety measures for example?

HolofernesesHead Thu 24-Oct-13 16:16:39

Middleclass, that's optimistic. I've talked to environmental scientists whose prognoses are much gloomier. I'd need to be convinced that they are wrong!

HolofernesesHead Thu 24-Oct-13 16:19:57

Thanks Claig, I'll look those up. Of course, there are scientists who campaign against climate change too!

HolofernesesHead Thu 24-Oct-13 16:24:13

Also sorry to triple post but Claig, can you tell me what your critique is of the Club of Rome?

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 16:25:37

"What I would really like to know, I think, is how far do we go with deregulation and allowing market forces to decide the way we organise society. Do we abolish the NHS altogether, for example, rather than just selling off bits of it?

What do we do about the elderly, the disabled? Does this model suggest we take out insurance for every conceivable eventuality?"

We have to have a balance. We should fully fund care for the elderly and hospital care from the public purse out of taxation.

However, there is no need to fund the BBC out of taxation. We shouldn't have to pay their severance payments from the taxes of hardworking people. We need to cut back on taxpayer funded subsidies to rich landowners who earn millions by erecting windfarms and we need to cut taxpayer subsidies in other areas so that we have enough taxpayer money to provide excellent healthcare, policing etc

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 16:36:33

'The Club of Rome is a global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues. Founded in 1968 at Accademia dei Lincei in Rome, Italy, the CoR describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

You have clowns like Russell Brand speaking about elites and the 1% and then believing policies which often stem from that 1% and their political class of puppets.

Next Brand will probably tell us that the 1% and their puppets love us and want to save the world for us, just like Big Brother said he love the people in Orwell's 1984.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 16:44:01

I think Brand is naive and doesn't really know what is behind some of the ideas that he discusses and the New Statesman has given him a guest editorship. The left like them naive because then they spout the spiel and if they are celebs the elitist left think that they will fool the public and make them vote against their own interests.

The 1% have political objectives but they dress them up as "saving the world" and "saving the planet" for us, and people like Brand swallow the line that the "planet is being destroyed" without really understanding who originally promoted and pushed those ideas and why.

In 1984, Orwell's character Winston rightly said that "hope lies with the proles". He was right because it is obvious that hope does not lie with the 1%, their puppets and the people who have swallowed their lies.

SoniaGluck Thu 24-Oct-13 16:44:50

claig You do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the BBC. Almost all your replies mention it.

What about the huge amounts paid to directors / executives in other organisations?

I happily pay the licence fee. The BBC makes the kind of programmes that I want to watch and Radio 4 is worth the LF, all by itself. I watch very little on commercial channels because: i) the programmes are, in the main, dire and ii) the advert breaks are getting longer and more frequent.

Other countries have a licence fee (e.g. France) and very inferior programming IME.

caroldecker Thu 24-Oct-13 16:50:49

But the 'public purse' is actually our money - it is a compulsary insurance scheme with rates based on ability to pay.
The issue with the NHS and privitisation should be split into 2 areas: who pays and who provides?
Why do people object to private providers - who include, all dentists, all gp's, all opticians, all pharmacies, all drug companies, all equipment suppliers, all hospital builders, pretty much everything other than nurses and hospital doctors, so pretty much private anyway.
In terms of funding, agree we should fund out of the govt insurance scheme, but disagree with free at the point of use, because anything delivered in this manner is overused and wasted.
See how people's habits change when they move to a water meter - no worse off, but use less water.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 16:54:55

Yes, I point out to those who do not realise it that the BBC is the major opinion forming institution in our nation and is funded from the money of the hardworking people, and I believe that it is biased to one sector of the political spectrum and is used to influence the public and sway them to that sector, which is why I believe that they give publicity to clowns like Brand who says "I am against the Daily Mail" and who is anti-Tory etc.

"What about the huge amounts paid to directors / executives in other organisations?"

I am against misuse and waste of the hardworking public's money in all sectors be that in the Civil Service or for NHS Trust bosses or in publcly funded political think tanks or for contributing to the pay of some charity bosses, and in the expenses and salary increases of MPs. I take the BBC as an example of over-generous pay due to the scandals in severance pay and pensions that we all became aware of in recent news stories.

Polpotsbabyteeth Thu 24-Oct-13 16:59:07

A prize (toothy) pillock.

As someone said up thread, he sounds like an A level sociology student. Embarrassing.

"I just want to save the planet" "I want to give the poor money" "I want to tax big companies"

So how is that going to work...errr...I don't know do I? Prat.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 17:09:16

Many people have been fooled by the mediaof the 1% in to disliking UKIP, for example.

But UKIP is in fact the party of the proles, and that is why the Establishment, the 1%, the elite and all the other parties are against them.

All the major 3 parties agree with the Club of Rome and Russell Bland that "the planet is being destroyed".

The only party that does not agree with the 1% on what they call 'catastrophic climate change' is the party of the proles, UKIP, and the Paper of the People, the Daily Mail, also does not swallow the story of the 1%, unlike the BBC and their 1% on stratospheric salaries paid for from the public purse.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 17:12:56

The proles are made to pay on penalty of imprisonment if they don't pay for the Licence Fee that is used by the 1% to feed them propaganda. And the top 1% then earn huge severance fees and million pound pension pots paid for by the proles.

Even Stalin didn't have the nerve to pull that one off.

HolofernesesHead Thu 24-Oct-13 17:13:47

So Claig, is your objection to the Club of Rome its comparatively few members, or do you object on the grounds of the members' seniority in their professional fields?

I'm slightly confused as it seems to me that a very small number of people always do the 'heavy lifting' thinking that will define the parameters of thought for the rest of us. Think about philosophy, which sets out the parameters of so many areas of thought and life; the number of really influential philosophers since the Enlightenment has been way under 1% of the world's population, yet it's accepted that since Kant, the world looks different, whether you know it or not, whether you've heard of Kant or not. Or take Einstein - the parameters changed with his insights. I'm not sure that I see a problem with that, as long as the rest of us are free to question / disagree if we are able to understand the issues well enough (I certainly wouldn't take Einstein on!)

The word 'elite' can lead to a very knee-jerk 'ooh those terrible people' response. But was Einstein elitist? Or Kant? Or any thinker who has had a huge influence on the world? Are all academics elitist IYO? (Or just the really successful ones?)

As far as I'm concerned the real issue is to do with access to positions of influence - i.e. the type of social mobility that means that a bright thinker from a poorer family is nurtured and given the opportunities to excel and take her rightful place in something like the Club of Rome / a government think-tank on policy etc. So IMO we should be talking about class and education and how we try to create a society in which all can potentially do his or her best to contribute.

Which might be saying the same thing as you are, I don't know, as I'm not sure how you define 'elite.' I'm saying this as a state school educated person who was the first in my family to go to university, ended up at Oxbridge and now have a collection of degrees and professional titles / qualifications. My dearest hope is that anyone could potentially, if she wanted to and was willing to work hard enough, say the same. Sadly, my impression is that it'd be much harder to do all this now than 20 years ago when I was bashing out my A levels.

I'm still not convinced that just because the Club of Rome is a small group of highly qualified people means that their theses are necessarily wrong, though...

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 17:17:11

And the 1% promote celebs to spin the proles with the message of the 1%.

Why celebs? Because the 1% think that the proles are so stupid that they will believe the 1%'s message if a celeb says it, particulrly if the celeb can claim to have "come from the streets" which is where the proles come from and go to school unlike the 1% who go to public school.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 17:21:48

"So Claig, is your objection to the Club of Rome its comparatively few members, or do you object on the grounds of the members' seniority in their professional fields?

I'm slightly confused as it seems to me that a very small number of people always do the 'heavy lifting' thinking that will define the parameters of thought for the rest of us."

You see, I prefer democracy where the proles have their say, where we get our way. I don't like self-elected elites and spinners to fool the public and con them and to achieve their political objectives without free and open voting by the public. I believe in local democracy and referenda where the proles can have their voices heard, which is what UKIP also believe.

I don't take my political views from celebs, even if they claim to have "come from the streets", and I don't want the 1% to patronise the 99% by putting clowns on serious news programmes to spout nonsense.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 24-Oct-13 17:21:48

claig
You appear to be talking either another language not familiar to anyone or complete nonsense. If you have something to say, try saying it rather than what honestly appears to be an incoherent rant.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 17:23:14

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 17:24:04

sorry double posted because it was so slow to update. Will ask to have it deleted.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 24-Oct-13 17:25:41

Unfortunately though Claig they also believe in getting rid of anyone who doesn't conform to their ideal - black people, brown people, eastern european people, disabled people.
As for Ukip being based among the proletariat, Nigel Farage went to Dulwich College. No different from Eton, Harrow, Rugby et al.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 17:26:38

"If you have something to say, try saying it rather than what honestly appears to be an incoherent rant."

Sorry, I'm just a prole, I'm not as eloquent as the celeb who "came from the street". That is the best I can do, whether it appears incoherent or not.

Iwaswatchingthat Thu 24-Oct-13 17:28:18

Oh dear I have just watched the interview.

OP YABU to actually love Russell Brand.

Sorry, but he made a total fuel of himself.

He has a wide vocabulary, but he sounds like a total idiot in this interview.

He sounds like a fresher in the student bar. Cringe.

Iwaswatchingthat Thu 24-Oct-13 17:28:50

I mean FOOL not fuel!!! grin

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 17:32:46

"The word 'elite' can lead to a very knee-jerk 'ooh those terrible people' response. But was Einstein elitist? Or Kant? Or any thinker who has had a huge influence on the world? Are all academics elitist IYO? (Or just the really successful ones?)"

When Russell Bland talks about the elite and the 1%, he is right, just as 'Occupy Wall Street' were right, even though they followed on from the original Tea Party who were against this same elite.

By eliet, they don't mean the cleverest people, the best thinkers, the greatest mind, they mean the richest most powerful political people. There is nothing wrong with elitism, and elite schools and grammar schools and public schools and Oxbridge and Harvard if they are meritocratic and the proles have a chance to compete.

Where elitism is wrong is when a tiny handful of people decide the political policies that influence the lives of the 99%. that is wrong because it is undemocratic and unjust. That is what we all mean by elite. That form of elitism is anti-democratic and is rule by technocrats rather than rule by the people.

HolofernesesHead Thu 24-Oct-13 17:33:18

So Claig, do you believe that democracy is always the best way to get to the best result for everyone?

So e.g. there is a knotty physics problem to solve. You have 100 people in a room. One of them is Albert Einstein. Do you give each of the 100 people a vote and go with the majority answer, or do you get everyone to sit down, shut up and listen to the one person who actually might be able to solve it?

Or say you want a new piece of music. Again, 100 people in a room. One is W. A. Mozart. Do you give everyone an instrument regardless of whether they can play and record to resultant noise, or get the 99 to make endless cups of tea for the musical genius in their midst?

Or say you want to answer the scientific question 'Is the planet's climate changing?' 100 people in a room...You get the idea.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 24-Oct-13 17:40:06

Claig Ukip will not change the form of elitism you wish to see changed. In fact they will make life far more difficult for many of us.

HolofernesesHead Thu 24-Oct-13 17:41:02

UKIP would have me out for starters (I'm mixed race).

flatpackhamster Thu 24-Oct-13 17:41:21

Dawndonnaagain

Unfortunately though Claig they also believe in getting rid of anyone who doesn't conform to their ideal - black people, brown people, eastern european people, disabled people.

They don't, of course, but that doesn't stop you lazily parroting the SWP line.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 17:44:23

'As far as I'm concerned the real issue is to do with access to positions of influence - i.e. the type of social mobility that means that a bright thinker from a poorer family is nurtured and given the opportunities to excel and take her rightful place in something like the Club of Rome / a government think-tank on policy etc. So IMO we should be talking about class and education and how we try to create a society in which all can potentially do his or her best to contribute.'

Yes, I agree with that. but it is about something much more important than that. It is about democracy, where all of the people have their say in a proportional representation system. It is not enough for a prole to become part of the 1%. That prole can have more riches than the 99% but should not have a greater political voice that can influence the lives of the 99%. We need referenda and PR so that ordinary people, whether they are the greatest minds or not, have the final say in what policies govern their lives.

Russell Brand claims to be a populist (however he believes the elite's "the planet is being destroyed"), but i am a populist too. And that is why I do not like to see the 1% BBC put a celeb and clown on our TV in order to try and influence the 99%, because I do not think that he deserves that airtime just because he is a celeb. I believe Julie Bailey of Cure the NHS, one of us, not a celeb and millionaire, deserves that airtime.

I am a populist because I am for the 99% and not the 1% and their puppets. And I prefer not to see clowns dominate our national airwaves which the public has paid for.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 24-Oct-13 17:49:17

flatpack I have absolutely no intention of getting involved with you.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 17:52:37

"So Claig, do you believe that democracy is always the best way to get to the best result for everyone?"

Yes, I believe it is the best system that we have got, because I believe that "hope lies with the proles" and that the commonsense of the masses is the best check and restraint on the arrogance and power of the 1%.

"So e.g. there is a knotty physics problem to solve. You have 100 people in a room. One of them is Albert Einstein. Do you give each of the 100 people a vote and go with the majority answer, or do you get everyone to sit down, shut up and listen to the one person who actually might be able to solve it?"

Votes really come into their own about policies that govern and impact our lives, not physics problems or learning. But if someone advocates a policy that affects the lives of the 99%, then it must go to a vote. Just because a politician produces a 'dodgy dossier' does not mean that they should have the power to kill millions without the people having a vote. And maybe sometimes the millions will get the vote wrong and it won't be as "efficient" as the capitalists or planners or 1% would like, but that is far preferable to allowing them to get away with 'dodgy dossiers' that might harm millions. That is the price of freedom, the price of democracy. It is not always optimal, but it is better than rule by a tiny 1% elite.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 24-Oct-13 17:53:17

As far as I'm aware (unless I missed something) the BBC didn't actually show the more 'political' part of the interview due to having 'run out of time'. Ergo, he didn't get the airtime. I do agree that the BBC is biased, but generally speaking, only in favour of the government of the time. I would love to see a way of making it truly independent and not reliant on government money, unfortunately, that would probably mean advertising revenue.

I agree that PR is something we should be fighting for, but that isn't a UKIP policy, or if it is, it's very new to their manifesto.

flatpackhamster Thu 24-Oct-13 17:56:02

SoniaGluck

Which, I would argue, is very near to where we are now. People don't seem to be very important to the current government.

I think you have to be unbelievably partisan to imagine a) That this government is going to start sticking yellow stars on people and shooting them, and b) that they were any different at all from Labour.

And I don't think that eliminating the people who oppose you is a trait peculiar to socialist régimes.

This is certainly true. But socialists are better at it. Far, far better. Probably because right-wing dictators are happy to knock off their political opponents but tend to shy away from wholesale slaughter of their own people.

What I would really like to know, I think, is how far do we go with deregulation and allowing market forces to decide the way we organise society.

This is exactly my point about socialists. You want to 'organise' society. I want to let society organise itself. I don't see that you can have clever people telling everyone else how to live, because those clever people really are quite dumb.

Do we abolish the NHS altogether, for example, rather than just selling off bits of it? What do we do about the elderly, the disabled? Does this model suggest we take out insurance for every conceivable eventuality?

I don't think there's a country in the world that doesn't have welfare and healthcare provision in some form, and I can't think of anyone who argues for it.

But surely, in that case, there is no such thing as a 'free market'?

Paradox, I know. But how long does a free market stay free? Right up to the point where a single company or small group of companies dominates it (usually a few years). Broadband was a good example. Ten years ago, 300 companies, now about 25, of which 6 hold 90% of the market between them. They can fix prices and conditions to suit themselves - and do.

And how do you lower barriers sufficiently? By abolishing hard won employee safety measures for example?

There are plenty of 'safety' measures which are anything but. Take PAT testing. That's where every single electrical item must be tested by a qualified safety engineer every single year. A huge cost, without a proven calculation of the effects on businesses or the effects on safety.

There are ways to lower barriers. Gold-plated HSE regs are one. Scrapping Employers' NI contributions for businesses with a turnover under £1m, that would be another. Scrapping a range of left-wing/union-backed employment law would be another. It'll give the lefties conniptions, but they aren't the ones working in businesses.

Incidentally, isn't it funny how safety measures became 'hard won' like poor people became 'vulnerable' and families became 'hard working'?

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 17:57:59

If a 'climate scientist' produces a 'dodgy dossier' predicting 'catastrophic climate change' and taking about doom and destruction and 'tipping points', then it shoul be freely debated on our public service TV stations, paid for by the public's sweat. There should not be a one-sided portrayal of polar bears etc, there should be equal time given to the sceptics.

But since the policy is so controversial and since there is opposition and since the taxes and Club of Rome style 'Limits to Growth' will affect all of humanity, then the 1% has to put it to the vote, and if they lose, which of course they would, then they have to accept that they never made a good enough case to convince the proles even though their 1% media, paid for by the sweat of the public, portrayed more polar bears than there are fish in the sea.

flatpackhamster Thu 24-Oct-13 17:58:05

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MamaMary Thu 24-Oct-13 17:59:23

Just watched it.

Yawn.

Keeps trotting out phrases over and over again like 'paradigm', 'economic disparity', 'exploited underclass' and 'destroying the planet' and thinks he's really clever.

Yes, reminds me of a 16 year A level pupil.

Agree with Jeremy: 'You are a very trivial man'.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 18:03:52

'I agree that PR is something we should be fighting for, but that isn't a UKIP policy, or if it is, it's very new to their manifesto.'

DawnDonna, I don't know many of UKIP's policies and I don't know if that is one and I am not saying people should vote UKIP. Everyone should choose and make the decision that best suits them.

I don't agree with everything that UKIP says, but I do agree with some things they say.

I want a PR system because i want everyone one of us 99% to have a vote that actually counts, so that our voices are not marginalised in marginal constituencies so that the 1% can manipulate us, ignore us and call some of us swivel-eyed loons. I have never met a swivel-eyed loon member of the 99%, but there are a fair few of them represented in the 1%.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 24-Oct-13 18:09:40

Oh dear, on that very last point I am going to have to agree with you, Claig grin

caroldecker Thu 24-Oct-13 18:18:52

Votes really come into their own about policies that govern and impact our lives, not physics problems or learning. But if someone advocates a policy that affects the lives of the 99%, then it must go to a vote.

But an ill/un informed vote is worse than useless. Ideally you should not be allowed to vote unless you can show you understand the issues and arguments on both sides

HolofernesesHead Thu 24-Oct-13 18:19:57

You've never met a 'swivel eyed loon' among the 'proles'? You obviously didn't go to my comprehensive, and have clearly never popped into my local.

Odd people with bizarre agendas are everywhere!

OTOH, I've never met anyone happy to self-identify as a prole ('working class woman / man' seems more the norm.)

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 18:21:06

And Russell Brand was right about some things. he talked about the elite, he talked about the 1%, and he was right that people have become disengaged and that is why many do not vote, and Paxman was wrong to try and say that he should vote for TweedleDum or TweedleDee. But of course Brand was wrong about other things such as kneejerk anti-Tory, anti-Daily Mail etc but that is what you expect from celeb lefties invited on by the 1% BBC.

But I didn't hear Brand talk about PR which might change something. However, I heard a lot of what the 1% love to hear and promote i.e. that "the planet is being destroyed".

If Brand is for real, let's see if he can use his celeb status and New Statesman guest editorship to actually change anything, because we have seen from experience that the rest of the New Statesman crowd probably won't.

Let's see if Brand can make any change or if instead sadly he has been used by the 1% to promote their lie that "the planet is being destroyed".

I welcome Brand in one sense which is why I say "Bring it on", let the left wing Establishment give him lots of airtime, let the BBC promote him like they promote many other ex-Labourites, because whereas he thinks there will be a "revolution" to his way of thinking, I am convinced that the more people see him spout 1% nonsense, the more people will vote against the 1% and for the 99%.

And if by chance, he might actually kickstart a move for us to get PR, then whereas he probably thinks it would lead to a "revolution" to his way of thinking, the 1% way of "the planet is being destroyed", I believe it will go the way of the 99% and all their myths and lies will be destroyed.

TheCrackFoxFucker Thu 24-Oct-13 18:21:13

We can add him to the list of extremely rich white men who complain about world poverty and the state of the environment from the comfort of his humongous mansion

Sting
Prince Charles
Bono

Dawndonnaagain Thu 24-Oct-13 18:25:13

This thing about the Beeb being lefty is nonsense. 70,000 people protested about NHS changes at the Tory conference, it wasn't on the main news. This goes on all the time. As I say, it appears to align itself with the government of the day.

mignonnette Thu 24-Oct-13 18:25:22

TheCrackFucker-

And fly in on planes to tell us this- planes that apparently do no harm to the planet at all unlike the planes the great unwashed travel on.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 24-Oct-13 18:28:20

Oh, and yes he's rich. He still has a voice, he is still as entitled as anyone else to voice his opinion, and if he does so for the good of all, then what's the problem. Are the wealthy not allowed to share socialist ideals without resorting to sackcloth and ashes? Is going without their heat, or food going to aid their argument any. I have never experienced a cockfight. I am against cockfighting. Why is that allowed, but no dissent about inequalities if you happen by dint of fame or fortune to have more. How would dishing it out amongst the poor work? It's not going to fund it for very long is it. Surely, raising awareness so that we all do something is far better in the long term.

sweetsoulsister Thu 24-Oct-13 18:28:21

Going back to points raised on page 1 of this debate, I think the reason Mr B doesn't vote is because there is no one to vote for!

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 18:30:35

"But an ill/un informed vote is worse than useless. Ideally you should not be allowed to vote unless you can show you understand the issues and arguments on both sides"

No, caroldecker, we can't have that. We must all abide by the majority decision whatever it is. That is democracy. Some of us are cleverer than others, but we do not therefore have more rights. Each person decides as they see fit and each vote is equal. Even though not everybody is intellectually equal, their vote is equal and that is the beauty of democracy.

I remember during the last election. I stayed up to watch all night. I am in the South of England and I voted the rascals out. And the news was good, New labour were falling like skittles all over the South and it looked like we the people would get our way and vote the rascals out.

But as the night went on, it began to get closer and doom began to descend on millions of people in the South. There was hush, there was silence, people held their hands over their mouth. We had to wait for Scotland and we knew that they would not help us vote the rascals out. There was nothing we could do but cross our fingers and pray and hope that good would come of it all when the dawn began to break.

And by luck it did, we had succeeded, the people had spoken and the rascals had finally been kicked out. The 1% had gone, been defeated by the 99%. But if it had not happened that way and if millions of us in the South had been disappointed yet again, then we would accept it because that is democracy and we have no more rights than someone up North.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 18:34:11

' I've never met anyone happy to self-identify as a prole'

I am proud to be a prole because that is what the 1% call us. There is no shame in being of teh 99%, there is only pride

Prole means proletarian which is what the Labour Party was originally all about before it was highjacked by millioanires and the public school 1%.

Proud to be a prole, proud to be of the 99% and proud to read the Mail.
Do not let their 1% propaganda make you feel any shame.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 18:35:26

'Going back to points raised on page 1 of this debate, I think the reason Mr B doesn't vote is because there is no one to vote for!'

Exactly and that is his right and makes perfect sense.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 24-Oct-13 18:38:34

There are quite a few, Claig who feel that way about the rascals currently in power. There are many who become further disenfranchised on a daily basis.

Mouthfulofquiz Thu 24-Oct-13 18:40:20

I couldn't watch it all - it was a bit 'cringe' for me. I really like him, think his documentary on drug addiction was brilliant - but I'm afraid he does have the political ideas of a teenager. But good on him anyway.... Although I do find his continual semantic arguments a bit tiresome.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 18:43:00

"There are quite a few, Claig who feel that way about the rascals currently in power. There are many who become further disenfranchised on a daily basis."

You are absolutely right, and in 1997 I voted for Blair and voted th Tory rascals out and again I stayed up all night. But this time I had no fear about the votes in Scotland, because I knew they would vote the rascals out. I had to pray that the South would vote the rascals out and of course it did and Labour got a landslide and there was rejoicing all over the land.

And that is the beauty of democracy. When the people have had enough, the 99% can vote the 1% out.

And if Cameron loses the next election then he will have deserved to lose it because the majority of the country will have voted him out.

aquashiv Thu 24-Oct-13 18:48:54

Talking about a revolution so nothing new there a lot of what he says makes sense yet like Paxman says what are you actually Mr B define the problem but what is the solution?

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 18:52:31

"what is the solution?"

The solution is PR, a fair voting system, and an unbiased public broadcaster that allows true debate with equal time given to all viewpoints so that the lies of the 1% i.e. "the planet is being destroyed" can be debunked in an open public debate.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 18:53:55

And Brand did not have a solution. The solution is quite simple, let the 99% speak and let them vote and let their vote count.

HolofernesesHead Thu 24-Oct-13 18:55:39

I know what 'prole' means, Claig! I've just never met anyone who uses it in anything other than an ironic manner. I've come across many people who'd be in your 1%, but I've never heard any of them use the term either. A A small point, albeit.

The point I really want to make is different, and it is this: climate change is not a political manoeuvre, or a conspiracy theory. To the best of current scientific thinking, it is a reality. Only the tinniest minority of scientists (much fewer than 1%)doubts that.

HolofernesesHead Thu 24-Oct-13 18:56:31

Tiniest! Auto correct gorn mad...

SoniaGluck Thu 24-Oct-13 19:03:36

flatpack You can run rings me on these issues, I know. I really should have learned by now. But: I think you have to be unbelievably partisan to imagine a) That this government is going to start sticking yellow stars on people and shooting them, and b) that they were any different at all from Labour I don't think that I actually suggested that that was the case, did I? My point was that, in order to reduce spending this government has, in the main, hammered those people who are most vulnerable and need the most help. These are often the people whose support the government doesn't have, so it doesn't matter to them how much they are suffering.

I want to let society organise itself. I'm sorry but how exactly does that work?

I don't see that you can have clever people telling everyone else how to live, because those clever people really are quite dumb Unlike you, as you shower contempt on anyone who sees things differently?

I don't think there's a country in the world that doesn't have welfare and healthcare provision in some form, and I can't think of anyone who argues for it. You may be right, I don't know. But there are countries in which the health care provision is inadequate and/or too expensive for the poorest citizens.

But how long does a free market stay free? Right up to the point where a single company or small group of companies dominates it (usually a few years). Broadband was a good example. Ten years ago, 300 companies, now about 25, of which 6 hold 90% of the market between them. They can fix prices and conditions to suit themselves - and do. So basically, freeing up the market doesn't work because profit is all and business practice dictates that 'bigger is better'; economies of scale come in to play and you get takeovers to gain a larger slice of the market and then, once the majority of the market is divided by a small group of companies, they can work together to fix prices and other chicanery.

Scrapping a range of left-wing/union-backed employment law would be another. Such as...?

isn't it funny how safety measures became 'hard won' Well, you know, taking years to get employers/governments to put certain measures in place in order that someone is safe at work or can't be dismissed on a whim, does seem to me to be something that shouldn't be trivialised because it doesn't make a profit.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 19:05:51

'The point I really want to make is different, and it is this: climate change is not a political manoeuvre, or a conspiracy theory. To the best of current scientific thinking, it is a reality. Only the tinniest minority of scientists (much fewer than 1%)doubts that.'

HolofereneseHead, as Dr Piers Corbyn said in that youtube clip that I posted, "come and have a debate, send a scientist, we are scientists" to the spokesman who believes in climate change.

I have no doubt that the 1% will eventually lose and the truth will out. The Club of Rome contains many powerful people, some from the 1%, but "hope lies with the proles" and the proles are part of the 99%.

The sceptics have already made some chinks in the lies of the 1% and as time goes on, the cracks in the ice of their lies will grow bigger.

The climate change lie was sat on a wall, the climate change lie had a great fall. All the kings horses and all the 1%'s men won't be able to put the climate change lie back together again.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 19:23:11

And it almost looks like the 1% have pushed poor old Russell upfront to try and convince us that "the planet is being destroyed"

But the 99% saw through it
The 1% blew it
They're desperate
Some say desolate
They're on the run
Enjoy the fun

LifeofPo Thu 24-Oct-13 19:33:07

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 19:37:35

Are you of the 1%?

Lazysuzanne Thu 24-Oct-13 19:47:53

I'm with Claig inasmuch as I dont believe all the climate change bullshit either..this thread has meandered hugely from the original post!

DoctorTwo Thu 24-Oct-13 20:01:15

Socialist command economies don't maintain the environment better.

Well flatpack, what is our economy if it isn't a command economy? It isn't a free market. It's more a kleptocracy.

Here's another thing: that shiny headed fuckwit and his fellow Bull(shit)ingdon boy Gidiot are fine with state ownership of our utilities. Check out which states own ours. Our utility bills are going to pay French, Qatari, German and Chinese pensions, to name but a few.

caroldecker Thu 24-Oct-13 20:02:43

My point was that, in order to reduce spending this government has, in the main, hammered those people who are most vulnerable and need the most help. These are often the people whose support the government doesn't have, so it doesn't matter to them how much they are suffering.

The point is most spending is on the poor, so they will suffer most if you reduce spending. The alternative is increasing taxation.
Unfortunately you cannot increase taxes indefiniately else total tax take actaully reduces (Laffer curve). The labour govt of the 70's tried tax ratesof 60-97% and bankrupted the country, Thatcher reduced tax rates and got more money in
So, no extra tax, no reduction in spending, no extra borrowing? an impossible postion - so what is your solution?

claig Thu 24-Oct-13 20:08:55

'Bull(shit)ingdon boy Gidiot are fine with state ownership of our utilities. Check out which states own ours'

very good grin

Pinkpinot Thu 24-Oct-13 20:33:30

FFS
I wish people would watch the fucking thing and not report bits and pieces
He was not telling people not to vote
He was not telling people that he will lead a revolution
He was not asking people to listen to him, in fact he specifically said no-one has to listen to him
He certainly didnt blame society for his drugs, he mentioned his drug habit to say why he didnt vote when he was 18.
When asked why he was on the program he joked about being asked by an attractive woman, having dodgy hair and knowing nothing about politics, comparing himself to Boris!

All he was doing was talking about the huge divide and distribution of wealth and something's gotta give
Which no-one can deny
He's most definitely not stupid, he doesn't do himself any favours cos he sometimes comes across as completely crazy! I'm not his biggest fan, but I do wish people would get their facts straight

utreas Thu 24-Oct-13 20:44:38

YABU if he is all socialism has left then it truly is dead.

Coupon Thu 24-Oct-13 20:58:59

So he'd like to see socialism left of the Labour party. He could vote green.

alexandrafarrow Thu 24-Oct-13 21:32:46

I like that he is intelligent, articulate, and is not afraid to express himself.

However, he gives me the squits, and I won't touch hi with the back end of a 50ft bargepole.

alexandrafarrow Thu 24-Oct-13 21:33:35

*wouldn't touch him, even!!! grin

Spidermama Thu 24-Oct-13 21:47:59

I would bed him in the blink of an eye and I think he utterly ran rings round the Pax and not for the first time.

flatpackhamster Thu 24-Oct-13 22:39:32

SoniaGluck

flatpack You can run rings me on these issues, I know. I really should have learned by now.

Yes.

I don't think that I actually suggested that that was the case, did I?

There was a pretty weighty hint of 'boo hiss tories = genocide'.

My point was that, in order to reduce spending this government has, in the main, hammered those people who are most vulnerable and need the most help. These are often the people whose support the government doesn't have, so it doesn't matter to them how much they are suffering.

I understood your point (which I disagree with since welfare spending has still not fallen, even in real terms, since 2010). And since spending continues to rise and will continue to rise for the next few years, I wonder where all the money is going.

I'm sorry but how exactly does that work?

How does letting people make their own society work? Rather better than insisting that everyone does what they're told. Who makes social mores? Who decides that we in the UK have a sweet course at the end of dinner? Did government decide?

Unlike you, as you shower contempt on anyone who sees things differently?

I'm not pretending I know how to order society or how people should live. But I do hold socialists in contempt, in the same way that they hold humanity in contempt.

But there are countries in which the health care provision is inadequate and/or too expensive for the poorest citizens.

There are. And that is never going to change until scarce healthcare resources become infinite. You can not, with the best will in the world, make 21st century healthcare free for everyone. That news will come as a shock to a whole swathe of people who think they're "entitled". But that is going to be the big shock that follows the big shock that working for 40 years doesn't give you the right to draw a pension for 40 years. The current system is unsustainable unless costs fall drastically.

So basically, freeing up the market doesn't work because profit is all and business practice dictates that 'bigger is better'; economies of scale come in to play and you get takeovers to gain a larger slice of the market and then, once the majority of the market is divided by a small group of companies, they can work together to fix prices and other chicanery.

It does work, so long as you keep it free. That (IMO) is the job of government.

Well, you know, taking years to get employers/governments to put certain measures in place in order that someone is safe at work or can't be dismissed on a whim, does seem to me to be something that shouldn't be trivialised because it doesn't make a profit.

Do you think PAT testing keeps people safe? I think it's a single (good) example of bureaucratic idiocy and meddling.

I was actually trivialising the lazy cliches widely used by politicians and the media, not the worthwhile elements of employment legislation.

Spidermama Sun 27-Oct-13 07:51:42

Jeez! I'm with whoever said the stuff in italics.

The Tories always have and always will be a political elite out to protect the interests of their mates. Their mates are particularly greedy and their greed can only be fed by the suffering of many more.

claig Sun 27-Oct-13 09:13:38

Fascinating analysis in the Daily Mail about Brand and Newsnight and Newsnight and the Guardian. Worth reading for the insight.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2475991/ROSS-CLARK-Russell-Brand-Newsnights-Guardians-TV-lapdog.html

FraidyCat Sun 27-Oct-13 10:11:53

" I want to let society organise itself. I'm sorry but how exactly does that work? "

There is a story I vaguely remember, quite possibly made up, about a communist leader visiting the west. He is amazed to see freshly braked bread available at bakeries everywhere early each morning. He tells his host to congratulate whoever is in charge of bread planning and distribution.

Even in Britain in 2013, I would guess that the vast majority of people cannot get their heads around the idea that a market can routinely and effortlessly produce more accurate resource allocation than any person or organisation. I routinely hear "market" used as a pejorative term, when in my head it is a synonym for "awesome computing device that out-performs any human brain."

A man saves up his roubles and is finally able to buy a car in Soviet Russia. After he pays his money the he is told he will have his car in three years. "Three years!" He asks "What month?" "August." "August? What day in August?" he asks. "The Second of August" is the reply. "Morning or Afternoon?" "Afternoon. Why do you need to know?" "The plumber is coming in the morning."

flatpackhamster Mon 28-Oct-13 20:16:03

Spidermama

Jeez! I'm with whoever said the stuff in italics.

The Tories always have and always will be a political elite out to protect the interests of their mates. Their mates are particularly greedy and their greed can only be fed by the suffering of many more.

Are you actually Russell Brand?

claig Mon 28-Oct-13 22:46:01

Just read Brand's 4500 word manifesto for revolution in the New Statesman.

I don't often read the New Statesman so I am not used to reading the puerile, phoney philosophy of pseuds.

"Perhaps this is why there is currently no genuinely popular left-wing movement to counter Ukip, the EDL and the Tea Party; for an ideology that is defined by inclusiveness, socialism has become in practice quite exclusive. Plus a bit too serious, too much up its own fundament and not enough fun."

This is really what the left are worried about. They know that populism is a phenomenon of the right and of papers like the Daily Mail and will never be the province of the pseud and progressive. The reason is that people want something serious, not someting fun and up its fundament like Brand.

"When Ali G, who had joined protesters attempting to prevent a forest being felled to make way for a road, shouted across the barricade, “You may take our trees, but you’ll never take our freedom,” I identified more with Baron Cohen’s amoral trickster than the stern activist who aggressively admonished him: “This is serious, you cunt.”"

This is where Brand's shortcomings become evident. He isn't serious, he is a clown, and populist parties and papers appeal to the people because they aren't clowns and address serious issues that concern people.

"The right has all the advantages, just as the devil has all the best tunes. Conservatism appeals to our selfishness and fear, our desire and self-interest; they neatly nurture and then harvest the inherent and incubating individualism."

The right has the advantages because it is closer to human nature and accepts the way people are rather than trying to change them into an idealised view of humanity that is fundamentally unreal and up its fundament.

"The reality is we have a spherical ecosystem, suspended in, as far as we know, infinite space upon which there are billions of carbon-based life forms, of which we presume ourselves to be the most important, and a limited amount of resources."

The only systems we can afford to employ are those that rationally serve the planet first, then all humanity.

....

"We are mammals on a planet, who now face a struggle for survival if our species is to avoid expiry."

There is the old elitist lie of the billionaires, plutocrats and puppet politicians who want to curb human population by using the lie and scare that each human being's "carbon footprint" is harming "the planet". Brand, the naive poseur, follows in the steps of the elite's carbon footprint lie.

He wants a revolution based on spiritual values. Maybe this type of thing

"If like the Celtic people we revered the rivers we would prioritise this sacred knowledge and curtail the attempts of any that sought to pollute the rivers. If like the Nordic people we believed the souls of our ancestors lived in the trees, this connection would make mass deforestation anathema. If like the native people of America we believed God was in the soil what would our intuitive response be to the implementation of fracking?"

But we have moved on, we no longer believe that "the soul of our ancestors lived in trees".

The left are desperate to put this clown upfront and they take him seriously and give him space in the New Statesman and on Newsnight in the hope that he can convince the naive. It shows how out of touch and irrelevant they are. They hope he can lead a populist movement of the left to counter the real and growing populist movements of the right.

But just like their phoney scare and scam of "catastrophic climate change", they are heading towards catastrophic doom because the people don't believe the climate scam and they don't believe that the Left are serious.

Human beings are not heading towards extinction, but the Left's discredited philosophy and phoney funny men's ideas are redundant and heading for extinction.

claig Mon 28-Oct-13 22:46:46

Brand's article in the New Statesman is here

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution

Spidermama Sat 02-Nov-13 11:30:13

Jeremy Paxman got a big cheer from the audience on Graham Norton last night when he said Russell Brand was right.

ringaringarosy Sat 02-Nov-13 11:34:46

i don't understand about redistribution of wealth?do people mean that people who have earned lots of money to give it to those who haven't?Is that literally what it means?

YesterdayI Sat 02-Nov-13 11:37:52

Paxman actually said he disagreed with most of what RB said but did agree that he agreed with RB that there is a lot of voter disillusionment and disengagement

(I might not have exactly the right words but its close enough)

I thought the applause was for Paxmand 'raised eyebrows' look when he mentioned RB - rather than RB himself but I am not sure.

posheroo Sat 02-Nov-13 11:37:52

I never doubted russell brand was a brainy bloke. His judgment is faulty at times

YesterdayI Sat 02-Nov-13 11:39:10

Sorry, should have proof read my post.... But you get the drift blush

claig Sat 02-Nov-13 12:05:12

Yes, Paxman and Brand are right that there is huge voter disillusionment and disengagement. Millions of people think that the parties are all the same - all promoting the same policies such as climate change and their green taxes.

But we have already seen the "hug a husky" policy of the elite have to change and the elite's policy of green taxes and windfarms come under pressure. Why?

Because now instead of parties of the 1%, we now have a party for the 99% - UKIP. UKIP has flushed out all the lies and the elite have had to change their poicies and stop ignoring the 99% because there is finally a party that speaks for them.

Look at the results in the Scottish by-election in Fife.

www.fifedirect.org.uk/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.display&objectid=EAEC88B6-AD7A-EAE9-EC7BFE43E600252A

UKIP beat the Scottish Green Party and this is in Scotland, not the South East of England!

So Brand and his "the planet is being destroyed" progressives and the Left who promote him in the Guardian, the New Statesman and BBC Newsnight know that they are on to a loser. They're worried about the 99%. That's why they are wheeling out celebs and funny men to spin for them. But elections aren't a circus, the people aren't fools and they have no time for clowns who prop up the lies of the 1% in order to drown out the views of the 99%.

One day a party will really listen to the 99%, to the millions who no longer bother to vote, and then all the liars, pseuds and progressives will lose their deposits.

There will be a democratic revolution and Brand and the progressives and the 1% will no longer hold sway over the people.

claig Sat 02-Nov-13 12:07:50

Brand said in his interview with Paxman

"I'm against the Daily Mail"

Of course he is, because he is with the 1% and the Daily Mail is with the people.

Bring it on!

DoctorTwo Sat 02-Nov-13 12:13:06

ringaringarosy Sat 02-Nov-13 11:34:46

i don't understand about redistribution of wealth?

Anybody calling for a 'redistribution of wealth' is wrong. There should be a redistribution of risk. Look at the privatisation of student loans: the government are guaranteeing profits for whoever takes the list on. We, as taxpayers, are underwriting private enterprise. What we have is capitalism for the poor and socialism for massive corporations.

claig Sat 02-Nov-13 12:17:43

'What we have is capitalism for the poor and socialism for massive corporations.'

DoctorTwo, you are exactly right. But it's not about right versus left, because they are "all in it together".

It is about the 1% versus us, the 99%.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now