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

[Scarletohello]

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...)

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

"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.

' 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.

'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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

"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.

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.

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.

Tiniest! Auto correct gorn mad...

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.

'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.

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

Are you of the 1%?

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

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.

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?

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

very good