Russell Brand wins well-deserved Foot in Mouth award

[claig]

"Yesterday the comedian and self-styled revolutionary was honoured with an award – for speaking gobbledygook.

He won the annual Foot in Mouth prize from the Plain English campiagn, joining the likes of John Prescott and George W Bush."
...

"The group’s website said that Brand’s ‘seemingly endless stream of gibberish, both written and verbal’ had clinched the award."
...
"Organisers said Brand – who has carved a career out of using many, often inflammatory, words when one would do – was ‘out on his own’ in the competition."

Surely that can't be right? He must have faced stiff competition from the Labour front bench

"The Plain English judges singled out this rant from The Guardian: ‘I felt very connected to activism – particularly activism that feels loaded with potential. Not the oppositional activism that seems like there’s a stasis around it – earnestly sincere, but a monolith.’

How they managed to single this rant out from the rest of the rants in the Guardian beats me. But they are professionals. To me it just seems like New Labour speak without the polar bears.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2858403/Brand-wins-award-gobbledygook.html

RedToothBrush, you are left wing, but for God's sake read the excellent left wing Guardian journalist, John Harris, to understand what UKIP are all about and why ordinary people are voting for them.

Ordinary people are not stupid. John Harris went to Oxford, but he is one of us, because he doesn't look down on us, he respects us, he understands us and that is why he understands UKIP, while not supporting them, because he understands that UKIP understands us. And we are not all stupid. We know who teh establishment are and what their goals are and we know that UKIP aren't the establishment. Reard John Harris to see why people vote UKIP and stick two fingers up to the real establishment.

PR is only a possible means to a solution. It doesn't guarantee that all the problems and the foreign policy messes will be done away with.

PR results in the election of representatives who still all have to work together, dealing with what exists in the here and now. Politics is the art of the possible.

Ireland has always had a PR system. It hasn't prevented the development of an Establishment. What PR in Ireland has achieved is a very broad consensus that the Establishment is the realistic way to go. Parties breaking into the Establishment nave generally become more Establishment than the Establishment itself. First Fianna Fail, then various 1930s People's Army types (aka Irish fascists) which were subsumed into Fine Gael, and now the Greens and Sinn Fein.

I suppose you think Labour is anti-establishment and UKIP (the "fruitcakes", the "loonies", the "vile unBritish racists") are the establishment.

I suppose Red Prince, Stephen Kinnock, candidate for Labour in Wales, where UKIP is not welcome, is not the establishment and Farage who will likely be shouted down and insulted by Russell Brand, is.

"having achieved a degree in Modern Languages from Queens' College, University of Cambridge, and an MA from the College of Europe in 1993, Stephen Kinnock worked as a research assistant at the European Parliament in Brussels before becoming a British Council Development and Training Services executive based in Brussels from 1997.

Stephen Kinnock (born 1 January 1970)[2] is the husband of Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt and a British executive who has held various senior positions with the British Council prior to joining the World Economic Forum in January 2009 as director, head of Europe and Central Asia.[3] On the Xynteo website he is listed as 'managing director of the GLTE partnership', a green lobbying organisation.[4]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Kinnock

Oh and Kinnock "is listed as 'managing director of the GLTE partnership', a green lobbying organisation" and UKIP are going to scrap the Climate Change Act which has got billionaires and bankers worldwide worried and has got them ordering puppet politicians, from Oxbrdige and elsewhere, to get their act together and stop the People's Army as fast as they can.

It's like when you say hello to someone at the bus stop and they suddenly start raving and shaking their fists at the sky

You can keep your penis beakers, this is the funniest thing I've read on here.. Ever.

'PR is only a possible means to a solution. It doesn't guarantee that all the problems and the foreign policy messes will be done away with.'

Of course it doesn't , but it is a start, it puts power into the hands of every voter just as UKIP's local referenda and direct democracy will do and takes it away from cosy cliques of PPEs from Eton and Oxbridge doing their sofa government deals.

Read today's Daily Mail about Jeremy Thorpe, the Etonian, to understand how the system works and who it chooses and how it protects them.

The question of who is 'anti Establishment' is irrelevant in a way. It doesn't really matter. Eventually everyone who gets a toehold on power will become 'the Establishment'. That is the nature of political power. All revolutions are condemned to the mire of reality in the end.

Ireland has PR, but we have never had it. The Establishment always tries to make opposition join the Establishment with knighthoods etc. But it mainly trusts Oxbridge types, it doesn't trust "fruitcakes" to do as they are told. So a party of "fruitcakes" is unlikely to become the establishment and is likely to remain working class and middle class and a People's Army and a People's Party.

'All revolutions are condemned to the mire of reality in the end.'

No, all ruling parties will become the new establishment but they may not share the goals of the old climate change, green, Davos, EU, College of Europe regime. They may no longer agree with the Ancien Regime, they create a new regime and that then becomes the norm and Oxbridge PPEs have to try and join the new establishment and adopt the "fruitcake" policies of the new establishment or they won't be able to flip ther homes and claim for their bath plugs.

PR is only as good as the backroom boys who decide on candidacy. The voters have a chance to vote only after the party faithful in each constituency (the selection committees) have had a knock down drag out fight and nominate the slate of candidates the dominant faction proposes, or compromise candidates in order to maximise votes from certain areas, or threaten a candidate from another party. My father was a veteran of many Fianna Fail constituency selection committees, and was a public representative himself for about ten years, and I know that of which I speak. PR is an incredibly subtle mechanism, and I do not think the way it really works is understood in Britain.

'PR is only as good as the backroom boys who decide on candidacy. '

Agree that is the flaw in it, but as Peter Hitchens said on Question Time, aLL MPs are pre-selected by their constituencies and only those who aren't "fruitcakes" and fit the bill are chosen by the backroom boys who make the selections.

We can create a better political system. The Greens want PR, UKIP want PR and local referenda. I think we may one day be lucky and get a Swiss system. But nothing will change if the establishment parties remain in charge because they serve the establishment and not the people.

Change is coming, just as it came over the past 150 years. UKIP is the catalyst that will break the two-party PPE system. The people of Clacton led the way in the biggest landslide in postwar British history, it is just a matter of time until the people get the change they deserve.

They are voting for them because they have no understanding of what they are voting FOR only what they are voting AGAINST which tends to be an ideology rather than policies. Which UKIP embody to the letter, by the mere fact that they don't even have a manifesto.

Political voting in this country is dictated by people voting to stop X getting in rather than people actively for something. It has been for at last 20 years, when I studied politics. Its not a revolution. So please don't tell me to read X, Y or Z to be able to understand what's going on. I'm very much aware of what's going on.

In case you weren't aware the last election the Liberal Democrats ran their entire campaign on the 'we are the only alternative to Labour/Conservatives in this constituency'. There are striking similarities. Very successful it was too. It speaks more about electoral campaigning than it does about policies in UK politics.

So I don't think you have to be thick or uneducated to be utterly, horrendously stupidly ignorant of politics. I have friends who got first at good universities who are completely clueless about they are actually voting for. So I don't hold a great deal of hope for the less well educated.

When you ask people, they will frequently tell you they are voting for/against Cameron/Clegg/Miliband etc. (I'm noting here that UKIP is slightly different in the sense that UKIP's as a party is pretty much down to what crap Farage spouts this week rather than it being much of an organisation in a larger sense). However the British electoral system means that unless you are in their constituency you can't vote for them as we do not have a presidential system. Even the most educated are guilty of this. And surprisingly few people can actually name their local MP.

The best example of the total lack of understanding of politics at the moment is the highly educated previously liberal democrat voters who have subsequently moaned to high heaven about how they were betrayed and how they didn't vote for this government. Clearly they really didn't understand what bringing in PR actually was, though many were avid supporters of the idea.

As for my political allegiance... well, if by left wing you mean left of UKIP then yes I'm left wing. But to be fair that leaves most of the political spectrum.

If I had to describe my opinions, I'd probably say I'm 'a libertarian with an aversion to twatdom'. Somewhat ironically.

"In case you weren't aware the last election the Liberal Democrats ran their entire campaign on the 'we are the only alternative to Labour/Conservatives in this constituency'. There are striking similarities. Very successful it was too. It speaks more about electoral campaigning than it does about policies in UK politics. "

You are wrong. Read about Liberal Jeremy Thorpe, the Etonian. The Liberals, the LibDems are all the same as the rest. They are all the establishment. They went to Oxbridge, Clegg went to the College of Europe, where Stephen Kinnock, the Red Prince, went too. Just because they say they are anti-establishment doesn't mean a thing, just as they said they would scrap tuition fees.

The Esatblishment is real and it has shared goals and objectives. All the major parties share those goals. UKIP opposes every single one. That is why it is anti-establishment and populist. The Establishment even call UKIP anti-politics because they do nit share teh establishment consensus, they challenge it.

' I have friends who got first at good universities who are completely clueless about they are actually voting for. So I don't hold a great deal of hope for the less well educated. '

That's where I disagree with you. I think ordinary people are cleverer and smarter amd more streetwise than the people with firsts. I think the people of Clacton are smarter than the PPEs because the people of Clacton are not on the make, they are genuine, just like Farage, which is why they prefer Farage to the PPEs.

'And surprisingly few people can actually name their local MP. '
Yes because they don't nmatter in sopite of what the media tell us how great they are. We know they are whipped and do as they are told. We vote for parties and principles. That is why Farage draws the crowds more than Reckless or Carswell, because Farage embodies what the people like about UKIP, and Carswell is just an ex-Tory who hasn't got it.

"I'd probably say I'm 'a libertarian with an aversion to twatdom'

I don't believ you because if you were then you'd vote UKIP.

Not being fruitcakes and fitting the bill are the lowest hurdles. After that you have to take into account internal party allegiances, internal party power struggles (for instance, the struggle over whether Fine Gael are the Blueshirts or are they progressive), the many shades of opinion in each constituency that can possibly be persuaded to give one particular party the top votes and where individual candidates' second, third, fourth, fifth, etc., votes are likely to go, who is likely to give your party their votes after their top votes, what candidate will appeal to voters who will give their top votes to another party, what sort of opinion successful candidates might have to the prospect of coalition and with whom they would prefer to form a coalition, what popular but really dim old timer has strong enough coattails to bring home someone else on a ticket that the party really wants. And much, much more.

It is definitely a system that has a lot going for it, but there are all sorts of minute details to it to take into account. It is all done far more scientifically or methodically than is apparent to the naked eye. It is also far more centrally controlled than UKIP is letting on to the British public, assuming UKIP knows what PR is or how it works.

If you think any political party is going to let local communities freely select candidates and possibly end up with a bunch of fruitcakes ripe for being cut to pieces and dominated by the PPE top civil service types once in Parliament and sitting on committees and running ministries, you are mistaken.

The end result anyway, as noted, is the creation and maintenance of an Establishment.

Mathanxiety, you are right, it is complex and there are backers and moneymen and politics involved etc.

I don't know much about it, but my solution is a Swiss style system where we vote every week on nearly everything and instead of teh puppets obeying party whips, they obey the will of the people.

Yes, there is always an establishment. The question is whom does it serve? Does it share the goals and aspirations of the people or does it like now serve the goals of the Davos, World Economic Forum, EU climate change banking elite? The closer it gets to serving the people the better it is. Checks and balances to prevent lobbyists dominating puppets and PPEs is the way to ensure that the people's choice overrides the rich lobbyists' choice.

*"Establishment", "who does it serve", "people's choice", "PPEs" "banking elite",,,all politically pathetic labels/buzz words for parties that have nothing innovative to offer, but want to pretend they are 'different'.

Whether a country has a £157 bil annual deficit, or !00 billion, the main business of government is simple; continue to be able to pay the country bills, keep taxes low, create an environment to build and maintain business confidence, create employment, offer an education structured for the workplace and children's future prospects in a medium to high skilled economy, build enough homes - all of which supports and maintains public services and all other social options.

Labels/buzz words and false promises supports and maintains sod all to a jam tart.

FYI whatever banking elite you are talking about, especially the Investment Banks that since the early 1980's were largely responsible for world growth, pulling hundreds of millions out of poverty, _last year AGAIN contributed to the UK economy around £65 billion of direct taxes, probably tens of million more indirectly, from legal services to sandwich bars.

The "people's choice" after the financial crash was for Investment Banking, that will be based somewhere in Europe, go elsewhere to help the spending/deficits in Germany or France - lucky we didn't have a UKIP vote on everything back then.

In a financial crisis the "will of the people" is NOT to have a deficit economy, and political parties that pretend they have magic purple fairy dust to give them a democratic say how to mange the national debt of a very complex economy - is whistling out of their purple rear end tea towel holder.

Oh, King Cameron will sort all our problems out. He is in charge. He pulls the strings.

"Sir Cover-up has got the PM by the b! Top civil servant runs everything, says Gove's ex-aide
Dominic Cummings says Sir Jeremy Heywood has great influence over PM
Claims David Cameron has to ask his permission before doing anything
Sir Jeremy is Britain's most senior civil servant and was Tony Blair's principal private secretary from 1999 to 2003
Mr Cummings also says PM 'cannot manage his way out of a paper bag'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2843259/Sir-Cover-got-PM-b-civil-servant-runs-says-Gove-s-ex-aide.html

I suppose the will of the people was to spend hundreds of billions of quantitative easing to bail out the banks too, was it?

Or was that the will of the bankers?

I don't know why you look down your nose at mandarins. The career of T.K. Whitaker is a great example of one mandarin pretty much single handedly turning a country in an entirely different direction from the one in which it had been plodding along with its PR system ensuring adequate representation by representatives who didn't know economics from their elbows.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._K._Whitaker
'In 2001, an RTÉ programme voted Whitaker the "Irishman of the 20th Century", beating Michael Collins and other revolutionaries in the process.'

Claig ... a word to the unwise, in lashing out, you are showing your ignorance of the real non purple patch world.

Cameron, or rather the Conservative party WILL SORT OUT our problems over time, as they did from 1979 to 1997 and 2010 to date, but it takes time, no short cuts - and there is the difference between the Conservatives and UKIP - the Conservative 'model' has generally created prosperity over time, whereas UKIP are still looking for their 2010 General Election manifesto.

Re QE, the banking system collapsing through lack of liquidity in the banking system, would have helped no one, in fact quite the opposite - and the fact companies/people are moaning in 2014 they can't get all the credit they need, confirms a collapse would have been an economic disaster.

QE FYI is what, about £200 billion of government bonds bought by the Bank of England out of the markets and placed on THEIR balance sheet, under Labour, to add money into the banking system - which will be unwound over time by selling them back to the market place.

What is the problem with that?

In the 1930's Great Depression started by the financial crash of the time, it is widely agreed that THE LACK OF LIQUIDITY IN THE BANKING SYSTEM made the economic situation (and loss of jobs) far worse.

Proof again, purple peddling of ignorance to 'the people' is both rife and counter productive.

Because I believe in democracy. I don't want unnaccountable technocrats to run a country and ignore the will of the people because I think someone may be pulling the strings of the technocrats.

"What is the problem with that?"

Are you a banker?

"What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe"

The ascension of Mario Monti to the Italian prime ministership is remarkable for more reasons than it is possible to count. By replacing the scandal-surfing Silvio Berlusconi, Italy has dislodged the undislodgeable. By imposing rule by unelected technocrats, it has suspended the normal rules of democracy, and maybe democracy itself. And by putting a senior adviser at Goldman Sachs in charge of a Western nation, it has taken to new heights the political power of an investment bank that you might have thought was prohibitively politically toxic.

This is the most remarkable thing of all: a giant leap forward for, or perhaps even the successful culmination of, the Goldman Sachs Project.

It is not just Mr Monti. The European Central Bank, another crucial player in the sovereign debt drama, is under ex-Goldman management, and the investment bank's alumni hold sway in the corridors of power in almost every European nation, as they have done in the US throughout the financial crisis. Until Wednesday, the International Monetary Fund's European division was also run by a Goldman man, Antonio Borges, who just resigned for personal reasons.

Even before the upheaval in Italy, there was no sign of Goldman Sachs living down its nickname as "the Vampire Squid", and now that its tentacles reach to the top of the eurozone, sceptical voices are raising questions over its influence. The political decisions taken in the coming weeks will determine if the eurozone can and will pay its debts – and Goldman's interests are intricately tied up with the answer to that question."

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html

Richard Littlejohn's humorous take on BBC Christmas TV schedules and Russell Brand. You've got to have a laugh. That is how we wil eventually win.

"EastEnders

7.30pm BBC1 ????

Locals stage a riot in protest against tax-evading absentee landlords charging sky-high rents in Hoxton. But it emerges that their leader has a guilty secret and is paying £75,000 a year in rent to a company based in a Virgin Islands tax haven. Guest starring Russell Brand as himself.
...
Christmas Question Time

10.30pm BBC1 ????

Another edition of the fair and balanced current affairs show. On the panel tonight: Yvette Cooper, Polly Toynbee, Jack Monroe, George Galloway and token Right-winger Nigel Farage. Live from the ISIS wing of the Islamist Students’ Union at the London School of Oriental and African Studies. Presented by Russell Brand
...
Newsnight Christmas

10.30pm BBC2 ????

GUEST presenter Russell Brand interviews Russell Brand about how the savage cuts are inflicting a post-endogenous supercalifragilisticexpialidocious falolloping on Britain’s Parklife. Edited by Russell Brand. Based on an original idea by Professor Stanley Unwin."

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2866340/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-BBC-denies-Left-wing-bias-Just-look-austerity-laden-Christmas-schedule.html