[kelvin]

Russel was responsible for this... gets my vote.

[tomtom]

Where it all falls down as both his encouraging people not to vote, which essentially is boycotting any hope of change, and he doesn't actually provide any possible answers. Complaining about the status quo, but not offering up a way of overturning it.

Yup...

[petejh]

If a UKB poster had posted Brand's reply as their own work on the 'Inequality' thread, plenty of you would be lavishing the wad karma and saying how great it was.

Perhaps I've got too mellow my old age (a mind so open it's leaking through my ears), but I find Russell Brand quite likeable these days, and definitely more a source of good than harm.

I tend to agree with this. Is he a dick? Surely. He's a , overpaid celebrity with a tendency to addiction, aggression and excess. In terms of his impact on the world, he's just a very gentle and silly satirist. The fact that so many people seem to be genuinely stirred by him (either fans or detractors) says more about the issues he's tackling than about him.

Yep this    Except:
narcissistic - like a lot of climbers.
aggressive - a trait lauded in many sportspeople.
tendency to addiction - plenty of climbing addicts on here.
excess - ???

There appear to be a lot of people trying to find personal faults with Brand - it's not difficult is it. They should stick to attacking his arguments (Sloper), and if major faults can't be found with them then he's saying something worth listening to at least.(despite coming across as an idealistic bellend...)

Snobbishness perhaps from academics and professionals who wish their arguments could be so well publicised and their opinions heard by so many?

[casa]

Well i'm going to go a bit against the tide here...i actually quite like the guy.
As for the no voting issue i'm pretty much the same. i vote every time, so far every time all i've managed is just a big cross through the paper to void. Not a single person or party so far worthy of my vote. As Richard Prior says in Brewsters Millions 'none of the above'.
I even thought that thing with him and JRoss (debacle) was quite amusing.

[petejh]

Don't particularly like him - as people have said, on the plus side at least he's getting people talking about these issues.

Where it all falls down as both his encouraging people not to vote, which essentially is boycotting any hope of change, and he doesn't actually provide any possible answers. Complaining about the status quo, but not offering up a way of overturning it. Without that, it's just hot air really.

I can see how not voting can be a way of changing things in a system where none of the options are worth voting for. It could create an environment that encourages other options to the fore. So far, unfortunately, one of those others is ukip. But another option is - like you say -  the greens. At the moment there isn't the belief that voting green is 'worth it'. If massive numbers of people, say 70%+, turned their back completely on all options it would in effect be a vote of no-confidence in the UK political system. Already around 40% of people don't vote. Out of the chaos of mass rejection of the current system something more representative 'could' emerge - such as that proposed by the greens and a bunch of other disparate groups. Or not.

[johnx2]

I've no time for the don't vote, spirituality, 12 step bollocks; but his reply to the city contractor/blogger's muddled outpourings is really pretty spot on.

[Sloper]

If a UKB poster had posted Brand's reply as their own work on the 'Inequality' thread, plenty of you would be lavishing the wad karma and saying how great it was.

Perhaps I've got too mellow my old age (a mind so open it's leaking through my ears), but I find Russell Brand quite likeable these days, and definitely more a source of good than harm.

I tend to agree with this. Is he a dick? Surely. He's a , overpaid celebrity with a tendency to addiction, aggression and excess. In terms of his impact on the world, he's just a very gentle and silly satirist. The fact that so many people seem to be genuinely stirred by him (either fans or detractors) says more about the issues he's tackling than about him.

Yep this    Except:
narcissistic - like a lot of climbers.
aggressive - a trait lauded in many sportspeople.
tendency to addiction - plenty of climbing addicts on here.
excess - ???

There appear to be a lot of people trying to find personal faults with Brand - it's not difficult is it. They should stick to attacking his arguments (Sloper), and if major faults can't be found with them then he's saying something worth listening to at least.(despite coming across as an idealistic bellend...)

Snobbishness perhaps from academics and professionals who wish their arguments could be so well publicised and their opinions heard by so many?

His pitifull wankerish offerings are difficult to oppose with a degree of cognecy as they are so logically flawed and riddled with factual error, that said I do my best to close with, engage and kill the enemy.

A good case can be put simply, with straightforward language and clear references, brand like so many lefty fuckwits (see Chomsky) feel the need to dress up shit ideas in convoluted language: so in short, it is proper and correct so say Russell brand is a cvnt.

[DaveC]

Never ceases to amaze me how happy you seem to be making a complete fool of yourself by just trundling out low grade personal abuse Tom. Brand's comments about the siege incident in Sydney and the media bullshit around it has given his credibility here a further boost. He certainly has far more credibility than you are ever likely to have despite many of the criticisms of him (including some you have made in the past) being fundamentally right!

[rich d]

I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Brand says, that's probably just one of the many things that makes me a cunt.

[petejh]

His pitifull wankerish offerings are difficult to oppose with a degree of cognecy as they are so logically flawed and riddled with factual error, that said I do my best to close with, engage and kill the enemy.

A good case can be put simply, with straightforward language and clear references, brand Sloper like so many lefty fuckwits (see Chomsky) feels the need to dress up shit ideas in convoluted language: so in short, it is proper and correct so say Russell brand Sloper is acting like a cvnt.

That's got to be one of your weakest ever replies Sloper and could easily pass for a description of your own style of debate.

[rodma]

Brand has an exceptionally simple contrary approach, which is obviously going to be in line with some of the population's views. his political craft to my eye, is as complex as peter kay's approach to comedy. actually that's unfair on peter kay.

i just wonder what, if anything, brand would have to say if all the cool kids became pro establishment

[Nigel]

Just so I can be part of the crowd, I'll concede that I find his mode of speech a little irritating (but no more so than politicians). Now I'm part of the gang I also have to concede that I watched a few Trews vids last night and it was very hard to disagree with a lot of what he says, especially with regard to the dissembling use of language by politicians / the media, and the general encouragement to get people to engage with politics, albeit via different routes than voting. Am I a swivel eyed loon???

[danm]

Brand has many faults, for sure. But what is truly pitiful is that we need someone like him to move the political debate away from the one framed by the identikit, paid-by-the-same-master, corrupt bunch of ****s we are given the choice to vote for.

I've two friends who wanted to make a difference and went into politics with one of the mainstream parties - both quickly realised that they are a total waste of time for anyone who actually wants to change things for the better. One quickly sacked it off, the other has stuck it out and has to be happy with tiny incremental gains, but don't ask his opinion of the self serving w**kers above him in his party apparatus.

[andy_e]

With respect to the confusing language utilised by political and social commentators, that whole embroglio is epiphenomenal.

[dave]

I find it hilarious/despairing that people seem to think that not voting is in some way going to action change or register your dislike of the current system. HELLO -35% of voters currently don't vote in general elections. Its like being round our mate's house and someone says (do you want to order I Chinese or Indian, you don't express an opinion either way, then complain when the takeaway arrives, hoping that by abstaining you would action change in favour of going to the chippy).

And as a result of low voting turnout it lets in mentals like UKIP or the BNP, Golden Dawn, The Blackshirts or whatever they are calling themselves this year. The only way Uncle Russ's idea would work if absolutely nobody voted, a 100% abstention. But as soon as anyone breaks rank then but it wouldn't because as turnout dropped the more and more of an proportional impact those voting for extreme parties (intrinsically people highly motivated to vote) would have.

Also let me remind people with a short memory that only 3 years ago we had a referendum on changing the voting system, and a staggering 60% of people didn't have an opinion enough to be bothered to vote. So you've had your chance.

[SA Chris]

a degree of cognecy

This is great btw.

[hstmoore]

[Sloper]

There's an interesting section in The Political Economy of the New Right (my current text for reading on the tram to work) which looks at the distribution of voters in the 'center ground' and hence the move of political parties to the center; which necessarily diminishes the difference between them with the concommitant effect of, quite rationally reducing the motivation to actively support a party / vote.

Whether or not this is a good thing in and of itself, it does tend to suppress the swings between chaos and (too much, i.e. authoriatrian) order.

This is not to say that parties (or Labour / conservatives in the UK) therefore actually do overlap, buth rather they need an aspect (venn style) that is compatible with a significant number of view of a group broadly in the middle, as Blair managed so well with his 'triangulation' and focus groups.

I would also suggest that the major battles for the left have either been won or there has been the recognition that they can never be fought successfully and as such the Left has little left to anchor it to its historical roots and that that combined with the lack of mass low skilled employment has few options but to drift towards the center.

That said Russell Brand is still a cvnt.

[petejh]

I find it hilarious/despairing that people seem to think that not voting is in some way going to action change or register your dislike of the current system. HELLO -35% of voters currently don't vote in general elections. Its like being round our mate's house and someone says (do you want to order I Chinese or Indian, you don't express an opinion either way, then complain when the takeaway arrives, hoping that by abstaining you would action change in favour of going to the chippy).

No it isn't Dave. It's nothing at all like not expressing an opinion of which appealing takeaway meal to have.

A more accurate takeaway analogy for non-voting would be:
You're round your mate's house and someone says ''right lads do you want to order illegally slaughtered horse-meat masquerading as a burger, mercury-poisoned fish and pesticide-laden chips, or out-of-date salmonella egg fried rice''... then complain when the takeaway arrives, hoping that by abstaining you would action change in favour of going to the nice local resturant that does takeouts of responsibly-sourced wholesome food.

It's a simple and powerful expression of wanting something better and not accepting being told by self-serving corrupt tribes that they're the only show in town.

edit: spoiling the ballot is my prefered choice. Simply not-voting is the lazy person's choice.

[Nigel]

Don’t get me wrong Dave, I think you’re right and personally I don’t agree with the not voting thing; at the very least spoiling your ballot has to be better than not showing up at all. So for me that’s a black mark for him. But to his credit Brand does seem to be highlighting that there are other ways to engage other than voting once every 5 years e.g. protests, petitions etc. which is possibly a worthwhile message to bring to “the yoof of today”, given that plenty seem disillusioned with politics, for the reasons Dan has mentioned above. It may get some to feel they have a stake, especially in these days of organisation via social media. Obviously these routes are as old as time but lets face it brand "Brand" is probably not selling itself to folk with existing political interest. Again arguably a good thing? I tried to capture that nuance succinctly earlier but probably failed!

[Stubbs]

hoping that by abstaining you would action change in favour of going to the nice local resturant that does takeouts of responsibly-sourced wholesome food.

Isn't that a vote for the Greens then?

[petejh]

That's only the start of the story though isn't it...

The current status quo is that the priorities of governments have gradually shifted away from serving the people towards serving corporate profit and self interest. This is blatantly what all major political parties do - even if this isn't their conscious intent. We have a bunch of mediocre self-serving and corporate-serving tossers running the country who aren't respected by the population and who don't represent the people in this country and it's been that way for quite a long time now.

What would be the inevitable opposite reaction by right-minded people to the threat of loony extremists taking power -  something better perhaps? It takes disruption to change any deeply embedded habit such as the habit of accepting the status quo.

[petejh]

hoping that by abstaining you would action change in favour of going to the nice local resturant that does takeouts of responsibly-sourced wholesome food.

Isn't that a vote for the Greens then?

Yes. However the 'Greens' restaurant is shut on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays becasue they just don't get the custom midweek. And their menu is a bit poor to be honest because for their level of business they can't justify anything better.

[Stubbs]

I'm sure you can see where the extension of this particular metaphor goes: if people stop eating at McLabour and Kentucky Fried Conservatives and instead start dining at the Green Bistro, then either the bistro expands, or the big players notice that that's what people want and change their menu accordingly (hopefully, I still have a little hope, vote Green, please....).

[petejh]

Ha, yes. But we're obese as a nation and giving ourselves all sorts of lifestyle diseases simply through our acceptance of the status quo - a status quo it must be said that is created by greater outside interests, just as in politics. Clearly it doesn't work for people to simply be aware of another, possibly healthier, choice. The defacto choice is unhealthy and the defacto choice is created by outside interests.