[Sloper]

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!

Protesting and signing petitions is not engaging in politics any more than posting on this thread is cotributing to politics.

You enagge in politics but standing for office, or voting or in the most extreme case, being part of a coup d'etat.

[hamsforlegs]

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.

To be fair, I think Brand's ideas are no more shit than those of most other youth-TV-presenters-turned-comedians. He's only getting more attention (and being elevated to 'cvnt' status) by talking about things that seem to resonate.

The left has always had a habit of diving into over-elaborate theory, which creates hiding places for charlatans of a general leftish bent. Conversely, the right has always had a habit of appealing to un-examined sentiment or economic benefit as self-evident measures of political right and wrong. Both of which lead to a slurry of pseudo-debate. I'm centre-right (ie leftish by current terminology), so I probably tend to find some bits of the slurry less offensively stinky than the others, but it's still slurry. Both sides have a small number of people who frame the arguments properly and well - they're just not always easy to find.

Brand's language is a parody of the traditional left - he's sending up both sides at once. He doesn't have any great argument to make, which is why it's odd that so many want to take issue.

If people fail to vote because of a spittle-flecked stand-up, we must surely have a problem bigger than that guy?

[hamsforlegs]

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.

Whereas, if you really want to bring about change, you should go to work in a local kitchen and start learning the skills needed to open a successful, healthy local eatery in later years.

Along the way I guess you might have to work in a few dodgy places, maybe accept some pragmatic commercial compromises, and perhaps even adopt a few 'less than ideal' practices yourself.

By the time you open your business you'll be tired, compromised, dirty-feeling, and you'll have a whole load of friends and enemies from sections of society that you never really thought about before. But you will actually have participated.

Until then, I don't actually mind you whingeing about the toxic horsemeat, but I can't credit you with bringing about change by not speaking up at choosing time.

[hstmoore]

[/quote]

Until then, I don't actually mind you whingeing about the toxic horsemeat, but I can't credit you with bringing about change by not speaking up at choosing time.
[/quote]

I think that this is undesirable point that people feel resistance to: ideally, we wouldn't be confined to this current political system, at least the one with the current party arrangement (restaurant choice), and so on principle abstaining to vote seem like a good thing (a la Brand). But we do currently live in the confines of this political system, which won't be going anywhere quickly (60% didn't vote on referendum for changing in voting system; can't see a revolution happening...) and so taking the pragmatic option of playing the system to a decent outcome (voting Green) effects political change in a positive direction whilst also working to prevent the worst outcome of that system (UKIP/tories).

In an ideal world we'd have a different system, but we don't, so we might as well make the best of it. not voting only makes it worse.

[mrconners]

So then, cunt or not?

I'm saying cunt and aside all the well reasoned, very interesting points put as to the contrary. I don't think he is the saviour of our political future, that is down to us.

He's just really annoying, in my opinion. And that's the point, as is voting. It's opinions.

Maybe he will change peoples opinions for the better, which is excellent. But for gods sake its the fucking shouting and attention seeking I cant abide.

[tregiffian]

His mouth is his most prominent feature.

[Sloper]

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.

To be fair, I think Brand's ideas are no more shit than those of most other youth-TV-presenters-turned-comedians. He's only getting more attention (and being elevated to 'cvnt' status) by talking about things that seem to resonate.

The left has always had a habit of diving into over-elaborate theory, which creates hiding places for charlatans of a general leftish bent. Conversely, the right has always had a habit of appealing to un-examined sentiment or economic benefit as self-evident measures of political right and wrong. Both of which lead to a slurry of pseudo-debate. I'm centre-right (ie leftish by current terminology), so I probably tend to find some bits of the slurry less offensively stinky than the others, but it's still slurry. Both sides have a small number of people who frame the arguments properly and well - they're just not always easy to find.

Brand's language is a parody of the traditional left - he's sending up both sides at once. He doesn't have any great argument to make, which is why it's odd that so many want to take issue.

If people fail to vote because of a spittle-flecked stand-up, we must surely have a problem bigger than that guy?

^^^ spot in in many regards: there's no exclusivity of morons for the left see Farage, Griffin, Peter Bone & etc.

What I think is substnatially different is that by and large the right stands for liberal democratic free market economics underpinned by the rule of law; whereas the left has many prominent strands that are contrary to these principles.

[tomtom]

What about take away paella?

[hamsforlegs]

What about take away paella?

Middle class food, working class presentation.
Everyone can get on board.

[Grubes]

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....).

To go slightly off topic I think the lib dems are a fine example of how no matter how you vote power corrupts and no matter how much you think things will be better its just the same shit with more disappointment.

I have lived in a village that has had greens in charge for over a decade and in which time they started well then did fuck all for 8 years

[Will Hunt]

I failed to read any of the open correspondence between the two as the prose was utterly stultifying.

I have a soft spot for Brand. I think he has a few core skills: he is funny, he is intelligent, he is articulate (in his own particular nouveau dialect). All these things make him somebody who is easy to listen to.

However it is really obvious that his political ideas are in their infancy and I do sympathise with him for this. Most people, before taking to the platform, spend a lot of time thinking about their ideas, critiquing them, testing whether they work, tossing them around with friends, and generally refining them so that they stand up. Russel blurted out quite recently that nobody should vote and in doing so set himself off on a rollercoaster ride of activism. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he no longer thinks it is appropriate to "engage" by not voting, but has trapped himself into that rhetoric by uttering it in the first place (anyone seeing a classic politician's mistake there?).

He is starting to become a little more sophisticated than his original smash-the-state, the-man-is-getting-me-down philosophy and I think this was demonstrated in his lamentably one sided documentary on drugs legislation (probably still on iPlayer).

So no, not a see-you-next-Tuesday, but one to keep an eye on. He certainly does make some good points every now and again e.g. his statement on Question Time that all the debate about immigration is really just a smokescreen for the bigger issues that politicians are too weak to challenge corporations on. It's very easy to blame everything on the people with funny names who are just getting to grips with English isn't it?

[petejh]

I have a soft spot for Brand. I think he has a few core skills: he is funny, he is intelligent, he is articulate (in his own particular nouveau dialect). However it is really obvious that his political ideas are in their infancy and I do sympathise with him for this. 
...So no, not a see-you-next-Tuesday, but one to keep an eye on.

Titty fucking christ Will that is patronising! 'Nouveau dialect'?! - are you the dusty old headmaster of some home counties grammar school?

Those who despair at poor little Russell's lack of political sophistication should remember that he's stated numerous times on record that he sees 'his role' as being about using his past notoriety and infamy to shine publicity on what he believes to be a worthy cause - i.e. highlighting various aspects of the state which he and many other people see as questionable. And not about trying to become some political sophisticate or MP. Enough of those around already.

[Will Hunt]

If he's ever so off the scene then why is he tipping up at the UN to debate drug policy and grilling leaders on what they think? Why is he talking about drugs at all? I thought his gig was corruption and big finance? He's getting interested and he's branching out - I don't see that as a bad thing.
Whether it be on Question Time or his own documentary he is confronting and arguing with people and any observer can see that he is not all that good at it. The one bloke they dragged onto the drugs programme to support criminalisation disagreed with Russell and, instead of his arguments being taken apart, simply got the same rhetoric repeated back at him at a louder volume.

[a dense loner]

Who is the ahead of his time moron that said brand is funny? What a fucknut

[Sloper]

I have a soft spot for Brand. I think he has a few core skills: he is funny, he is intelligent, he is articulate (in his own particular nouveau dialect). However it is really obvious that his political ideas are in their infancy and I do sympathise with him for this. 
...So no, not a see-you-next-Tuesday, but one to keep an eye on.

Titty fucking christ Will that is patronising! 'Nouveau dialect'?! - are you the dusty old headmaster of some home counties grammar school?

Those who despair at poor little Russell's lack of political sophistication should remember that he's stated numerous times on record that he sees 'his role' as being about using his past notoriety and infamy to shine publicity on what he believes to be a worthy cause - i.e. highlighting various aspects of the state which he and many other people see as questionable. And not about trying to become some political sophisticate or MP. Enough of those around already.

Sorry, being an ex junkie commedian doesn't necessarily qualify you as a considered commentator any more than being a fat rcist comedian qualifies you to talk about immigration.

He lacks 'sophistication' because he talks shit, not because of his accent (although I too find this rather grating).  As will says, when he meets someone who takes a counter point he doesn't engage in rational well informed debate; rather he rants at a higher volume.

It's all rather predicatable lefty fuckwittery, for example 'the land value tax' yeah sounds great, right up until the moment when you realise that it doesn't work.

[csurfleet]

I have lived in a village that has had greens in charge for over a decade and in which time they started well then did fuck all for 8 years

Bollocks. The greens have worked tirelessly round Newsome and made some great changes right up to the present. Have an opinion, but don't spout crap 

[lagerstarfish]

Who is the ahead of his time moron that said brand is funny? What a fucknut

funny peculiar, not funny ha ha

is there a definition of "funny" that means cvnt?

maybe they meant "fanny"

[finbarrr]

I have a soft spot for Brand. I think he has a few core skills: he is funny, he is intelligent, he is articulate (in his own particular nouveau dialect). However it is really obvious that his political ideas are in their infancy and I do sympathise with him for this. 
...So no, not a see-you-next-Tuesday, but one to keep an eye on.

Titty fucking christ Will that is patronising! 'Nouveau dialect'?! - are you the dusty old headmaster of some home counties grammar school?

Those who despair at poor little Russell's lack of political sophistication should remember that he's stated numerous times on record that he sees 'his role' as being about using his past notoriety and infamy to shine publicity on what he believes to be a worthy cause - i.e. highlighting various aspects of the state which he and many other people see as questionable. And not about trying to become some political sophisticate or MP. Enough of those around already.

He lacks 'sophistication' because he talks shit, not because of his accent (although I too find this rather grating).  As will says, when he meets someone who takes a counter point he doesn't engage in rational well informed debate; rather he rants at a higher volume.

It's all rather predicatable lefty fuckwittery, for example 'the land value tax' yeah sounds great, right up until the moment when you realise that it doesn't work.

wow, sounds like someone we all know

p.s. Noam Chomsky is my hero

[Sloper]

What is it that makes Chomsky your hero? Is it the support for brutal and despotic regimes, was it his denial of the genocide in Cambodia, or is it because like Che he's just a pin up boy for the left?

Besides, what's he ever done on grit?

[Danny]

I thought universal grammar was quite good, although it seems to be largely discredited these days. I read a book if his once, Hegemony or Survival. I thought it was drivel. Although I am massively uninformed when it comes to politics.

Of the little I have read, Roberto Unger stands out as one lefty thinker worth listening to. I'm also entertained by his recent efforts to tell some cosmologists to wind their necks in, and get back to doing some proper science.

[Sloper]

Probably the greatest critic of Chomsky and his ilk is Prof Sokal.

[Danny]

I never realised that, I was only vaguely aware that they (Chommer & Sokal) have both slammed social theorists from time to time. I get the feeling that all that science wars shite was of little relevance to those working 'on the ground' in the empirical natural sciences anyway, where most people have just been getting on with finding stuff out for a living.

Off topic, though.

 

[Falling Down]

Slavoj Zizek is more provocative and funnier than Russel.

[Pantontino]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/russell-brand-saves-93-families-from-eviction-with-downing-street-campaign-i-dont-think-wed-be-here-now-without-his-support-9938771.html

Seems there's quite a few people on a London housing estate who don't agree with the OP's assertion.

[Sloper]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/russell-brand-saves-93-families-from-eviction-with-downing-street-campaign-i-dont-think-wed-be-here-now-without-his-support-9938771.html

Seems there's quite a few people on a London housing estate who don't agree with the OP's assertion.

Passing band wagon symbol here.