Do you afford any of Russel Brand's opinions any clout?
Scroll to see replies
he's talking utter crap.
he thinks he's lenin reborn. ****.
sure there's inequality but there has to be, how can that be so hard to understand.
he can keep on voting. and keep making the square root of **** all difference to society except for braindead unemployed probably junkie ***** who adore the ****.
there won't be a revolution of any kind as long as this political system is retained.
yes i'm jealous of the amount of women he's slept with.
he thinks he's lenin reborn. ****.
sure there's inequality but there has to be, how can that be so hard to understand.
he can keep on voting. and keep making the square root of **** all difference to society except for braindead unemployed probably junkie ***** who adore the ****.
there won't be a revolution of any kind as long as this political system is retained.
yes i'm jealous of the amount of women he's slept with.
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
What can personal experience tell you that a study can't?
erm
Original post by Iamyourfather
In that case, why couldn't neither the Conservatives and Lib Dems gain enough working-class supporters to gain the majority vote in the last election?
Why is there such political rage and protest amongst working class citizens? Why does politics currently seem "stagnant"?
First-hand experience goes beyond anything a book can teach you, it's as simple as that really. Do those theoretical practices work? Any revelations? What seems to be the general consensus? How do you feel it affected you? How do you feel it will affect others? Even most employers place so much value on experience over a degree classification. I think a biased personal experience is more favourable than none at all. I'm not saying "stop the upper-class ruling the working-class majority", a person could represent people whom they have very little in common with. Yet I feel parliament and political parties will benefit from having a wide range of politicians with a wide range of experiences.
Why is there such political rage and protest amongst working class citizens? Why does politics currently seem "stagnant"?
First-hand experience goes beyond anything a book can teach you, it's as simple as that really. Do those theoretical practices work? Any revelations? What seems to be the general consensus? How do you feel it affected you? How do you feel it will affect others? Even most employers place so much value on experience over a degree classification. I think a biased personal experience is more favourable than none at all. I'm not saying "stop the upper-class ruling the working-class majority", a person could represent people whom they have very little in common with. Yet I feel parliament and political parties will benefit from having a wide range of politicians with a wide range of experiences.
Firstly, lets acknowledge the fact that Conservatives have gained extra support (+6%) from the working class/non-working whereas Labor have lost support from the working class/non-working class (-8%) in the 2010 election in comparison to the 2005 election. The same thing between 2005 elections and 2001 elections, Conservatives gained 1% raise and Labor lost -7%. And the 2001 and 1997, conservatives gained a 3% raise and Labour lost -4%. [1] There's a pretty clear pattern emerging here, voters don't change preferences much unless something drastic happens, when you look at the history of the Labor party vs the conservative party, it's pretty clear why Labor has had majority support.
What political rage and protests? Rage isn't something that's quantifiable so I'm not going to bother getting into that, people are always going to feel certain rage because their wants aren't being met.[2] As for protest, there's been a couple of union protests + student protest and those have been since god knows how long. Working class people haven't united to protest against the system. I presume you're a young person (I am too), this so called political stagnation probably isn't something new and something that people have been proclaiming since again god knows how long. You're just older now therefore more perceptive to this. The only time I can think of where people might have been satisfied/happy with politics is when we won the world war 2 and even then I'm sure people got back to moaning about how it isn't being handled properly.
Again that's a bunch of bull**** that uneducated people spout to feel better about their lack of education aka that whole "street smarts" or this mythical "real world" that people harp on about. Some of them do, some of them don't. A lot of this studies consist of analyzing previous social policies and their success/failures or different countries approach and what we can learn from them. Some of it involves experimentation with new social policy. There are a bunch of revelations, if you want some google "social-policy think tanks" and see their latest studies. It depends on what you're referring to, sociology is pretty big field, I know there's very few sociologist who wouldn't support a less criminal outlook of drugs and support decriminalization/legalization policies. But, it's a social science so it isn't going to be perfect and there's going to be a lot of disagreements but it's still miles better than personal experience.
I'm simply against diversity for diversity sake, if you look at the demographics of house of common of the years you'd see there becoming more diverse (especially tories). And yet here you are complaining about how the nation is becoming ****ter, if I was some bigoted right-wing dude I could blame it on the diversity but I'm not and I can recognize the weakness of diversity influence in the grand scheme of things.
1 - http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2613&view=wide and for the years, just click on "How Britain voted in [insert year you want]".
2. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=2437&view=wide - just go through different years and look at the satisfaction level varies between 20-50 and rarely ever goes above 50 and also look at people seem to be more satisfied with the prime minster as the year goes on (2013)
See Ipos-mori is another excellent resource that helps paint clearer picture about the social climate within the US then your intuitive/experience-based reasoning.
Original post by cant_think_of_name
erm
The fact that you can't name one thing tells you a lot.
Original post by scrotgrot
It's telling that you think "paying attention to the needs of the people" is communist. Politics is (meant to be) the collectivised power of the people. They are meant to pay close attention to our needs.
And the job of politics is to mitigate them, because we are not Randian animals.
But you do realise what he said was TRUE, don't you?
No, education cannot make everyone middle-class. Someone has to put out the bins.
We don't have enough "welfare", it's not enough (social security is what we call it here, we're not Americans yet, we don't use the barbarisms of food stamps etc). And communism is just as destructive and autocratic as fascism or capitalism or democracy. ANY system can be subverted.
I advocate, in our imperfect world, groups acting in their self-interest, but I also advocate them being up front about it, and true free speech and all that (no losing jobs for joining unions etc). Even if profit is inevitable, IT IS STILL A DIRTY WORD, and those who make it should pay for it with their guilt.
The Tory mantra. Per the above, I, Brand, you, and everyone else should primarily be concerned with what's happening to citizens of their own country/any other group they identify with.
Then restricting economic freedom is what we have to do. Dirigisme certainly seemed to work in the post-war period, didn't it?
On the contrary, because any system can be subverted by self-interested parties (see above, or if you prefer, see benefit cheats) periodic change of the system is necessary. To mitigate against the bad bits (bloodshed, economic oblivion) you move to a managed revolution (we call this a general election/party system). In time, even this additional layer is subverted. So you need another change which will unfortunately only come with some bloodshed/economic turmoil, even if it's not on that actual land (see the way WWI resulted in universal suffrage).
You need to stop blindly believing in things like economic and political freedom, democracy, and others (maybe not free speech). You need to question the system itself, not just the things the system allows you to question (e.g. which of the two identical parties will get in next)
And the job of politics is to mitigate them, because we are not Randian animals.
But you do realise what he said was TRUE, don't you?
No, education cannot make everyone middle-class. Someone has to put out the bins.
We don't have enough "welfare", it's not enough (social security is what we call it here, we're not Americans yet, we don't use the barbarisms of food stamps etc). And communism is just as destructive and autocratic as fascism or capitalism or democracy. ANY system can be subverted.
I advocate, in our imperfect world, groups acting in their self-interest, but I also advocate them being up front about it, and true free speech and all that (no losing jobs for joining unions etc). Even if profit is inevitable, IT IS STILL A DIRTY WORD, and those who make it should pay for it with their guilt.
The Tory mantra. Per the above, I, Brand, you, and everyone else should primarily be concerned with what's happening to citizens of their own country/any other group they identify with.
Then restricting economic freedom is what we have to do. Dirigisme certainly seemed to work in the post-war period, didn't it?
On the contrary, because any system can be subverted by self-interested parties (see above, or if you prefer, see benefit cheats) periodic change of the system is necessary. To mitigate against the bad bits (bloodshed, economic oblivion) you move to a managed revolution (we call this a general election/party system). In time, even this additional layer is subverted. So you need another change which will unfortunately only come with some bloodshed/economic turmoil, even if it's not on that actual land (see the way WWI resulted in universal suffrage).
You need to stop blindly believing in things like economic and political freedom, democracy, and others (maybe not free speech). You need to question the system itself, not just the things the system allows you to question (e.g. which of the two identical parties will get in next)
Communist was not really the word I was looking for, and I realise that my usage of it makes me look like a right-wing freak (which I am not). So, to clarify, what I meant was that in a perfect world, politicians should not have to look after people any more than anybody else does. Obviously we don't live in a perfect world, but I do think what we should try to achieve is a world in which the majority of people provide for themselves and do not depend on the State or others too much.
The kind of hierarchical systems that Brand refers to - unless he is talking about a country other than the UK - are not a major problem in life. They are not worth having a revolution over. Everybody should be treated equally under the law, and equality of opportunity should be just that - everyone is entitled to free education (tuition fees are paid for by the government if you can't afford them), welfare if they are poor, etc. I do not see anything massively wrong with our current system. Perhaps the welfare could be higher (I don't have an opinion on that), but making welfare payments slightly higher is hardly a large change to society.
Also, if you think communism and fascism are "just as" destructive and autocratic as democracy and capitalism, rather than "much more likely to be" or "worse by many exponents", then feel free to emigrate to North Korea, Iran, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy (although you will need a time machine for some of them, thankfully). Just because any system can be "subverted", does not mean that the subversion is as likely to result in human misery or death on anything like the same scale.
I don't intend for everybody to be middle class. I don't see why you think bin-men can't be educated. Being educated is about having an enlightened view on life and the universe, free from religious superstition and other dogma. Also, why is profit a dirty word? What is dirty about profit? If I grew some beans and sold them to you, should I feel guilty about that?
Why on earth should I be more concerned with what happens to citizens in my own country than citizens of other countries? I want to see the whole world free and prosperous, if possible. You seem to be mistaking the benign self-interest of capitalism, with the group-interest which leads to fascism.
Perhaps a bit of restricted economic freedom could be necessary to tackle tax avoidance, but it should not be done lightly, that's all I'm saying really.
The point about revolution is one I partially agree with. If you notice something severely wrong with the system then by all means shout about it. However, given the current (and historical) state of the world, it seems to me that the most politically and economically free countries are the ones which provide the most well-being for the largest number of their inhabitants. This is not something I blindly believe in. Just look at a world map of freedom, prosperity and happiness. The example of WWI though is one on which I cannot agree; WWI ended a long period of relative peace in the world and it was really a pointless conflict in many ways. Women's suffrage may have been a silver lining to that cloud, but it hardly compensates for the millions of lives lost, and the ensuing political turmoil in central Europe which led to WWII.
(edited 10 years ago)
Uninteresting, unoriginal, obnoxious, pseudo-articulate moron.
I wish he'd go away and that idiots would stop quoting him all over my news feed.
I wish he'd go away and that idiots would stop quoting him all over my news feed.
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
The fact that you can't name one thing tells you a lot.
The fact that you can't name one thing tells you a lot.
Oh no, I was wondering if you had any evidence for that or not. Personally it's my thought that a mixture of the two is probably best.
A study in daily spending money or something (this is completely made up) could tell you that a certain demographic has £10 a day to live on. But until you see that demographic for real (especially if you've grown up in a different environment) it's hard to imagine what that's actually like and what action should be taken.
On the sports field - a football scout is met by the statistics of three players, who all scored the same number of goals, got similar numbers of assists, shots, passes etc. Until they go and see each player they won't know which one has natural talent or which one works harder than the others.
And from my personal experience, moving to the USA, I was told what it was like, I was told what to expect, but nothing can prepare you for the things that hit you when you finally arrive.
Hopefully you can see that personal experience is quite helpful really
I don't think he really said a whole lot. He said it quite well though.
All he did was point out there are obvious problems (which most people agree with), and says things should be different, but didn't give any suggestions about how we might go about doing that. I don't see how that's useful. We all know there are problems, but no one can agree about how to solve them.
If we're going to do anything about these problems we need concrete plans about how to tackle them. If he's really serious about it, maybe he should come up with some plans or get behind someone else who does. Simply criticising the current system without being able to offer any better suggestions isn't very constructive.
All he did was point out there are obvious problems (which most people agree with), and says things should be different, but didn't give any suggestions about how we might go about doing that. I don't see how that's useful. We all know there are problems, but no one can agree about how to solve them.
If we're going to do anything about these problems we need concrete plans about how to tackle them. If he's really serious about it, maybe he should come up with some plans or get behind someone else who does. Simply criticising the current system without being able to offer any better suggestions isn't very constructive.
Original post by cant_think_of_name
Oh no, I was wondering if you had any evidence for that or not. Personally it's my thought that a mixture of the two is probably best.
A study in daily spending money or something (this is completely made up) could tell you that a certain demographic has £10 a day to live on. But until you see that demographic for real (especially if you've grown up in a different environment) it's hard to imagine what that's actually like and what action should be taken.
On the sports field - a football scout is met by the statistics of three players, who all scored the same number of goals, got similar numbers of assists, shots, passes etc. Until they go and see each player they won't know which one has natural talent or which one works harder than the others.
And from my personal experience, moving to the USA, I was told what it was like, I was told what to expect, but nothing can prepare you for the things that hit you when you finally arrive.
Hopefully you can see that personal experience is quite helpful really
A study in daily spending money or something (this is completely made up) could tell you that a certain demographic has £10 a day to live on. But until you see that demographic for real (especially if you've grown up in a different environment) it's hard to imagine what that's actually like and what action should be taken.
On the sports field - a football scout is met by the statistics of three players, who all scored the same number of goals, got similar numbers of assists, shots, passes etc. Until they go and see each player they won't know which one has natural talent or which one works harder than the others.
And from my personal experience, moving to the USA, I was told what it was like, I was told what to expect, but nothing can prepare you for the things that hit you when you finally arrive.
Hopefully you can see that personal experience is quite helpful really
The problem here is you're not demonstrating it's relevance when it comes to, for example, living cost (which you mentioned). But, it's not hard to imagine though, if you've got access to the data that shows how much you need to live on then it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's a problem here in that people's needs aren't being met. Studies give us a better view of overall picture especially considering they'll have to control for things like location. I've got many family members who were/are on benefits and some of them were struggling and others were getting by, the main difference between the two was the way they budgeted their money and that is my point about why personal experiences aren't all that revealing. What if the MP saw someone who was living comfortably of it? Would that justify him making a certain policy decision? When a study, for example, show us the percentage of people struggling vs getting by on that amount of money as well as give us a bunch of reasons as to why it is and from there we can draw pretty good policy plans. If we found out that people were struggling but the reasons they were struggling was because of poor budgeting, why would the government raise the amount? It wasn't the money that was the problem, it was how people handled money and therefore governments can introduce initiatives like budgeting classes in school and for those receiving benefits.
Those examples you gave aren't proper comparisons because there are a bunch of things you need to actually see that the stats won't reveal whereas you haven't provided anything that can be revealed through personal experience but not a study when it comes to politics.
Original post by All,Some,AndNone
-Politics is narrow and only serves a few people
- We should not:
Destroy the planet
Create economic disparity
'Ignore the needs of the people'.
- The main reason for why people get to stand for election is due to a 'hierarchical system'
- Voting makes no difference to the state of the country and you should not vote.
- There is a significant underclass
- There should be a socialist egalitarian system
- Profit is a FILTHY word, and wherever there is profit there is deficit.
- There is massive corporate and economic exploitation ( of the majority)
- No one is doing anything about tax havens
- There will be a revolution (assuming that he is talking of the aforementioned revolution he touched upon)
-Politics is narrow and only serves a few people
- We should not:
Destroy the planet
Create economic disparity
'Ignore the needs of the people'.
- The main reason for why people get to stand for election is due to a 'hierarchical system'
- Voting makes no difference to the state of the country and you should not vote.
- There is a significant underclass
- There should be a socialist egalitarian system
- Profit is a FILTHY word, and wherever there is profit there is deficit.
- There is massive corporate and economic exploitation ( of the majority)
- No one is doing anything about tax havens
- There will be a revolution (assuming that he is talking of the aforementioned revolution he touched upon)
Bolded everything I agree with.
(edited 10 years ago)
It's true that Russell Brand doesn't say anything remotely original, and anyone would be hard-pushed to come up with viable solutions, let alone some ex-junkie comedian off the telly. However, I think he genuinely cares about the mess that society is in, and since his fame has afforded him a platform for speaking his views, kudos to him for using it to address real issues instead of spouting the nonsense that most celebs of his generation do. He is extremely charismatic and articulate in the way he expresses himself, so if his message manages to reach a wider audience then good for him, at least he's doing something.
I actually think Paxman has a lot of respect for Brand and enjoys debating with him, otherwise he wouldn't interview him on more than one occasion. His job is to expose the flaws in his interviewee's arguments and that is what he did.
I actually think Paxman has a lot of respect for Brand and enjoys debating with him, otherwise he wouldn't interview him on more than one occasion. His job is to expose the flaws in his interviewee's arguments and that is what he did.
Original post by Psyk
I don't think he really said a whole lot. He said it quite well though.
All he did was point out there are obvious problems (which most people agree with), and says things should be different, but didn't give any suggestions about how we might go about doing that. I don't see how that's useful. We all know there are problems, but no one can agree about how to solve them.
If we're going to do anything about these problems we need concrete plans about how to tackle them. If he's really serious about it, maybe he should come up with some plans or get behind someone else who does. Simply criticising the current system without being able to offer any better suggestions isn't very constructive.
All he did was point out there are obvious problems (which most people agree with), and says things should be different, but didn't give any suggestions about how we might go about doing that. I don't see how that's useful. We all know there are problems, but no one can agree about how to solve them.
If we're going to do anything about these problems we need concrete plans about how to tackle them. If he's really serious about it, maybe he should come up with some plans or get behind someone else who does. Simply criticising the current system without being able to offer any better suggestions isn't very constructive.
I agree.
I think because he's a celebrity and he sounds so articulate everyone's making a big deal out of what he is saying, but he's not really saying anything new. He's not offering any solutions either so it's not all that helpful.
But I do agree with a lot of what he says and I think it's good he's talking about these issues because I think he may be reaching out to people who wouldn't normally care about politics, or who wouldn't understand/care the other side of the story when it comes to certain groups of people.
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
Firstly, lets acknowledge the fact that Conservatives have gained extra support (+6%) from the working class/non-working whereas Labor have lost support from the working class/non-working class (-8%) in the 2010 election in comparison to the 2005 election. The same thing between 2005 elections and 2001 elections, Conservatives gained 1% raise and Labor lost -7%. And the 2001 and 1997, conservatives gained a 3% raise and Labour lost -4%. [1] There's a pretty clear pattern emerging here, voters don't change preferences much unless something drastic happens, when you look at the history of the Labor party vs the conservative party, it's pretty clear why Labor has had majority support.
What political rage and protests? Rage isn't something that's quantifiable so I'm not going to bother getting into that, people are always going to feel certain rage because their wants aren't being met.[2] As for protest, there's been a couple of union protests + student protest and those have been since god knows how long. Working class people haven't united to protest against the system. I presume you're a young person (I am too), this so called political stagnation probably isn't something new and something that people have been proclaiming since again god knows how long. You're just older now therefore more perceptive to this. The only time I can think of where people might have been satisfied/happy with politics is when we won the world war 2 and even then I'm sure people got back to moaning about how it isn't being handled properly.
Again that's a bunch of bull**** that uneducated people spout to feel better about their lack of education aka that whole "street smarts" or this mythical "real world" that people harp on about. Some of them do, some of them don't. A lot of this studies consist of analyzing previous social policies and their success/failures or different countries approach and what we can learn from them. Some of it involves experimentation with new social policy. There are a bunch of revelations, if you want some google "social-policy think tanks" and see their latest studies. It depends on what you're referring to, sociology is pretty big field, I know there's very few sociologist who wouldn't support a less criminal outlook of drugs and support decriminalization/legalization policies. But, it's a social science so it isn't going to be perfect and there's going to be a lot of disagreements but it's still miles better than personal experience.
I'm simply against diversity for diversity sake, if you look at the demographics of house of common of the years you'd see there becoming more diverse (especially tories). And yet here you are complaining about how the nation is becoming ****ter, if I was some bigoted right-wing dude I could blame it on the diversity but I'm not and I can recognize the weakness of diversity influence in the grand scheme of things.
1 - http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2613&view=wide and for the years, just click on "How Britain voted in [insert year you want]".
2. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=2437&view=wide - just go through different years and look at the satisfaction level varies between 20-50 and rarely ever goes above 50 and also look at people seem to be more satisfied with the prime minster as the year goes on (2013)
See Ipos-mori is another excellent resource that helps paint clearer picture about the social climate within the US then your intuitive/experience-
What political rage and protests? Rage isn't something that's quantifiable so I'm not going to bother getting into that, people are always going to feel certain rage because their wants aren't being met.[2] As for protest, there's been a couple of union protests + student protest and those have been since god knows how long. Working class people haven't united to protest against the system. I presume you're a young person (I am too), this so called political stagnation probably isn't something new and something that people have been proclaiming since again god knows how long. You're just older now therefore more perceptive to this. The only time I can think of where people might have been satisfied/happy with politics is when we won the world war 2 and even then I'm sure people got back to moaning about how it isn't being handled properly.
Again that's a bunch of bull**** that uneducated people spout to feel better about their lack of education aka that whole "street smarts" or this mythical "real world" that people harp on about. Some of them do, some of them don't. A lot of this studies consist of analyzing previous social policies and their success/failures or different countries approach and what we can learn from them. Some of it involves experimentation with new social policy. There are a bunch of revelations, if you want some google "social-policy think tanks" and see their latest studies. It depends on what you're referring to, sociology is pretty big field, I know there's very few sociologist who wouldn't support a less criminal outlook of drugs and support decriminalization/legalization policies. But, it's a social science so it isn't going to be perfect and there's going to be a lot of disagreements but it's still miles better than personal experience.
I'm simply against diversity for diversity sake, if you look at the demographics of house of common of the years you'd see there becoming more diverse (especially tories). And yet here you are complaining about how the nation is becoming ****ter, if I was some bigoted right-wing dude I could blame it on the diversity but I'm not and I can recognize the weakness of diversity influence in the grand scheme of things.
1 - http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2613&view=wide and for the years, just click on "How Britain voted in [insert year you want]".
2. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=2437&view=wide - just go through different years and look at the satisfaction level varies between 20-50 and rarely ever goes above 50 and also look at people seem to be more satisfied with the prime minster as the year goes on (2013)
See Ipos-mori is another excellent resource that helps paint clearer picture about the social climate within the US then your intuitive/experience-
This is of course no real surprise as Labour's financial under-regulation drove the economy into a credit crunch. This however had to be rectified through harsh cuts and more aggressive banking policies. The Conservatives would constantly use this incident as a way to discourage voters from voting for Labour (which in hindsight was quite hypocritical). And in the spirit of class, I'd like to mention how only 9% of Labour MPs in 2010 have done manual and clerical work (as opposed to almost 40% in 1979), perhaps skills gained by experiencing work might have come in handy? I imagine the number has only dwindled since. Labour like to over-represent the working-class but don't seem to know what it's like to actually live as a working-class citizen.
Labour were pretty much relegated in terms of who will win the majority vote at the 2010 election. There's was not a great deal of confidence in either the Conservatives and Lib Dems hence the coalition.
If you believe it's not worth talking about, we won't go into protests.
Where did you sprout that assumption from? Politicians need to be educated, of course, but at the same time, real-work experience is highly recommended. If books and reading studies are all you need to become a politician, then why do the working-class majority believe their voices are not being heard?
Also I feel it isn't right that aspirant politicians are being shut out of politics because of the class they belong to.
Tories diverse? In what sense? I'm complaining about our country becoming ****ter? Nothing of the kind. I think relative to most countries, yes, the UK is doing brilliantly, but more can be done to improve UK politics.
Very poor (and disappointing) statistics for a country such as the UK.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=88&view=wide
Since the 2010 elections, the level of dissatisfaction has generally increased non-progressively.
"The level of satisfaction rarely every goes above 50" - are you contented with that? Why might this be the case? The overall gatherings from the statistics suggest that the UK is suffering from political stagnation, and has been for a while now.
The level of satisfaction for the conservation party this year is at 35%. 65% (i.e. the majority) are unhappy with the current political state. It isn't the case where a few people complaining for the sake of complaining, it seems the majority are unhappy because their needs are not being met. Such stats should not be brushed under the carpet because "it's just the trend".
Original post by Psyk
I don't think he really said a whole lot. He said it quite well though.
All he did was point out there are obvious problems (which most people agree with), and says things should be different, but didn't give any suggestions about how we might go about doing that. I don't see how that's useful. We all know there are problems, but no one can agree about how to solve them.
If we're going to do anything about these problems we need concrete plans about how to tackle them. If he's really serious about it, maybe he should come up with some plans or get behind someone else who does. Simply criticising the current system without being able to offer any better suggestions isn't very constructive.
All he did was point out there are obvious problems (which most people agree with), and says things should be different, but didn't give any suggestions about how we might go about doing that. I don't see how that's useful. We all know there are problems, but no one can agree about how to solve them.
If we're going to do anything about these problems we need concrete plans about how to tackle them. If he's really serious about it, maybe he should come up with some plans or get behind someone else who does. Simply criticising the current system without being able to offer any better suggestions isn't very constructive.
I agree but it could be argued that it's the job of a good politician to come up with these changes (which is what he/she is ultimately being paid to do). Russell Brand is not a politician and doesn't claim to be. Nor does he expect people to listen and agree with everything he has to say.
Also, was Brand not asked to be interviewed? His questions brought about his responses (whether you think his responses were generic or not).
Original post by the bear
no he is a millionaire ****wit
So a person who has moved from rags to riches cannot comment on socio-political injustice?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Iamyourfather
I agree but it could be argued that it's the job of a good politician to come up with these changes (which is what he/she is ultimately being paid to do). Russell Brand is not a politician and doesn't claim to be. Nor does he expect people to listen and agree with everything he has to say.
True. Which makes me think Paxman had a point about him not being qualified to answer.
He's allowed to have his opinion of course, that doesn't mean his opinion is very useful. I don't see what it achieves pointing out how wrong everything is and then not making any suggestions about how to improve it. He didn't even have many specific criticisms, it was mostly just a general "it's all wrong". The most specific thing he said was about how the House of Commons is decorated.
Original post by Iamyourfather
This is of course no real surprise as Labour's financial under-regulation drove the economy into a credit crunch. This however had to be rectified through harsh cuts and more aggressive banking policies. The Conservatives would constantly use this incident as a way to discourage voters from voting for Labour (which in hindsight was quite hypocritical). And in the spirit of class, I'd like to mention how only 9% of Labour MPs in 2010 have done manual and clerical work (as opposed to almost 40% in 1979), perhaps skills gained by experiencing work might have come in handy? I imagine the number has only dwindled since. Labour like to over-represent the working-class but don't seem to know what it's like to actually live as a working-class citizen.
Yeah but here's the thing, that trend exist both in 2005 and 2001 election as well i.e. before financial crisis. It might have made more working class people vote for labor but it's pretty dumb to vote for a politician because he used to be a plumber or whatever. One of the few prime minsters in our country to not have come from a privileged background and/or attended oxbridge (didn't even attend university) was a member of the conservative party, if you look at satisfactions levels, it goes down as his term progresses. Not exactly a beacon of hope that working class politicians will save us now is it when toffs are getting better satisfaction level?
I'm not saying it isn't worth talking about, you were making it seem like that there's been a massive increase in protests from working class people when there's no evidence to suggest this.
You seem to under this impression that it's possible to suit everyone's need, Cameron's priority isn't the working class, it's the country. His isn't there to make decisions that country wants, his there to make the decisions the country needs. This is true for any prime minster, I might not agree with their assessment but that intent is still there and it's the right intent. And similar with MPs.
This is of course no real surprise as Labour's financial under-regulation drove the economy into a credit crunch. This however had to be rectified through harsh cuts and more aggressive banking policies. The Conservatives would constantly use this incident as a way to discourage voters from voting for Labour (which in hindsight was quite hypocritical). And in the spirit of class, I'd like to mention how only 9% of Labour MPs in 2010 have done manual and clerical work (as opposed to almost 40% in 1979), perhaps skills gained by experiencing work might have come in handy? I imagine the number has only dwindled since. Labour like to over-represent the working-class but don't seem to know what it's like to actually live as a working-class citizen.
Yeah but here's the thing, that trend exist both in 2005 and 2001 election as well i.e. before financial crisis. It might have made more working class people vote for labor but it's pretty dumb to vote for a politician because he used to be a plumber or whatever. One of the few prime minsters in our country to not have come from a privileged background and/or attended oxbridge (didn't even attend university) was a member of the conservative party, if you look at satisfactions levels, it goes down as his term progresses. Not exactly a beacon of hope that working class politicians will save us now is it when toffs are getting better satisfaction level?
If you believe it's not worth talking about, we won't go into protests.
I'm not saying it isn't worth talking about, you were making it seem like that there's been a massive increase in protests from working class people when there's no evidence to suggest this.
Where did you sprout that assumption from? Politicians need to be educated, of course, but at the same time, real-work experience is highly recommended. If books and reading studies are all you need to become a politician, then why do the working-class majority believe their voices are not being heard?
Also I feel it isn't right that aspirant politicians are being shut out of politics because of the class they belong to.
Also I feel it isn't right that aspirant politicians are being shut out of politics because of the class they belong to.
You seem to under this impression that it's possible to suit everyone's need, Cameron's priority isn't the working class, it's the country. His isn't there to make decisions that country wants, his there to make the decisions the country needs. This is true for any prime minster, I might not agree with their assessment but that intent is still there and it's the right intent. And similar with MPs.
Edmund Burke
To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.
"The level of satisfaction rarely every goes above 50" - are you contented with that? Why might this be the case? The overall gatherings from the statistics suggest that the UK is suffering from political stagnation, and has been for a while now.
The level of satisfaction for the conservation party this year is at 35%. 65% (i.e. the majority) are unhappy with the current political state. It isn't the case where a few people complaining for the sake of complaining, it seems the majority are unhappy because their needs are not being met. Such stats should not be brushed under the carpet because "it's just the trend".
The level of satisfaction for the conservation party this year is at 35%. 65% (i.e. the majority) are unhappy with the current political state. It isn't the case where a few people complaining for the sake of complaining, it seems the majority are unhappy because their needs are not being met. Such stats should not be brushed under the carpet because "it's just the trend".
Yes because satisfactions isn't the be all end all, there are other better measurements of success of a prime minster (e.g. economy levels, inequality indexes, crime stats, civil liberties index etc etc). A Guardian (Daily Mirror) reader is never going to be satisfied with a conservative government even if they're aligned politically because of Guardians bias, same with a Telegraph (Daily Mail) reader with a Labor government. Unhappiness isn't as big of a problem you're make it out to be, the only time we're going to get a huge proportion (i.e. more than 70%) of people satisfied is posting winning a defensive war and even it might not happen. Britain has a lot of different people with different interest, you really need to stop thinking that all these interest can be met.
(edited 10 years ago)
Everyone is jacking off to him on facbook and twitter and saying how wonderful he is, but if you look behind his moderately large vocabulary, all he essentially said was:
you shouldn't vote
politicians don't represent most people
we're harming the environment
there is too much inequality
you might agree with that, but it's not original or intelligent. there's nothing new here, he's just another figure wannabe politicos on twitter latch onto because he's counter-culture.
you shouldn't vote
politicians don't represent most people
we're harming the environment
there is too much inequality
you might agree with that, but it's not original or intelligent. there's nothing new here, he's just another figure wannabe politicos on twitter latch onto because he's counter-culture.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Uni of Leicester vs Uni of Kent
- H&M x Mugler Collaboration
- Does what university I go to matter for an Actuarial Science degree?
- Going out with a 45 year old.
- University of Dundee or QMUL?
- Is Coventry Uni a good uni?
- Will going to Trent lower my graduate prospects?
- Is there anyone less funny than Miranda Hart?
- Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
- How is Cardiff University?
- Biomedical science russel group university
- Is Lidl bad quality?
- Three C's russell group in clearing?
- Gap year after receiving good results worth it?
- Is the Russell Group still relevant?
- advice on expanding fashion sense?
- UCAS decisions advice please !!
- doing gel nails at home
- I work in Harrods! - ask me anything
- Should I defer? Durham vs Cardiff
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
