[Closed] Since when is Russell Brand such an expert on politics ?

I think he is just personally clever. No PR team could have trained him to perform as he did with Paxman.

Regardless of whether or not one agrees with him, I don't see any reason why an articulate passionate individual should not take an opportunity to speak about politics given the chance.

It's when he graduates to 'pundit' that he should just shut the up.

EDIT: self-censorship

Who actually cares what he might think ?

Not me.

He's clever int he.. And history has shown that we could do much worse than pay attention when someone clever has something to say, just in case something useful comes out of their gob..

I remember years ago he was interviewed by Nuts magazine (or similar) and they described him as "terrifyingly clever".

I was amused at the thought of Nuts magazine and their riders finding intelligence to be terrifying.

He just shoe horns large and uncommon words into sentences and his mouth obviously works faster than his brain. Pre existing paradigms n that innit Guvnor.

He does have more charisma in a single whisker of his goatee than the entire house of commons put together which makes him an entertaining watch for millions of people who don't know the first thing about politics.

I find his perfunctory non-deference for simple parlance quite anachronistic.

Wouldn't say he is an authority, more sharing his opinions. His recently appointed Editorial position and Public image brings this to our front rooms.

Wether or not his opinions (and weak solutions) are credible are irrelevant but at least his musings make the general Public (free) think, instead of being fodder fed the press / politicians etc etc

He's very outspoken and very good at it, he's caught the medias eye with his opinions I doubt very much he'll claim he's an expert.

I don't see any reason why an articulate passionate individual

Sorry, I thought we were talking about Russell Brand? I think verbose is more his style, somewhat removed from articulate. Suffering from verbal diarrhea might be more apt.

He's a damn sight more articulate than half the political gobshites I hear yammering on daily on the Today Show.

Since Newsnight was required to dumb-itself down?

Ha Ha Ha he'll be waving one of those absurd "No Cuts" placards soon.

How many people share the opinions he's voiced about our supposed capitalist consumer utopia and our benign and democratically legitimate benefactors? Opinions formed from their day to day experience?

Lots

How many of those are given a platform to voice their criticisms of the neo-liberal consensus, that seems to serve the interests of fewer and fewer people?

Erm..... None

Hence people's enthusiasm for his recent outbursts.

Politics and media ownership in this country is now exclusively a self-aggrandising, London-centric closed shop, dedicated entirely to its own interests and that of its rich friends, to the total exclusion of everyone else. So it's hardly surprising that when some frightful working class oik eloquently and passionately articulates this, then it tends to strike a chord with a lot of people

And if you took the trouble to read or listen to what he said, he never claimed to be an expert. Far from it! The opposite in fact. So if you think that, it's probably more of a comment on you than him, and how prepared you are to question the opinions the corporate media spoon feeds you

Clever? Seriously? Ringing up an old duffer on live radio(you know the rest) clever?

Somebody posted that paxman interview on arsebook re the new statesman piece, my response:

[i]got to 1.00m but the utopian rehashed communism with added environmental naivety meant the pause button was clicked. look at the bigger picture and all i see is declining sales of a magazine and a marketing departments brainwave to appease a willing doe-eyed audience lacking the ability to think beyond narcissism.[/i]

Rob webbs (from Mitchell and Webb) response

[i]Dear Russell
Hi. We’ve met about twice, so I should probably reintroduce myself: I’m the other one from Peep Show. I read your thing on revolution in these pages with great interest and some concern. My first reaction was to rejoin the Labour Party. The Jiffy bag containing the plastic membership card and the Tristram Hunt action figure is, I am assured, in the post. I just wanted to tell you why I did that because I thought you might want to hear from someone who a) really likes your work, b) takes you seriously as a thoughtful person and c) thinks you’re wilfully talking through your arse about something very important.

It’s about influence and engagement. You have a theoretical 7.1 million (mostly young) followers on Twitter. They will have their own opinions about everything and I have no intention of patronising them. But what I will say is that when I was 15, if Stephen Fry had advised me to trim my eyebrows with a Flymo, I would have given it serious consideration. I don’t think it’s your job to tell young people that they should engage with the political process. But I do think that when you end a piece about politics with the injunction “I will never vote and I don’t think you should either”, then you’re actively telling a lot of people that engagement with our democracy is a bad idea. That just gives politicians the green light to neglect the concerns of young people because they’ve been relieved of the responsibility of courting their vote.

Why do pensioners (many of whom are not poor old grannies huddled round a kerosene lamp for warmth but bloated ex-hippie baby boomers who did very well out of the Thatcher/Lawson years) get so much attention from politicians? Because they vote.

Many of the young, the poor, the people you write about are in desperate need of support. The last Labour government didn’t do enough and bitterly disappointed many voters. But, at the risk of losing your attention, on the whole they helped. Opening Sure Start centres, introducing and raising the minimum wage, making museums free, guaranteeing nursery places, blah blah blah: nobody is going to write a folk song about this stuff and I’m aware of the basic absurdity of what I’m trying to achieve here, like getting Liberace to give a shit about the Working Tax Credit, but these policies among many others changed the real lives of millions of real people for the better.

This is exactly what the present coalition is in the business of tearing to pieces. They are not interested in helping unlucky people – they want to scapegoat and punish them. You specifically object to George Osborne’s challenge to the EU’s proposed cap on bankers’ bonuses. Labour simply wouldn’t be doing that right now. They are not all the same. “They’re all the same” is what reactionaries love to hear. It leaves the status quo serenely untroubled, it cedes the floor to the easy answers of Ukip and the Daily Mail. No, if you want to be a nuisance to the people whom you most detest in public life, vote. And vote Labour.

You talk of “obediently X-ing a little box”. Is that really how it feels to you? Obedience? There’s a lot that people interested in shaping their society can do in between elections – you describe yourself as an activist, among other things – but election day is when we really are the masters. We give them another chance or we tell them to get another job. If I thought I worked for David Cameron rather than the other way round, I don’t know how I’d get out of bed in the morning.

Maybe it’s this timidity in you that leads you into another mistake: the idea that revolution is un-British. Actually, in the modern era, the English invented it, when we publicly decapitated Charles I in 1649. We got our revolution out of the way long before the French and the Americans. The monarchy was restored but the sovereignty of our parliament, made up of and elected by a slowly widening constituency of the people, has never been seriously challenged since then. Aha! Until now, you say! By those pesky, corporate, global, military-industrial conglomerate bastards! Well, yes. So national parliaments and supernational organisations such as the EU need more legitimacy. That’s more votes, not fewer.

You’re a wonderful talker but on the page you sometimes let your style get ahead of what you actually think. In putting the words “aesthetically” and “disruption” in the same sentence, you come perilously close to saying that violence can be beautiful. Do keep an eye on that. Ambiguity around ambiguity is forgivable in an unpublished poet and expected of an arts student on the pull: for a professional comedian demoting himself to the role of “thinker”, with stadiums full of young people hanging on his every word, it won’t really do.

What were the chances, in the course of human history, that you and I should be born into an advanced liberal democracy? That we don’t die aged 27 because we can’t eat because nobody has invented fluoride toothpaste? That we can say what we like, read what we like, love whom we want; that nobody is going to kick the door down in the middle of the night and take us or our children away to be tortured? The odds were vanishingly small. Do I wake up every day and thank God that I live in 21st-century Britain? Of course not. But from time to time I recognise it as an unfathomable privilege. On Remembrance Sunday, for a start. And again when I read an intelligent fellow citizen ready to toss away the hard-won liberties of his brothers and sisters because he’s bored.

I understand your ache for the luminous, for a connection beyond yourself. Russell, we all feel like that. Some find it in music or literature, some in the wonders of science and others in religion. But it isn’t available any more in revolution. We tried that again and again, and we know that it ends in death camps, gulags, repression and murder. In brief, and I say this with the greatest respect, please read some ****ing Orwell.

Good luck finding whatever it is you’re looking for and while you do, may your God go with you.

Rob[/i]

Only a fool would have him as the arbiter of political thought for the common man, has he got a book out or something? The mans a cretin.

Lol at the tory lapdogs spewing bile.. Mind your ulcers now chaps 😆

You don't have to be an expert to tell everyone what you think about a subject. This forum is a good example of that.

If you are famous what you say is more widely reported, not necessarily more right.

FWIW I thought Brand and Paxman both made fair points. The current crop of career politicians are a bunch of self interested ****s.

tried to listen to PMQs the other day the level of a whoopin, a hollerin and jeering was ridiculous, it was like a crowd at a WWE wrestling match

you could barely hear the stage managed, spin doctor prepared soundbites of bullshit churned out by the respective party leaders

in that respect he has a point

I like what Webb has said in that letter, but I only think Brand is a cretin if he continues to spout off like that, and turns it into a schtick.

As for the telephone prank, I agree that it was reprehensible on every level. But because of my unmitigated loathing for Jonathan Ross, I prefer to lay the blame for that fiasco entirely on him. 😛

He's fulfilling the classic jester role - saying what everyone is thinking (inequality and disenfranchisement is rife) but are too entrenched in their positions to say.

Our current system is unsustainable - I for one welcome someone starting the conversation on alternatives.

Binners, how many of his fellow "working class oiks" (if that is the correct description) give a toss about a "revolution of the consciousness." Or perhaps they pass it off a pretentious BS that most grow out of after Uni or giving up drugs?

There are far more eloquent and intelligent people out there capable of presenting the needs of "working class oiks" better than RB

There are far more eloquent and intelligent people out there capable of presenting the needs of "working class oiks" better than RB

Yeah but they won't get on newsnight and go viral on the interwebz. At least someone is stirring up some trouble.

But it isn’t available any more in revolution. We tried that again and again, and we know that it ends in death camps, gulags, repression and murder.

If we don't do revolution any more, we do what we do now. Stagnate.

Does it matter if there are more qualified / intelligent people to represent the point of view. The Jester has the charisma, audience, independence and intelligence to start the conversation.

It's not sudden, he's been saying the same things since his days on XFM ten years ago.

Exactly my point THM. There are probably more eloquent people. How many of them will be given a platform to voice their opinions by an entirely corporate owned media and political system?

None. So in the absence of an alternative, he'll do for me. It seems that it's taken as read that once you've made a bit of money, then you're expected to keep your mouth shut and tow the party line . He hasn't. Good on him!

As he said himself - when he was poor and criticised the rich establishment, he was labelled bitter and envious, when he's rich and does it, he's labelled a hypocrite

Sound familiar?

wasn't the jester's job to tell the King that he was being a bell-end without fear of having his head chopped off?

His irrepressible and charismatic style, coupled with his innate ability to concisely articulate his point make him a perfect spokesperson.. No doubt there are others that will offer more depth to the argument, but as a spokesperson he's hard to beat, perhaps impossible to beat even..

Why on earth would we expect one human to have all the attributes required to provide a solution? I blame too many superheroes on TV when we were kids

He's a comedian. Only his jokes aren't funny.

Robert Webb manages to write in an even more flowery and baroque way while saying even less, interesting.

Brand doesn't have to be an expert to state the bleeding obvious- whoever you vote for, the government gets in. You have a couple of choices, and there's a pretty good chance you think all the realistic options stink and the unrealistic options are no better than just not voting at all.

I think what this and the last thread show is that some people like him, some people don't and some are ambivalent - but only some. Such is the nature of the likes of RB, that's he's unlikely to provoke ambivalence. The views of those three groups are decided before they even listen and evaluate what he's said. They will find justification in whatever way suits them to agree with or denigrate his opinion - but mostly, it seems, to use personal insults or elements of his past questionable behaviour to denigrate it.

Such is the way of today's soundbite driven opinions and editorial. Most of us have decided whether we'll agree or disagree with something someone says before he or she even says it. Nobody ****ing thinks about stuff anymore (well, y'know, not nobody but too many). I'll watch QT later. I've already decided that everything the stuffed puppets say is going to be bollocks because it's likely they may not even mean it anyway.

Our system stinks, that's for sure. But we all ****ing stink with it. And the stuffed puppets braying shit through the tellybox this evening know it. And they're smilingly smugly on the inside about it.

And where does this idea that one has to be an expert come???

When exactly are you qualified to express your opinion?

his innate ability to concisely articulate his point make him a perfect spokesperson

he is anything but concise. and to be articulate you need clarity. he does not have clarity.

Oh don't be silly.. The words that he chooses are precise and accurate, over your head maybe but precise, which is a rarity

And spoken with passion. Not " his not very precise... He's got no clarity" how bleeping beige can you get

[quoteWho actually cares what he might think ?

Some of the 9 million that have viewed the Paxman interview on youtube for starters.

I think what this and the last thread show is that some people like him, some people don't and some are ambivalent - but only some. Such is the nature of the likes of RB, that's he's unlikely to provoke ambivalence. The views of those three groups are decided before they even listen and evaluate what he's said. They will find justification in whatever way suits them to agree with or denigrate his opinion - but mostly, it seems, to use personal insults or elements of his past questionable behaviour to denigrate it.

It's not really about him though (for me) it's about the system that readily promotes a popular figure to the position where every word is given credence as the somehow unheard voice of the disaffected who are bored of politics. He's not offering a new way or some radicle theory for the new world. He's bent over, some PR breeze has parted his cheeks and we have to listen to what spews forth.
It could have been anyone from the pages of the daily mail/hello/failed britains got x talent dance factor contestant but they chose a scruffy ex-comedian druggy with a flawed moral compass and an over inflated sense of self worth.

I think the idea that somehow you need to be qualified to have an opinion on how your life is run by other people (as the title of this thread, and some of the comments suggest...) is pretty much part of the problem.

It's clear that all those weighing into him haven't listen to a word he's said, beyond the tabloid headlines

I never thought I'd find myself defending the bloke - I couldn't stand him - but since reading some of his stuff, he talks a lot of sense! And he's as much right to voice his opinion as anyone else.

But if you've made your mind up already .......

Preposterous 😀

I think the point is that we shouldn't have to put all our faith in some starchy buffoon who has lived a blameless life of little or no substance..

It's wasteful and a sleight of hand trick that neatly empowers those in power with the power to take away power from someone simply for not conforming to an impossible ideal.. Hmm, very ****ing handy indeed

There's plenty of intelligent folk down amongst the dregs.. Why should the Whigs and toffs have it all their way..?
You mr smith are letting them shaft you in the butt and defending their right to do so..

you great wally 😆

He is a tosser, I mean the politicians are tossers to but at least they can be assed to polish their shoes.

There's plenty of intelligent folk down amongst the dregs.. Why should the Whigs and toffs have it all their way..?
You mr smith are letting them shaft you in the butt and defending their right to do so..

you great wally

Poppycock! Whigs and toffs? How about the showbiz/media mafia? I would rather they plucked somebody off the street and gave them the media channels he had at his disposal, an everyday person is not going to have a self publicist agenda.

We are all being shafted only I'm not touching my toes willingly 🙂

Brand could always stand for public office, he might even get elected, I doubt he would like the pay cut 😉

Balderdash tosh and piffle..
If they had plucked someone from the street no-one would have taken a blind bit of notice.

Gotta respect someone who's ploughed Katy Perry - lucky sod.

bokonon - Member
I think the idea that somehow you need to be qualified to have an opinion on how your life is run by other people (as the title of this thread, and some of the comments suggest...) is pretty much part of the problem.

I never said you needed to be qualified I have never really taken to the pompous chap so therefore cant listen to his mock cockney voice !

I guess he's a bit like marmite !

Just to falsify your hypothesis Binners, heres what I said last week...

teamhurtmore - Member
As I was in danger of coming up with some misconceptions especially about his choice of the word revolution (cutting grass I thought that was a completely inappropriate choice and one only befitting a drunk adolescent) I thought I had better adopt that classic THM tactic of reading what he actually said!! So I take the revolution criticism back - in the article, he is talking about a revolution of consciousness. Ok thats BS but at least harmless BS, Not sure that came across in the Paxman interview....

...But ultimately, my thoughts turned to the idea that Brand should look hard at his own life and be careful what he wished for. Hats off to him for recovering from a lousy early life. But equally, how many societies would ultimately tolerate, indulge and reward his chosen lifestyle to the degree that ours has? As he puts it, he has benefitted from the crass (my word) culture of celebrity that (in his words), "has just banjoed the arse of another sacred cow and a Halloween-haired, Sachsgate-enacting, estuary-whining, glitter-lacquered, priapic berk...who has been undeservedly hoisted upon another cultural plinth."

Rather than having a bright moth fluttering around the lamp of celebrity/media that he so obviously craves, the people he attempts to represent would be better served from having a more appropriate spokesperson IMO

Its your opinion that's woefully out of date thm

Which bit yunki?

You would rather someone more appropriate but not necessarily as good

Rather than having a bright moth fluttering around the lamp of celebrity/media that he so obviously craves, the people he attempts to represent would be better served from having a more appropriate spokesperson IMO

This (except the moth bit. More of a dozy fly buzzing round the turd of celebrity bullshit)

Well at least he's got the conservative ( small 'c') types flustered and that's a very good thing, lets hope that more people from a broader spectrum are likely to be taken seriously in the future as a result.

he's more like the dung beetle, pushing the celebrity bullshit around for all to see - [u]we[/u] are the dozy flies trying to get a sniff, a lick of the lovely tasty celebrity bullshit and then take it home and put it on Faecesbook

I never said you needed to be qualified

Apologies - I felt that some degree of qualification was implied by the use of the word "expert" - I really think that people who do not consider themselves experts on politics should be empowered to talk about it - leaving it to the experts is what got us into the situation we are in, were there are very few normal people in parliament, and lots of people who went to expensive schools (like me) with postgraduate educations (like me) and generally, people like me end up talking about politics - the fact that he didn't got to an expensive school and doesn't have a postgraduate education is a good thing in terms of prompting people [i]not[/i] like me to talk and think about politics - however annoying he might be.

Not at all, I would rather have someone good. He makes some valid points but looses it all in the BS and the unnecessary embellishment. How many folk in the pub would argue about a revolution of consciousness or muddle up important message in the way he does in The Guardian today? Not many IMO.

So now you're saying that he should dumb down, that his ideas are too highbrow?

Anyway..
He's a noob to all this, Let's reserve judgement for a bit hey?
His first day on the job, and he undergoes a baptism of paxman.. The boy did alright in my book..

He's made you squares squirm too, which is nice 😀

No he's just not very good. Compare his BS with the way Benjamin Zephaniah (he poet) has just demolished Farrage in QT.

Zephaniah any day. Brand as little as possible.

P.s. thanks for all the words put in my mouth and for the "square" bit. For the second time today, I would point you in the direction of the tattoo you mentioned earlier.

Fair enough.. Two sides of the same dice though

Rather than having a bright moth fluttering around the lamp of celebrity/media that he so obviously craves, the people he attempts to represent would be better served from having a more appropriate spokesperson IMO

That's right lets call off the revolution until we can find someone appropriate.

I tend to prefer the flawed Brand who has lived a life of errors and learned from them. He's seen enough to understand how the world works.

But of course I'm sure we can find some altruistic soul who has no interest in self promotion.

Benjamin Zephaniah (he poet) has just demolished Farrage in QT.
Zephaniah any day.

Good point... Now who is this Zephaniah lad???!! Which (insert starlet band) member was he with?

Here's a very good reply to Robert Webb's article

http://criticallegalthinking.com/2013/11/04/robert-webb-prick/

Let’s say there have been two kinds of neg­at­ive response to Brand. First you have people on the left exas­per­ated at people treat­ing Brand’s inter­ven­tions as some kind of rev­el­a­tion, and treat­ing him as some kind of mes­si­anic fig­ure, given his his­tory and cur­rent pos­i­tion of privilege. Then you have oth­ers who view Brand’s inter­ven­tions as an affront to their con­ceived notions about the exist­ing polit­ical sys­tem, and even a threat to the proper func­tion­ing of that sys­tem. He must be shown to be wrong. So Brand is a wealthy ego­ma­niac, an ‘adoles­cent waffler’ (Joan Smith, The Inde­pend­ent), and even a proto-?fascist who sym­path­ises with ‘the death cults of ultra-?reactionary reli­gious fun­da­ment­al­ists’, as well as someone who writes like a ‘pre­co­cious pre­pu­bes­cent’ (Nick Cohen, The Observer), or talks like a a ’17-?year-?old cider enthu­si­ast’ (Don­ald Clarke, The Irish Times).

You couldn’t say this kind of thing is unex­pec­ted. Whatever legit­im­acy the exist­ing polit­ical and eco­nomic sys­tem has is in no small part the product of intense striv­ings on the part of people who identify with and believe in that system’s basic legit­im­acy. Some of these people, espe­cially those who believe the sys­tem has bestowed a sweet smile upon them and recog­nised their worth, will find it hard to res­ist the oppor­tun­ity to slap down, with no small amount of glee, any kind of attempt, how­ever strug­gling, to artic­u­late some kind of rad­ical con­crete opposition. The demon­stra­tion of super­ior powers of reas­on­ing, the act of tear­ing apart the con­fu­sions of some poor sap, the ample biceps of polit­ical matur­ity flexed along­side the puny flap­ping twigs of the polit­ical pre­pu­bes­cent for all to see—dear oh dear, what a mess, tsk! tsk! tsk!—can be passed off as evid­ence of the Reason of the Super­ior Power.

Now who is this Zephaniah lad???!!

A man who went to prison for Burglary?

The point being here that both him and RB have been off the rails, shouldn't diminish what people think of their opinions, or how one articulates those opinions when compared with the other.

At the end of the day, the vast majority of the narrow choice of candidates we have come voting time are in league with corporate interests, often with huge salaries beyond their public service pocket money from various directorships and consultancies.

It doesn't take an expert to work out that is a pretty ugly situation, which is hugely skewed away from a fair society in the interests of the greater good.

Bring on the revolution!!

I'm glad he's got the discussion started. Surely if democracy does work, the whole point of it is debate, and people proposing alternative ideas.

I do tend to agree with a lot if what he is saying, although I'm not convinced not voting is the solution. But most of all I think it's unfair to suggest that because he's done a few questionable things in the past that means he is incapable of forming a valid opinion. So much of politics is politicians avoiding the issues that matter and divert attention to things that are irrelevant but more newsworthy.

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”

I agree with Binners, people should read what he actually said and wrote. So instead of talking about political change or the need to address income inequality he doesnt talk of revolution but "a revolution of consciousness". WTF is that about?

And then the quote above. The last sentence really is the word of the common man!?!

But to confuse matters further, the highbrow idea is equally incorrect. Just read his opening line in the Guardian today,

"I've had an incredible week since I spoke from the heart, some would say via my arse, on Paxman."

Hardly highbrow journalism! So no one better wait until Brand sorts himself out before we get change. That might never happen! Far more sensible to just find a better spokesman.

Russel brand could quite happily be sat by a pool in LA, drinking cocktails, and having girls helicoptered in (the bastard!). But instead, he's decided to put himself in the firing line of the usual suspects by voicing his very valid opinions.

Could anyone seriously stand up and say that our present political system had even a hint of validity or democratic legitimacy? No matter which party is in power? Seriously?

I'm constantly baffled as to how people who are being****ed over on a daily basis don 't protest more. It's because we all know our political system is totally dysfunctional, represents nothing but corporate self-interest, and had no validity whatsoever. But what do you do? The occupation and subsequent victory of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School has been so complete, that, short of a Syrian situation, how do you challenge it?

So RB voicing this, without knowing the answers, is more valid than ever. Because anyone without loads of money, and a moral compass, knows our present political consensus is completely and utterly corroded, and fails to represent 95% of the population, but where do you start.....

Ummm... THM if you did actually read his essay you'd see he's talking about breaking away from societies current way of thinking.

Given some of the responses here its obviously harder than it should be.

Exactly the wanderer..

People can have plenty intelligence, but if they have never really explored the world outside of the narrow prescribed parameters, there seems to be a part of their brain that hasn't fully matured and developed into adulthood.

And these are the people in charge, and the people trying to keep them in charge.. I find it all very disturbing

Exactly! Which is why there is now a total disconnect between politics and the majority of the population. I watch the balloon-headed * Dave at PMQ's and he might as well be talking from Papua New Guinea as from a part of my own country. Give the bankers more money, defend some cartels, privatise everything and gift yet more public billions to corporate interests, * the poor and disabled and disadvantaged over a bit more, then go and have a meal that costs more than most peoples monthly income. Job done.

How the **** did we end up here?

Robert Webb manages to write in an even more flowery and baroque way while saying even less, interesting.

If you are saying he sounds like a **** too I agree. I ****ing hate that tit Mitchel as well and dont get me started on Stephen Fry. ****wit inttelectual snobs the lot of them.

Having said that at least all of them.are prepared to say wgat they think, better than most politicians or famous faces.

Wot binners sed.

And then the quote above. The last sentence really is the word of the common man!?!

That's not a criticism of Brand, by the way. I agree with him basically, and with Binners and others who have said it's good that he's speaking up. The arguments against seem to be that he has a dubious past or that people don't like the way he speaks/dresses/whatever. Which is irrelevant and no better than politicians avoiding the question by answering a completely different one.

In some ways it couldn't be Anyone else who could raise these points.

The politicians would be laughed at

As would the media

As would an academic

They all have too much to lose

Bono wouldn't do it

They don't pay attention to us at Singletrack - their loss! We can offer great tyre advice

So it needs to be someone who's doesn't give a monkeys but will be listened to.

= Brand

Whatever your personal feelings toward RB, he's started a conversation that many many folk have thought about over the last couple of parliaments anyway. In lots of ways Rob Webb has missed the point. He mentions Working Tax Credit surely the very definition of "crumbs from the table". There is no credible socialist based redistributive party that represents his (or mine for that matter) views

The conversation that RB has started is long overdue. The two parties that claim to represent us are right of centre (one slightly more right than the other) with not so much as a fag paper to separate their manifesto promises. I'm willing to bet money you'd not get better than 50% right in a blind test of policy announcements, between labour and tory. and the other lot just lie.

election turnout is falling, the system we have of politic management is bent. A better way is required.

then go and have a meal that costs more than most peoples monthly income. Job done.

Just like Russell Brand does.
But no, he's got long hair, doesn't shave, looks like a mouthbreather and doesn't wear a suit. I can trust him. Not like those politicians.

I would suggest that those who find it difficult to identify or relate to RB's main point, exemplified by this as an example:

"a revolution of consciousness". WTF is that about?

Are already suckers of the present system, fearful in the knowledge that this current system is the only thing protecting an illusory standard of living, with mortgages, debt and working 9 to 5 to pay the gravy train. Notwithstanding their fears of anything other than the microcosm of their soulless lives, with little belief in anything other than their bank balance and the next big television that will grace their living rooms. Sad.

Not surprising to find such fear here on STW forum, take a look if you can be arsed at the tripe spouted so often by the athiest's desperately trying to prove themselves right. Right about what? The unknown!

RB actually speaks about the revolution of consciousness in terms of a spiritual change, something that is totally lost, not only on here, but also in the masses of fodder fed people who have been taken in by the spin and propaganda of the few for whom such BS serves to keep them comfy.

Another box of "None of the above" on every ballot paper would at least be a start if we're going to even consider our current political democratic system being actually and truly democratic.

As that "sucker" Alice (albeit not displaying the symptoms as described) I will give an alternative interpretation. There is nothing new nor not understood in Brand's basic message. The perceived gulf between the politicians and those they represent, the consensus in solutions proposed and policies executed, the inequality in income distribution across the globe and man's negative impact on the world around him/her. Far smarter AND far more down-to-earth people are actually doing something about it rather than indulging in more self-promotion.

Brand represents and is a symptom of another rotten pillar of modern society. The society that has indulged and worshipped his lifestyle, that promotes celebrity above talent and hard work and that supports the dry shallow consumerism that we are meant to despise. Perhaps those being "suckered" are those who feel need to support or be represented by symbol of that broken society rather than a symbol of a much better one.

Still as others have said, if it takes that obvious contradiction to achieve some genuine debate, then so be it. That will be a good thing. Personally, I see the same moth and the same bright lights!!!

ahhhh

fer goodness sake

he's a great tool for garnering public support.. that makes certain folk nervous and upsets their view of the traditionally dour and puritanical heirarchy, which most are now agreeing is a stifling and unworkable regime

laughable

I hope he goes from strength to strength and gets a great team of thinkers behind him

It's time to turf out these victorian buffoons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Well yunki, we shall see wont we. Let's hope that folk are not merely deluded by his fantasy world and sense of meaningless escapism, hey?

As most of the debates I have seen about the outpouring from RB seem mainly to be about RB and not the messages he is delivering, I would say he has failed if he wanted to engender a change in how the majority of people think about politics.