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

Indeed Roger - but he is a CELEBRITY, and that's what counts,

aaah THM, you can cryptically cross reference threads all day long if you wish.. it adds no strength to your position whatsoever 😆

pouring scorn on everything he says for no reason other than 'but he's a celebrity' is err, wierd

Let's hope that folk are not merely deluded by his fantasy world and sense of meaningless escapism

That sounds like he has offered an alternative, yet earlier the criticism aimed at him was that he had not done so.

He has merely pointed out problems as he sees them, those who's full time jobs it is to find solutions to these problems have failed miserably, yet somehow he is at fault for saying so publicly.

Just following your example yunki - remember the first cross reference? - and your chain of thought!!!

His call for debate has been lost roger because people who don't agree would rather discuss his personal problems and style of delivery. Then those that agree get accused of being suckered in by celebrity. Round and round we go...

He's not fault. Just not very good at it, but brilliant at promoting "Brand Brand"....and who are the suckers?

His call for debate has been lost roger because people who don't agree would rather discuss his personal problems and style of delivery. Then those that agree get accused of being suckered in by celebrity. Round and round we go...

typical of the traditional style of government.. and everything that stinks about it

I'm heartened though, as usually THM has some very well thought out and sensible contributions to make in political debates (even if a little naive and misguided)

but at the moment we can see he's spluttering and grasping at straws.. 😀

Phew, just a "little naive".....that's a relief!

And at what stage in the process of clutching straws do we resort to personal attacks I wonder!?!

Anyway work to do - enjoy!

you're an economist or an accountant or something aren't you THM?

The mans a cretin.

He's obviously angered you, evidenced by your continuing diatribe against him, but is there really any need to use a terrible medical condition which has devastating effects on the sufferer, as a term of ad hominem insult?

I don't know why people are claiming he's some sort of 'spokesperson' for anyone; he's not, and doesn't claim to be. He's just voicing his own thoughts. As we all are doing on here. Difference is, he has a much bigger audience. Is that what stings so much? Are you pissed off because more people pay attention to him, than they do to you? Diddums.

As for Benjamin Zephania; top man, met him a few times, even had the pleasure of working alongside him on an anti-racism project many years ago. He turned down an MBE; something for which he'll always have my respect:

Me? I thought, OBE me? Up yours, I thought. I get angry when I hear that word "empire"; it reminds me of slavery, it reminds of thousands of years of brutality, it reminds me of how my foremothers were raped and my forefathers brutalised. It is because of this concept of empire that my British education led me to believe that the history of black people started with slavery and that we were born slaves, and should therefore be grateful that we were given freedom by our caring white masters. It is because of this idea of empire that black people like myself don't even know our true names or our true historical culture. I am not one of those who are obsessed with their roots, and I'm certainly not suffering from a crisis of identity; my obsession is about the future and the political rights of all people. Benjamin Zephaniah OBE - no way Mr Blair, no way Mrs Queen. I am profoundly anti-empire.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/nov/27/poetry.monarchy

Almost nobody criticising Brand here has addressed his point, just smeared his background, character, lifestyle and personality.

Congratulations, you're the new politics and you prove his point completely

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

That "illusory standard of living" has provided central heating, clean drinking water, secure food supplies, education for the kids, entertainment... Why should the "soulless" masses revolt?

I think distribution of wealth has something to do with it Mogrim..

The general plan being keep the masses happy with the bare minimum required to keep them apathetic..

And make 'em grovel and feel lucky about it

Almost nobody criticising Brand here has addressed his point, just smeared his background, character, lifestyle and personality.

Congratulations, you're the new politics and you prove his point completely

Nothing new about that - the Romans certainly knew a fair amount about "playing the man, not the ball"...

@whippersnapper & ormondroyd- and that's precisely my point and his problem.

His point is so easily derailed and subverted because of who he is, how he behaves and his delivery style.

The rights and wrongs are of this are irrelevant, it's just how things work.

I think distribution of wealth has something to do with it Mogrim..

The general plan being keep the masses happy with the bare minimum required to keep them apathetic..

And make 'em grovel and feel lucky about it

I'd say equality of opportunity is far more important than wealth distribution - and both are considerably better now that at any time in the past.

I'd say equality of opportunity is far more important than wealth distribution - and both are considerably better now that at any time in the past.

Really! 😯 social mobility has reduced massively over the last 30 years, and distribution of wealth is at its worst for generations.

They're only subverted if you choose to take that line on anyone who isn't the " valid kind of person" to speak out. His point, in part, is that that list of people is controlled by the self-interested in the established media, political and corporate class. He's right.

He makes well argued points here, but it's easier for people, clearly, to bury their heads and not even try to constructively disagree. Look at the very title of this thread!

As he puts it...

The reality is there are alternatives. That is the terrifying truth that the media, government and big business work so hard to conceal. Even the outlet that printed this will tomorrow print a couple of columns saying what a naïve ****er I am, or try to find ways that I've ****ed up

Mogrim, Yunki has it.

As has ormondroyd.

His point is so easily derailed and subverted because of who he is, how he behaves and his delivery style.

Hmmm, his behaviour is no worse than some of the politians in this country. Who else is everyone going to agree to listen to? No one is my guess.

(Edit. Never had a "wu'undred" before. Walks off chuffed. No revolution for next few moments, small things)

social mobility has reduced massively over the last 30 years, and distribution of wealth is at its worst for generations.

Maybe over the last 30 years (although I doubt that social mobility has worsened), but historically we've got it pretty good - compare it to victorian times, or pre-war...

Mogrim, Yunki has it.

As has ormondroyd.

I'm not sure they do. They seem to be assuming the "masses" are actually "sheeple", unaware of the supposed cage that houses them. I'd say they look at what really happens when you have a revolution, note that the fridge is full and the lights are working, and want nothing of it.

Maybe over the last 30 years (although I doubt that social mobility has worsened), but historically we've got it pretty good - compare it to victorian times, or pre-war...

Well life is better than the dark ages is a different claim to "considerably better now that at any time in the past".

Maybe one of the silver linings post WWII was that there was a real reaction that we should move forward as a society to improve everyone life. We lost that in the 80's.

That "illusory standard of living" has provided central heating, clean drinking water, secure food supplies, education for the kids, entertainment... Why should the "soulless" masses revolt?

In a modern society, with all the advances in technology, utilities infrastructure, nutritional knowledge etc, these things should be standard for all. Instead, we have Winter Fuel Allowances, disproportionately high rises in fuel costs (whilst energy companies continue to increase profits) Food Banks, increasing child poverty and it costs £9000+ a year for university fees. All backwards steps, and the indications are this trend will continue unless something is done to reverse it.

Maybe [i]that's[/i] why the 'soulless masses' should revolt.

Mogrim - not everyone is that well off.

But the points he is making go much wider. You're not addressing his points on representation and democracy, which is the main thrust of his argument

@whippersnapper - hardly a benchmark of aspiration! ? 😀

The reality of whats happening today is that the post-war consensus - which lest we forget, was ushered in by people who thought that after putting their lives on the line and enduring tears of terrifying hardship, they deserved a bit more in return - is being systematically dismantled by a self interested 'elite' who want to return us to the same levels of inequality as we had before. Witness who has benefited from our supposed economic 'recovery. Feel like you have? Because I bloody don't!! But the ones at the top have seen their completely unequal share of the spoils gallop away unchecked, like the crash never happened.

Then again.... never mind all that crap.... the person who is pointing out this uncomfortable truth looks like a bloody hippy, and has probably got syphillis, brought about by his filthy, debauched, immoral lifestyle, so we won't be listening to anything he has to say. Thats a working class upbringing for you. No morals see, those filthy proles!

Sweet Jesus - its like some of you have been transported, via some blip in the time/space continuum, into the internet from the 1950's. And your line of attack, and desire to dismiss his opinions as illegitimate says a damn site more about you, than it does about him. And none of its good!

I'm sure he's reasonably bright but he's not standing out in terms of intellect. I'm sure he impresses the yoof of today with his colourful language. That, coupled with his high profile status make him a good platform to project from.

One of his major problems with addressing adults is that his overly verbose style of speech/writing is so tedious it's painful.

Nothing new said (that's before you even go down the road of agreement with his verbal vomit!), vacuous content, along with appalling delivery make him an unappealing read/chat show guest.

So null points from me!

Edit: if he's so disillusioned with politics, he should enter into it and do something rather than subject us to his whining.

Binners your BP must be off the scale!! Calm down dear :D.

Anyhoo - I was going to respond to Ormonroyd's point re representation - spot on sir. People feel disenfranchised and that the system is broken but a revolutionary zealot ranting will not move them to action. They may be apathetic and some may not be the sharpest knives in the drawer but they do have engine of change within their grasp if only they had someone to motivate them. I fear theat RB is not the person to do this.

The system as it stands can be changed from within simply by mobilising the vote and say FU to the big parties and electing independents, small parties, some radicals, etc - a quiet revolution using the mechanisms in place. But his would need a more convincing spokesperson than RB - Zephenia on the other hand...

I'd say they look at what really happens when you have a revolution, note that the fridge is full and the lights are working, and want nothing of it.

I see your point, and I am one of the masses, one of the apathetic sheeple, the majority..
I would much rather have a cup of tea than have to go outside into the rain to fight tooth and nail in a bitter endless war against my neighbours, probably ending in a shitty disease riddled death in an alley, teeth knocked out and face crushed under the hobnailed boot of an old friend..

Bloody revolution is an abomination and far too rich for the blood of the modern British public..

Paxman derailed him briefly with the revolution red herring, Brand is young, and rebellious and romantic and liked the sound of it..

But perhaps a revolution of conciousness, an embryonic idea that we can and that we really really must change the system, and that the time is now, more than ever..
That we will, somehow find a way to end the disparity and the hold over us that the Eton Mafia have protected for so long..

That with modern communication and transparency, the veil of deceit is slowly crumbling and the magic hold is being revealed as a cheap and nasty conjurers trick..
That it's no longer acceptable to have a sprinkling of token good people peppered sparsely among the braying elite, chipping away fruitlessly from within as a gesture of hope..

That it's time somehow to start pulling it apart instead and building a fairer and more just future..

perhaps?

Yunki - think you may just be the man for the job. 😀

Parliamentary Democracy is a sham--window dressing-- as much relevance as mannequins in a shop.

This illusion has been peddled for so long , its tiresome, pretty irrelevant to most people , yet the establishment clings ever tighter to these outmoded tricks.

Brand just happens to have got a bit of 'air time' and instead of celeb self promotion he has chosen to speak on more universal matters. This in itself presents no real threat to the status quo, but the big unreported demo on tuesday night on the other hand is a threat, in the way mass movements always scare ruling orders...

A revolutionary party is needed , but it must be an international one in its outlook, for obvious reasons it won't be on a ballot paper .!

teamhurtmore - Member

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

Did you see Brand last time he was on? No he didn't demolish anyone, but he god on with making good points in his ridiculous manner, while making others around him look ridiculous for making bad points in their serious manner... More than one way to skin a cat. Demolishing people is satisfying but where does it really get you? How many people will think differently afterwards?

teamhurtmore - Member

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.

Absolutely. And yet, when was the last time these smarter and more down-to-earth people actually got it in the public eye, let alone got people talking about it and thinking about it like this?

Brand doesn't claim to be having an original thought here, he's just voicing a position which is shared with many others, in a venue which is available to him but not them.

And yet, when was the last time these smarter and more down-to-earth people actually got it in the public eye, let alone got people talking about it and thinking about it like this?

so the public listen, talk about it on forums and tweet about it on facebook. how can Brand make the apathetic disenfranchised nation care about their ****** up futures and take action?

how can Russel Brand help us to 1) get another referendum on voting and 2) get us to vote 'yes' to something fairer than first past the post?

You've got it Yunki.

Global coms is educating everyone, it's getting harder for the political elite to pull wool over the populace's eyes (why do think the governments are scrambling to control it). The internet is the disruptor and will change our political society just as Amazon has changed the way we shop.

Brand is part of that change.

As for living standards. I am far more educated and work harder than my Dad. My wife works where my Mum looked after us kids. I am relatively well off but I can't see myself getting to the lifestyle that they have enjoyed.

I really feel for the nurses at the NHS and the stackers at Tesco. We don't just need food in the fridge (that should be a basic in the 21st century) we need the promise that if we work hard we will have a better life. It seems to me that most in this country can barely maintain there life let alone dream of moving ahead.

Global coms is educating everyone

That's why it's the answer.

We don't need MPs any more.

Yunki - think you may just be the man for the job.

but that's just it.. there is no 'man for the job', that's where RBs detractors fall down..

'he didn't say this', and 'he used to do that' and 'what does [i]he[/i] know about the other', 'what can [i]he[/i] do about it', 'what right has [i]he[/i] got to an opinion'

When change comes it will be orchestrated by millions, and if RB or any like him can motivate a few more people to [i]seriously[/i] consider change then his work is done surely?

brakes - Member

so the public listen, talk about it on forums and tweet about is on facebook. how can Brand make the apathetic disenfranchised nation care about their ****** up futures and take action?

how can Russel Brand help us to 1) get another referendum on voting and 2) get us to vote 'yes' to something fairer than first past the post?

Brand's desire isn't a voting referendum or a switch to a different sort of institutionalised parliamentary democracy, so that's not the best question IMO.

But, the PR referendum had a great many smart and informed people behind it, yet completely failed to generate mass appeal. Maybe they could have done with a few Brands.

The system as it stands can be changed from within simply by mobilising the vote

Part of the point is making is that it can't. And I agree with him: Everything is set up to entrench the status quo of politics being owned and controlled by a bunch of Oxbridge PPE graduates. First-past-the-post massively reinforces big parties and when there's finally a chance to defend it, the campaign against it is utterly dishonest (i.e. put in a very complex type of sub-proportional-representation as a straw-man and then say how complex it is).

As that "Robert Webb is a Prick" blog put it:

Such is the case with Robert Webb, one half of Mitchell and Webb, who wrote a piece in the New States­man this week cas­tig­at­ing Brand and claim­ing he would be re-?joining the Labour Party in response. In the vis­ion of demo­cracy Webb out­lines to Brand, which is based on the primacy of the vote, “elec­tion day is when we really are the masters”.

That is, for 1,826 out of 1,827 days, which is the length of the last Labour Party gov­ern­ment, UK voters were not really the mas­ters: someone else was. Another way of put­ting this is that under Brit­ish lib­eral demo­cracy, accord­ing to Webb’s descrip­tion, UK voters are not really the mas­ters 99.945% of the time, or, for short, 100% of the time.

I voted Lib Dem last time. Do you think I got what I voted for? Of course I didn't, but it was excused by top-level politicians as being done on a "mandate" of "the national interest". A hatchet job which utterly disenfranchised my contribution at the last election.

maybe they could have done with a few Brands.

exactly. he needs to team up with others, form some kind of revolutionary supergroup and take on the [u]man[/u].

Global coms is educating everyone, it's getting harder for the political elite to pull wool over the populace's eyes (why do think the governments are scrambling to control it). The internet is the disruptor and will change our political society just as Amazon has changed the way we shop.

I disagree, the odd blog does not counter the power of the established media giants.

When the closing of the shipyard was announced this week, it was only a sidebar story on the BBC website, the main story was a man flying around a mountain with a jetpack. In depth reporting by the major media players is getting worse, and most of the important detail is just swamped by celebrity trivia.

I saw Tony Benn make a great point once: Why is the slight fluctuation of the FTSE index a mainstream daily news item, when a lot of things of more direct daily relevance to more people aren't. His example was trade union activity - e.g. discussing events at a major trade union's congress.

But I do think there is a point about the effect of the internet, and that's why big states are mobilising every surveillance weapon they have against it.

The other point Tony Benn made is very relevant here: He retired from the house of commons "to spend more time on politics". He felt he had more effect and engagement just being out there talking to people, because the political system was so sewn-up.

That's pretty much what Brand is doing. He might not be 100% correct on everything here, but he's articulating a much better point than Robert Webb is in response, I think.

You can tell which direction the power is swinging in by the way successive governments act in their contempt for the wishes of the electorate.

This has reached its pinnacle in Dave and chums. Lets just remind ourselves that they didn't actually win the last election. On a pathetically low turnout, with Gordon Brown as their main opposition, they failed still to get a majority. Yet to look at the way they've behaved since, you'd think they had just achieved the most thumpingly massive landslide in electoral history.

They have absolutely no electoral mandate for anything they've done whatsoever.None of this (privatising the NHS and the school system, dismantling the welfare state) ever appeared in any manifesto. But do they look like they give a toss about this minor inconvenient fact?

In the vis­ion of demo­cracy Webb out­lines to Brand, which is based on the primacy of the vote, “elec­tion day is when we really are the masters”.

Webb really is deluded if he truly believes that.

Anyway, addressing the original point: Russell Brand has been poor, rich, addicted, clean, grown up in working class slums, lived in posh places, and dealt with a vast range of people in the process.

Whereas most of our top-level career politicians grew up in privilege and did the same "qualifications for the boys" course at the same two elite universities.

So... why are we asking "Since when is Russell Brand such an expert on politics?". I think the question's better directed at the people actually doing the politics.

Far smarter AND far more down-to-earth people are actually doing something about it rather than indulging in more self-promotion.

A better way is required.

I'm seriouslly consider standing as a candidate for the "Russell Brand Revelution Party" in the next election. I bet we'd have more twitter followers than the "real" parties. In a way we've already won.

Northwind - Member
Did you see Brand last time he was on?

Yes, he was poor IMO.

Demolishing people is satisfying but where does it really get you? How many people will think differently afterwards?

Ok, demolishing was not a great word but was watching QT at the same time. What I love about the freedom of speech is that it allows [s]people to make complete tits of themselves, [/s]sorry, allows views to be scrutinised, challenged and exposed for being absurd (where appropriate).So Farrage tried his usual "shout over everyone else trick" (as used by Galloway, Prescott, Starkey etc) and was clearly rattling the ladies from Labour and the Cons. But then zephaniah calmly debunked what he was saying without the need for Brand's excesses and made him look absurd. In many ways, that is what Paxman did to Brand himself on Newsnight.*

And yet, when was the last time these smarter and more down-to-earth people actually got it in the public eye, let alone got people talking about it and thinking about it like this?

What economists might refer to as the "crowding out effect." Lots of people work extremely hard to address the (valid) points that Brand raises and tend to stick at it. They are the people who should be listened to (and are).But instead we are "suckered" into believing that we require a "celebrity" (who ironically is a very good example of how social mobility is actually very alive and kicking) to be a representative of the people, when he is nothing of the sort.

Brand is like the clever cold reader and uses the same techniques to promote himself. You start with making non-contentious points that no one will dispute. Subtle and smart. And then you twist them and manipulate them in the way a medium or stage entertainer does, no doubt getting a "kick out" of it in the process. The result is that you are seen as someone that you not, possessing powers that you do not have. Great for his ego.

He has a history of standing up for good causes and should be applauded for that. But to what extent does he follow them through? I will leave you to decide, but you will see why I chose the moth analogy. No surprise that his editorial stint at the New Statesman was a temporary one. A shame as I would love to see how he could use his written skills to lead that particular platform.

...bottom line, there are far better people to [b]drive these changes[/b] and to [b]represent others[/b] and who are far [b]more likely to stick with it[/b] IMO.

* an indication of the extent to which self promotion is involved here was his use of the word Paxman rather than Newsnight in yesterday's Guardian. No surprise that sees the individual and the show as being synonymous. Poor Gavin, Emily and Kirsty. Not gone, but clearly forgotten!!

Genuine question Binners - what exactly do you expect a coalition to do? Exempt themselves from any decisions, execute no policies etc. Keep the seats warm until the next election?

economists whilst doing an absolutely vital job are about as sexy as a pile of unwashed dishes..

whilst someone like Brand, who hasn't invested years of his life with his head in dull books, can pop up with a bit of charisma earned through life experience, and sweep the nation off it's feet with a mindless flap of 'is flowery jaw..

You feel threatened, cheated even perhaps.. you thought it was your time in the sun, that the new politics would provide you with opportunities.. but Brand has made you realise that you will never get your chance to shine..

you is just massively crushingly jealous sonny.. and a virgin 😛

economists whilst doing an absolutely vital job

Economists are just the religious leaders of the modern era, spouting dogma.

And THM using celebrity as proof of social mobility, really? Statistically minute exceptions do not prove the rule.

100% correct yunki how did you know? Are you a cold reader too?

Actually I contradicted myself, instead of cold reader I should have said RB is like a politican. There we have it, circle squared. He is the perfect choice after all. 😉

I hope he will still be there to pick the nation back up again. Doubt it somehow.

Lunch over - back to useless existence now.

...bottom line, there are far better people to drive these changes and to represent others

He's arguing exactly that!

RB is like a politican

he IS a politician for generation Y.
oodles of rhetoric with a hash tag infront.

I don't think you're reading what he's saying.

Luckily with organisations like them, Occupy, Anonymous and The People's Assembly I don't need to come with ideas, we can all participate. I'm happy to be a part of the conversation, if more young people are talking about fracking instead of twerking we're heading in the right direction. The people that govern us don't want an active population who are politically engaged, they want passive consumers distracted by the spectacle of which I accept I am a part.

Genuine question Binners - what exactly do you expect a coalition to do? Exempt themselves from any decisions, execute no policies etc. Keep the seats warm until the next election?

I don't expect them to go far beyond either party's manifesto

But then zephaniah calmly debunked what he was saying without the need for Brand's excesses and made him look absurd.

Genuine question Binners - what exactly do you expect a coalition to do? Exempt themselves from any decisions, execute no policies etc. Keep the seats warm until the next election?

Well, when you've said specifically in your manifesto 'there will be no more top down re-organisations of the NHS', and remember this....

[img] ?imgmax=800[/img]

then you promptly embark on a completely ideological top down re-organisations of the NHS, to privatise it! And best not mention Clegg and this eh?

[img] [/img]

He's just a massive socialist and would fit in well with socialist exonomies with the likes of Cuba.

then you promptly embark on a completely ideological top down re-organisations of the NHS

Well exactly. Although it's clearly a mixture of those who are [i]actively[/i] & mendaciously hoping for the fragmentation of services, and those who have very little clue as to what an utter clusterfug they have unleashed (despite clear warnings from the frontline).

Either way, the coming winter is going to be grim.

teamhurtmore - Member

What economists might refer to as the "crowding out effect." Lots of people work extremely hard to address the (valid) points that Brand raises and tend to stick at it. They are the people who should be listened to (and are).But instead we are "suckered" into believing that we require a "celebrity" (who ironically is a very good example of how social mobility is actually very alive and kicking) to be a representative of the people, when he is nothing of the sort.

Cause comes before effect, traditionally- Brand isn't crowding anyone out, he's adding an extra voice to a lot of frankly unheard ones and speaking to an audience they're not reaching never mind engaging with.

Well we shall see NW we shall see. But interesting to read the latest:

He said: "At the next election we shall have a choice between the people who've given us five years of austerity, the people who left us this mess, and the people who signed public pledges that they wouldn't raise student fees, and then did so – the most blatant lie in recent political history."

No wonder this annoyed Cleggy. So what do you reckon to these "words of the people"?

I think it was a blatant lie, but not the most blatant in recent political history. Silly to focus on that one point really when the real problem is that everyone who voted liberal may as well have voted tory.

Everything else in the paragraph is clearly true.

Cause comes before effect, traditionally- Brand isn't crowding anyone out, he's adding an extra voice to a lot of frankly unheard ones and speaking to an audience they're not reaching never mind engaging with.

Agreed. I would like to see this [url= http://inequalityforall.com/ ]http://inequalityforall.com/[/url] Robert Reich seems to be exactly the appropriate voice some on this thread are looking for (well at least in the states) but unfortunately i doubt he would kick off the same storm that RB could.

Exactly, so thank goodness we have folk like Paxman * who come straight to the point instead of having to tolerate flowery BS!!!

* sorry (slightly cheap shot 😉 ) but this is a quote from Paxman's RT article today. Makes so much more sense that Brand's ramblings doesn't it.

Paxo to lead the revolution (of consciousness)!!!

So what do you reckon to these "words of the people"?

they have imbued me with a raging melancholic duplicity from which I fear I may never resurface

teamhurtmore - Member

Exactly, so thank goodness we have folk like Paxman * who come straight to the point instead of having to tolerate flowery BS!!!

And would he have written this without Brand's appearance? Sorry but your post is proving the other side's point- Brand has got people talking.

Are we still discussing RB, or have we started to debate what he said?

@Northwind - if he has caused any of the disenfranchised to become politicised then good, but will they act.

Probably not NW, hence my OP, "since the BBC felt the need to dumb down Newsnight." or words to that effect.

Paxman probably did as much and I will wager will be pushing politicians buttons more effectively and long after the moth has flown to his next bright light.

But in answer to your question, yes he (Paxo) does it the whole time, which partly explains why Cleggy got a bit hot under the collar today.

I think it was a blatant lie, but not the most blatant in recent political history.

Very subjective whatever way we look at it, but my case for the prosecution is that hundreds of thousands of people were promised they'd pay nothing, and will now be paying tens of thousands of pounds. That's quite big

Paxman probably did as much and I will wager will be pushing politicians buttons more effectively and long after the moth has flown to his next bright light.

And this isn't a "bright light" for Paxman? He's entrenched in the system. I like him, he's very good at what he does, but he's not going to run with the agenda once it stops being current big news

Russell Brand's mother Jo, was earlier quoted as saying 'I ate an entire cake once before I realised it wasn't a cake at all, it was my husband's face.. Blimey'

yesterday the press hated him for being a sex mad ex heroin addict

I think the press and politicians hate him for being liked and being honest - I think that's what's often known as jealousy.

I find Paxman overly pugilistic. I'd be nice to see people carefully and calmly outmanoevre people instead of battering them.

He's obviously angered you,

Angered? Not really, he's just a celebrity popinjay not a child murderer.

evidenced by your continuing diatribe against him, but is there really any need to use a terrible medical condition which has devastating effects on the sufferer, as a term of ad hominem insult?

I doubt he cares what I called him, it was used as a general derogatory term not a direct reference to somebody suffering a thyroid condition. If it offends you then that's too bad.

I don't know why people are claiming he's some sort of 'spokesperson' for anyone; he's not, and doesn't claim to be. He's just voicing his own thoughts. As we all are doing on here. Difference is, he has a much bigger audience. Is that what stings so much? Are you pissed off because more people pay attention to him, than they do to you? Diddums.

LOL Sucks thumb, gurgles, chuckles, shits in nappy.

Paxman probably did as much and I will wager will be pushing politicians buttons more effectively and long after the moth has flown to his next bright light.