Very entertaining, is Mr Brand, unlike quite a few who have responded to this thread,but at least he makes you think and and have a laugh at the same time.

The trouble with evolution is those with power will do everything within their power to protect their power.

indeed we often praise our democracy as ace because it has evolved
What this means is that the families of the powerful in the 16 th C are still,largely, the elite today and very little has changed

they throw the odd crumb, to keep their position, but they never give true access to the table

Brand is irritating but I agree with much of what he says and at least someone is saying it.

It’s nonsense to suggest you can’t criticise the status quo unless you have perfect solutions to every problem.

The tone of the response suggested it was her (we have previous!!!) especially as I noted that my voting patterns would be determined by the vote! Yes, in the end she voted with the government – she ignored me! – but I was interested that she (or the researcher) did at least make a stab and explaining why and on such a busy day. Oddly I felt engaged in the political process as a result.

Pretty good example of how the political system lets people think they are engaged when in reality their contribution is utterly meaningless. I’ve written to my local MP several times and only ever received stock replies which don’t answer my questions and parrot the party line they’ve been instructed to follow by their whips.

I live in such a safe Tory seat that one vote hardly matters, but unlike Brand I will still choose to exercise that right.

Again perfectly proving his point – by voting (Tory no doubt 😉 ) you are adding legitimacy to a system where you know your vote is effectively meaningless.

The incredibly low turnout in the the police commissioner elections at least sent a message that the public had no faith in the system.

“Naive, populist drivel”

To be fair if this WAS a democracy, if it is popular, it would be the way things work!

so amend your sentiment please, its either:

Not populist drivel
or
The system is rigged to serve those in power?

just sayin!

I wouldn’t watch his stand up but I would watch him on Question Time. I’m with those who like him a little more each time he does something like this. He’s different to the majority of those involved in politics and that makes him ‘interesting’.

Well grum, I was thinking about your comment (and my meaningless contribution to democracy) while cutting grass this afternoon and more of what Brand was arguing against and for.

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 (…talks like a drunk?).

Then your comments, which made me think. Ok grum what you are proposing is basically apathy or perhaps at the more extreme level anarchy. Funnily enough Brand picks up on this in the NS article and defends apathy for much the same reason as you do (the legitimacy argument). Interesting, even if I dont agree.

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.”

Did I say he wrote like a don? Anyway with that self-description (tongue-in-cheek or not) he should perhaps be grateful for our tolerance and indulgence. Not many societies would!

What this means is that the families of the powerful in the 16 th C are still,largely, the elite today and very little has changed

Pish.

But more generally I’m with Brand. If anyone was facetious in the interview it was Paxman.