Since when is Russell Brand such an expert on politics ?

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 – we 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 not 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

Robert Webb is a 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 **** hate that tit Mitchel as well and dont get me started on Stephen Fry. **** 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!?!

No, it was a quote from Noam Chomsky, who has spent many years making similar points to Brand, but with a lot more detail.

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.