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.

I hope that banging away on Internet forums isn’t one of those things that counts as “actually doing something” in your world.

A better way is required.

We’d be better off pickin MP’s the same way we pick jurors. Even corporations are more democratic than the UK

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 people to make complete tits of themselves, 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 drive these changes and to represent others and who are far more likely to stick with it 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.

That’ll do a great job of engaging the massive proportion of the huge Question Time audience that isn’t interested in politics.

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….

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?

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 actively & 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 http://inequalityforall.com/ 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.

Paxman is just part of the charade here. Newsnight is just Punch and Judy for the politically engaged.