Last time he was on Question Time he appeared with Boris Johnson, he was a mere mortal compared to now though and seemed like he was there out of sheer novelty. Now he's a real man of the people, I really hope he does well on there.
Russell Brand - Moving Right
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Last time he was on Question Time he appeared with Boris Johnson, he was a mere mortal compared to now though and seemed like he was there out of sheer novelty. Now he's a real man of the people, I really hope he does well on there.
I hope someone finally puts this bloke to bed. If it has to be Nigel then so be it.
The QT audience will drown out any sensible debate with their incessant clapping and booing, like they do every week.
How much is increased living standards a result of capitalism and how much is a result of improved science and technology?
I mean, what youre saying is true of course but I think we're not necessarily measuring the right things.Capitalism is producing people with mental health problems, depression etc -then you have environmental problems. There is also not a lot of data to test socialism, because any socialist states to date have existed within a global capitalist system.
Is capitalism really producing those mental health problems and depression?
I would argue science and technology are a benefit that is at the very least enhanced by capitalism.
There is plenty of research that shows there is a direct correlation between mental health problems and nations with financial inequality. I think the system we have also breeds disingenuous behaviour, aggression, manipulativeness etc. As Brand likes to say - the incentives are wrong.
I think science and technology could still strive without capitalism - must scientists aren't money motivated. What capitalism has done is effectively manage and motivate people, but I think the public sectors need to learn from this and implement it themselves. I might be a wishy washy optimist but I think people are fundamentally motivated by more than just profit. Also, I think its worth sacrificing a bit of haste with scientific development if it meant focusing on truly worthwhile developments and in a nicer society.
Is it accurate/fair to say capitalism produced the good (Allen, Buffett, Gates) and the bad (Kochs, Trump)?
The Kochs and Trump are consumed by greed and power. I'd wager they likely posses sociopath tendencies.
The Kochs and Trump are consumed by greed and power. I'd wager they likely posses sociopath tendencies.
Everyone has sociopathic tendencies really. We're all egotistical, narcissistic animals - and we could all be right cnuts in the right circumstances. The problem with the current system is that the incentives are all wrong - to acquire, to dominate, to seduce, to be admired etc etc.
Farage likely won't fare much better than Peter Hitchens. If only Christopher were around.
I'd say those traits are coded deep enough in our DNA they'll bubble up to the surface whatever system we use. What with us being basically shaved apes an' all.
Can't imagine we lend any money to other countries? What would be the point? We don't have any.... Can understand if its all historical loans though.
So basically, its pension/investment funds etc who buy up government bonds and who keep everyone solvent(ish)
I had no idea who the Kochs were so I Google'd it, saw FCK as the initials and thought it said KFC. You and I were about to have words.
Fabian socialist clown. Posing like a parody version of Che Guevara while sucking dicks of the elite.
Most failed and retarded revolt I've seen lately along with Ferguson riots.
Most failed and retarded revolt I've seen lately along with Ferguson riots.
Anyone see him on Question Time there? He makes some decent points and he's got a lot of passion, but he's got a habit of often diverting absolutely everything onto politicians, corruption and wealth gaps. Which is understandable because he clearly cares about it, but he often ends up avoiding the question in the infuriating way most politicians do.
Still, enjoyed his wee rant against Farage he had at one point.
Still, enjoyed his wee rant against Farage he had at one point.
(Just as a little disclaimer, I'm very left wing in my politics so apologies if I've missed off any lower-level right-wing parties from my argument, but here goes anyway).
A lot of Brand's ideas are welcome in the grand scheme of things. Seriously challenging corruption and unfairness at the very top isn't new - but having someone on national TV delivering hard facts about things I really believe in, about bankers, politicians and Farage himself, is refreshing; especially when this country is at a political crossroads. Brand's intentions are honest and refreshing to hear, but crucially, the way he delivers them with populist tactics and ignorance is going to put people off him and the left wing altogether.
Telling people not to vote without presenting a clear alternative is foolish and evidence that Brand has a lot of work to do if he's ever to be taken seriously. Telling people that there's "nothing to vote for if you're left-wing" is completely misguided, especially when you have parties like the Greens, the SNP, the Pirate Party and even the Liberal Democrats to give your vote to. Brand's way of thinking creates a chasm of undecided voters for the likes of Miliband, Cameron and Farage to exploit, which goes against his wishes I'm sure. Parties like UKIP thrive off low turnouts because they can clearly influence enough people to join forces.
Brand is right: people in this country are disillusioned with the two main parties - that's why UKIP and the Greens are expected to do well in 2015. But that's the two main parties, not the hundreds that exist at lower levels of politics. Those sorts of parties could be given a vote by either left-wing voters who are despondent heading towards next year's general election, or right-wing voters who believe we've gone a bit soft in the UK. That's why UKIP are where they are: they've convinced their voters that they can make a change. Brand on the other hand is telling left-wingers that we can't make a difference because of his three main sticking points: corruption, bankers and oh, corruption.
Brand is driving his entire argument on the fact that around 50% of people in this country don't vote, but all he did last night was perpetuate the message that you either vote for nobody or vote for UKIP. He didn't use Question Time well enough to promote alternatives by waving the flag of the Greens, the SNP or any other lower-level major parties who could potentially land a few seats in Westminster, he just built a house for Farage to frolic in. Brand's criticisms about bankers, politicians and UKIP are absolutely valid, but it's no good criticising Labour, UKIP and the Tories without raising the profile of an actual alternative. Voting democratically is the only system we have in this country to make real political change, and Brand wants to do away with that? Not for me. I think my vote matters.
His heart's in the right place but his plan is misguided and needs work.
A lot of Brand's ideas are welcome in the grand scheme of things. Seriously challenging corruption and unfairness at the very top isn't new - but having someone on national TV delivering hard facts about things I really believe in, about bankers, politicians and Farage himself, is refreshing; especially when this country is at a political crossroads. Brand's intentions are honest and refreshing to hear, but crucially, the way he delivers them with populist tactics and ignorance is going to put people off him and the left wing altogether.
Telling people not to vote without presenting a clear alternative is foolish and evidence that Brand has a lot of work to do if he's ever to be taken seriously. Telling people that there's "nothing to vote for if you're left-wing" is completely misguided, especially when you have parties like the Greens, the SNP, the Pirate Party and even the Liberal Democrats to give your vote to. Brand's way of thinking creates a chasm of undecided voters for the likes of Miliband, Cameron and Farage to exploit, which goes against his wishes I'm sure. Parties like UKIP thrive off low turnouts because they can clearly influence enough people to join forces.
Brand is right: people in this country are disillusioned with the two main parties - that's why UKIP and the Greens are expected to do well in 2015. But that's the two main parties, not the hundreds that exist at lower levels of politics. Those sorts of parties could be given a vote by either left-wing voters who are despondent heading towards next year's general election, or right-wing voters who believe we've gone a bit soft in the UK. That's why UKIP are where they are: they've convinced their voters that they can make a change. Brand on the other hand is telling left-wingers that we can't make a difference because of his three main sticking points: corruption, bankers and oh, corruption.
Brand is driving his entire argument on the fact that around 50% of people in this country don't vote, but all he did last night was perpetuate the message that you either vote for nobody or vote for UKIP. He didn't use Question Time well enough to promote alternatives by waving the flag of the Greens, the SNP or any other lower-level major parties who could potentially land a few seats in Westminster, he just built a house for Farage to frolic in. Brand's criticisms about bankers, politicians and UKIP are absolutely valid, but it's no good criticising Labour, UKIP and the Tories without raising the profile of an actual alternative. Voting democratically is the only system we have in this country to make real political change, and Brand wants to do away with that? Not for me. I think my vote matters.
His heart's in the right place but his plan is misguided and needs work.
Love the idea that the SNP or Lib Dems are a viable alternative for the left 
This pretty much sums Brand up for me. He can't seem to grasp that campaigning for people not to vote is tantamount to allowing ideas he opposes to be operationalized when politicians like Farage get voted in.
I was really clutching at straws with the Liberal Democrats but a lot of left-wing people I know vote for the SNP.Love the idea that the SNP or Lib Dems are a viable alternative for the left
I like the cnut, I admit I do. At first like everyone who saw him I thought who the feck is this twat..and sometimes I still think Id like to slap him but you cant dispute his passion when it comes to the economic woes in the UK
Oh that's true, but as a protest vote it only applies to a very limited number of people Brand is trying to reach and has kind of reached the limit of its popularity.
Love the idea that the SNP or Lib Dems are a viable alternative for the left
Would be a good laugh if we got a coalition.
Great post,
Although, any argument Russell makes, has and is being made by people with a lot more credibility than him. An example being Caroline Lucus, who I think is a fantastic politician, who seems to get very little attention.
I really wish people did not feel a vote for the greens is a wasted vote.
An extract from his book:
That is rubbish but this cosmetic breakdown of his arguments tends to highlight their truthfulness, or at least, his opponents unwillingness to actually engage with what lies beneath the flowery tosh.
You've summed up the problem, people vote to stop another party getting in which is ridiculous and restricts the debate. If people started to vote only for party policy they agree and more votes were spoilt the direction of parties would shift.
Regarding Brand, Whilst I don't always agree with him someone needs to be aggressively talking about the issues the main parties won't, it's a fecking shambles that it has to be a comedian and not a credible left politician.
It is though, I'm sorry. But it is.
I live in Hertfordshire, its one of the safest Tory seats you can get. A vote for any one other than the Tory's is a wasted vote.
Lets put that into context, we had a turnout of 70.6% last election and a winning margin of 27.8%. Even if every other person who didn't vote in the constituency came out and voted Lib Dem (runners up) it would have been good enough for a winning margin of less than2%.
Thats not even to mention the fact that the supposed 'left wing alternatives' (of which the idea the Lib Dems are one is absolutely laughable) didn't even bother to field a candidate here, if I didn't want to vote for the big three my choices were the BNP or UKIP.
The idea that its worth my time voting is hilarious, I'm completely disenfranchised. There is nobody to vote for that supprts my views and, even if there was, my vote does not count and won't influence politics in this country.
He has no solution. He's just there for your entertainment so you can clap hands like a tard when he speaks about problems WE ALL KNOW ABOUT.
It's a joke and the sad part of it - its on the people living in real poverty from years. Another media clown not far from Alex Jones and his antics. The fat man from Austin, Texas also loves to pose as Jesus type figure.
Enjoy more of the same for decades with attention whore pseudo 'revolutionists' like Russel Brand.
It's a joke and the sad part of it - its on the people living in real poverty from years. Another media clown not far from Alex Jones and his antics. The fat man from Austin, Texas also loves to pose as Jesus type figure.
Enjoy more of the same for decades with attention whore pseudo 'revolutionists' like Russel Brand.
Is that you opportunistically using a photo of Brand at a charity event (the Bride of Britain awards?) to portray him as some how sucking up to the establishment and the royal family?
Sublime
I mean, it's incredibly tacky, makes a mockery of your argument and is generally a disgustingly manipulative act, but well played... it's ballsy.
Sublime
I mean, it's incredibly tacky, makes a mockery of your argument and is generally a disgustingly manipulative act, but well played... it's ballsy.
Nice try but please come at me when he'll come up with a serious solution instead of talking for another 10 years about problems he probably never experienced like people in real trouble right now.Is that you opportunistically using a photo of Brand at a charity event (the Bride of Britain awards?) to portray him as some how sucking up to the establishment and the royal family?
Sublime
I mean, it's incredibly tacky, makes a mockery of your argument and is generally a disgustingly manipulative act, but well played... it's ballsy.
Keep clapping to your idol for teenage girls and keep telling yourself that charity events will substantially help solve THE problem.
Poor effort all round that. You don't get bites when you're illogical I'm afraid.
You sound pretty mad. I hope I didn't hurt the hippie feelings for Russel Brand.
Not sure what you're trying to achieve here. Seems like a very poor attempt at baiting.
You're still acting clueless, aren't you ? The guy states on public record that he advocates for socialism with massive taxation and people suppose to take him seriously ? Imagine for a second where that transformation could go if everybody would for some reason listen to him.
Posing on charity event with people in power suddenly is a real deal in solving a problem ? It's like saying that Bono helping the Africans in solving theirs.
In fairness, I think Brand means well but it completely clueless in terms of how to affect the change he is interested in, beyond of course his YouTube channel and comedy polemics. He needs to step back a bit and find a way to operationalize his ideas into something tangible.
Nobody suggested going to charity events solved the problem, stop using that as a straw man.
It was your laughable and opportunistic use of the photo of him attending the same charity event as Charles to slyly imply that he regularly rubs shoulders with the elite and is part of the "establishment" which somehow discredits him. It was Daily Mail-esque.
The photo was unneeded to discredit Brand. That could've been done by simply listening to him talk.
Do you think he would be still on mainstream TV if he would be a legitimate revolutionist with a real plan and determination that would change something on a bigger scale with a real type of revolt ? Many people are inviting him on their shows to have a laugh and that's exactly what in the end it is. Pure show, zero substance.
If you find that picture funny then sorry but I can't help it. We would think somebody would come up with solution someday. Not looking very probable it's gonna happen so far. I don't give a crap if someone finds it laughable. Daily Mail or not the picture shows exactly what Russell Brand is about. Public figure for the sake of media rumors and entertainment.
It's a failed revolution. We may disagree on the way of thinking but not gonna change my opinion on him. I take your criticism about logical flaws and I admit Daily Mail sounds a bit cheap
but nonetheless it catches in my opinion perfectly the essence of vanity and level of hypocrisy of a guy who advocates socialism and taxation like it's something new and revolutionizing.Indeed. He needs academic approach, wider knowledge and with his money and influence it would be quite easy to obtain mentors to help him grasp every political concept and use it to his own advantage in starting something legit and with the real kick of revolution. He already got attention but he can't take his rebellion to another level and I'm not even surprised with the outcome.
This is bang on and echoes my circumstances almost entirely (we didn't have the BNP here, but we certainly also didn't have the Greens). The inescapable truth is that our electoral system fundamentally (and by design) limits the choice of voters both by its mechanism and then by the according psychology it projects onto voters (and parties themselves, hence why Greens and others don't bother standing in many constituencies). This is partly why I find the "Brand should stand" line odd - he'd have a slim chance of being elected to one particular constituency in a house of 650 with no party and no chance of doing anything once there except be a sideshow during debates. Choice has to be countrywide.