Russell Brand preaching revolution on Paxman Last Night

P_1

Wibbs wrote: »

Granted D, but it would be refreshing to see some solutions discussed. Pointing out inequity is good, complaining about inequity is good, but failing to suggest a better way makes it all noise and nothing will change. Saying that some aspects of society are bad and we must change is a cry that's hoarse from every generation shouting it, but as I say show me the plan.

As for not voting en masse? Can't see it happening. Plus the "can't be bothered to vote" crowd tends to winnow out some of the people who shouldn't vote. Personally I think the automatic right to vote isn't so hot. Voting should be seen as a privilege and should entail more than than just the ability to reach a certain age. Again me personally I'd have it so a citizen would require passing a simple exam to get the vote. Nothing difficult, really simple questions like who is the current president, who was the previous incumbent, name three of your local candidates, that sorta thing.

To be honest W I'd be quite guilty of letting cynicism creep in and entertaining thoughts of not bothering with the charade lately. I'd consider myself to be fairly well educated and also consider voting to be a privilege. Being voted for, is also a privilege mind and I am having a good few doubts that our current crop of politicians are worthy of the privilege.

Joshua J

People will talk about the priviliage and importance of voting and in the same breath dismiss criticism of politicians lying as "sure they're politicians, of course they lie". How can anyone vote for someone when they're not sure if that person, once elected, will keep their word. It's a ludicrous situation and a pointless waste of time. An illusion of choice, big business and lobby groups decide policy, not your vote.

KyussBishop

Tribb wrote: »

I have to laugh at people who think we can get rid of "greed". We simply aren't going to change human nature, people for the most part act through self interest. This assumption should be a pillar of any political system we wish to implement.

It's not about getting rid of it (an inherent part of human nature), it's about not rewarding an incentivizing it in the first place - which our current system does, by letting people away with massive worldwide-economy-destroying fraud, and not even bothering to enact any reforms to stop them doing it again (nevermind investigating and putting people in prison for the fraud).

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

I've a lot of time for Steven Donnelly, a man actually qualified in international finance surrounded by failed teachers. Boyd Barrett on the other hand I think is a complete and utter... well I'b be polite.

We need people like Boyd Barrett, Joe Higgins and on the other side Shane Ross, at least you get to hear scathing criticism of Government from left and right wing politics!

I didn't read the SF budget manifesto this year but going on Dohertys interview on Vincent Browne there seemed to be less populism in it than before, less of the "there's something for everybody in the audience" approach.

We need more independent thought in the Dail, lessening the power of the whip system would be a start. I might not have agreed with Creighton and Matthews over abortion but I don't think they should have got expelled for voting on a conscientious matter for them, also something they put in their own election manifesto as important to them.

That's why abolishing the Seanad wasn't reform and was a retrograde step without any reform of the Dail. It may be a talking shop but at least there is decent debate there, there was no point abolishing one talking shop to leave another one!

jank

Carlos Roca wrote: »

All justice is retrospective you silly little person. I'm talking about preventing economic destruction in the first place and this might be aided by the fear of being destitute because of your actions.

So the state should have sweeping powers for the sake of populism cause it makes us feel good? The idea we can pass laws and then charge people for past discretions that at the time was not illegal is a step closer to a police state. Throwing a few bankers in Jail is just all about revenge, the pound of flesh and would do nothing to solve the actual fundamental problems that culminated the economic issues of the past few years.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Just say it 'I hate hate democracy - I hate justice' .

I hate the idea of Irish style populist direct democracy where the Joe Duffy types get to control the narrative (if they don't already). Can you imagine trying to pass a budget? We won't want all these cuts, we don't want to pay all these taxes, we don't want the troika telling us what to do. Waaahhha

Ireland is just not a mature enough society for that type of government. All one has to look at the people behind Direct Democracy it becomes plainly obvious what their motives are.

jank

lufties wrote: »

Jank are you a party shill? or a civil servant perhaps? how the hell could you post the way you do ,and be any other way,

Yes, I must be a party shill all the way out in Australia because you can't fathom the idea of someone having a difference of opinion. I think it says more about your lack of exposure to different ideas and people than anything else.

lufties wrote: »

people like you are part of the problem, perhaps its stockholm sydrome. In today's world we have had our freedom(s) eroded, just look to the cesspit U.S and see whats going on there with regard to wealth distribution and their puppet show administration.

Part of what problem? That we talk about theory and ignore all reality and actual proof of what works in the world. You talk about more altruism and less greed. Here is news for you, humans are self interested. Always have been, always will be. Who should we be more altruistic to? The state, the church, ourselves? irish people? Women? Children? It is funny that people who want us to be more altruistic really just want us to behave like how they want us to behave and will use the powers of the state to enforce this 'altruism' Oh the irony. Nobody is stopping you being as altruistic as you want and visa verse but please leave me live my life and I will let you live yours.

lufties wrote: »

With all that is gone down in Ireland over the last few years, I can't believe how anyone could be so stupid to support any of the establishment parties. Honestly, when I see a photo Gilmore or kenny, I start to feel physically sick. Power to the people, not self serving, greedy dictators.

Power to the people, yeah dude. What the **** does that actually mean? Useless lefty claptrap. There was a general election in 2011 in case you did not notice. The 'people' elected the present government and they have a mandate given by the constitution of the country to govern and pass laws, budgets and so on. Now I am not at all pleased with some of the decisions or non decisions during the tenure of this government but I am not going to waste my time saying that the people should take 'power back'. They have the power but as I mentioned Ireland is more interested in treating the state like Santa Clause, where entitlements and benefits are bestowed on us cause we are good and been through a few bad years.

Tis a disgrace Joe!

PhlegmyMoses

jank wrote: »

Power to the people, yeah dude. What the **** does that actually mean? Useless lefty claptrap. There was a general election in 2011 in case you did not notice. The 'people' elected the present government and they have a mandate given by the constitution of the country to govern and pass laws, budgets and so on. Now I am not at all pleased with some of the decisions or non decisions during the tenure of this government but I am not going to waste my time saying that the people should take 'power back'. They have the power but as I mentioned Ireland is more interested in treating the state like Santa Clause, where entitlements and benefits are bestowed on us cause we are good and been through a few bad years.

Tis a disgrace Joe!

But this is actually part of Brand's point. Take Ireland as an example. Do you have any real power with your vote when your choices are:

1. Cookie cutter, old man politician A, with no real expertise in the areas he will preside over, with vested and dubious interests in company A\department A?

2. Cookie cutter, old man politician B, with no real expertise in the areas he will preside over, with vested and dubious interests in company B\department B?

3. Local politician with radical political beliefs, vested interests in his constituency, rather than the general populace and no real acumen for, or experience in, being involved in large scale government?

Sure, we can find exceptions to this, but can you really disagree with people being apathetic towards voting and the current political system when those are their choices?

The core principle that gives the political system a mandate to continue is that enough people vote, no matter what. In Ireland, we have the added incentive of the "people died for this right" argument, but it's a theme throughout the world. It doesn't matter if the options are awful, they will vote nonetheless.

Come election time, when people read their 5 point plans to resolve complex and systemic problems that have been ingrained in society for years, do they really think "Yeah, this is the one. This time they're really going to sort out the HSE, the economy, crime, the education system and take the bankers to task?" Of course they don't. But we'll still vote them in, because what are the alternatives? And we have to vote, sure.

Whether you think FG and Labour are doing well or poorly at the moment, they got in because there was no real alternative. Fianna Fáil are a busted flush, the Shinners have a terrible rep due to their leadership's past indiscretions and the rest are just background noise with no real coherent plan on how to resolve things.

I don't necessarily agree with Brand's assertions - and I certainly don't wholly agree with his version of Libertarian Socialism as an answer - but he brings up a valid point about why we bother to vote. It needs to be said as we've heard the other side of the argument - you should vote, people died, you've no right to complain if it goes to tits up, it's the only way things will change - for years now.

clairefontaine

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's not about getting rid of it (an inherent part of human nature), it's about not rewarding an incentivizing it in the first place - which our current system does, by letting people away with massive worldwide-economy-destroying fraud, and not even bothering to enact any reforms to stop them doing it again (nevermind investigating and putting people in prison for the fraud).

Honestly, when I see one of the deadly sins being listed as a reason for controlling people, I get electric shocks of eewwww nooooooo!!!!!!!! going through my system.

The Catholic Church, the most successful guilt trip in history, convinced the Irish they deserve nothing, should be happy with what they get, and then accused them of selfishness anytime they actually did or want anything for themselves. And look what happened with that, an inalienable theocracy who ruled with a wicked hand, and kept the Iriah poor, subservient and miserable.

clairefontaine

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

But this is actually part of Brand's point. Take Ireland as an example. Do you have any real power with your vote when your choices are:

1. Cookie cutter, old man politician A, with no real expertise in the areas he will preside over, with vested and dubious interests in company A\department A?

2. Cookie cutter, old man politician B, with no real expertise in the areas he will preside over, with vested and dubious interests in company B\department B?

3. Local politician with radical political beliefs, vested interests in his constituency, rather than the general populace and no real acumen for, or experience in, being involved in large scale government?

Sure, we can find exceptions to this, but can you really disagree with people being apathetic towards voting and the current political system when those are their choices?

The core principle that gives the political system a mandate to continue is that enough people vote, no matter what. In Ireland, we have the added incentive of the "people died for this right" argument, but it's a theme throughout the world. It doesn't matter if the options are awful, they will vote nonetheless.

Come election time, when people read their 5 point plans to resolve complex and systemic problems that have been ingrained in society for years, do they really think "Yeah, this is the one. This time they're really going to sort out the HSE, the economy, crime, the education system and take the bankers to task?" Of course they don't. But we'll still vote them in, because what are the alternatives? And we have to vote, sure.

Whether you think FG and Labour are doing well or poorly at the moment, they got in because there was no real alternative. Fianna Fáil are a busted flush, the Shinners have a terrible rep due to their leadership's past indiscretions and the rest are just background noise with no real coherent plan on how to resolve things.

I don't necessarily agree with Brand's assertions - and I certainly don't wholly agree with his version of Libertarian Socialism as an answer - but he brings up a valid point about why we bother to vote. It needs to be said as we've heard the other side of the argument - you should vote, people died, you've no right to complain if it goes to tits up, it's the only way things will change - for years now.

I never voted when I was in Ireland, largely due to what you mention here. The parties really don't seem all that different, with the exception of SF and I wouldn't vote for them, so I simply abstained.

This was further confirmed in my perceptions when various campaigners would come around and ring the door bell. I'd ask them what their parties stances where on various issues,both economic and social, and none of them could answer the question. I then went down to the local offices to try to get an answer, and no luck there, so none of them as far as I can see have a clue of even where they stand on anything. So really, how can anyone vote on one ignorant platform vs another ignorant platform?

I cant obviously comment on the British system, which Brand is most likely railing against here so I dont know, but what I do know is Brand is part of the establishment, being the court jester, he is still in the court.

Karl Stein

On the court jester dynamic:

By David Cromwell

When someone with interesting things to say is granted a high-profile media platform, it is wise to listen to what is being said and ask why they have been given such a platform. Comedian and actor Russell Brand's 10-minute interview by Jeremy Paxman on BBC's Newsnight last week was given considerable advance publicity and generated enormous reaction on social media and in the press, just as those media gatekeepers who selected Brand to appear would have wished.

medialens.org

donaghs

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

But this is actually part of Brand's point. Take Ireland as an example. Do you have any real power with your vote when your choices are:

1. Cookie cutter, old man politician A, with no real expertise in the areas he will preside over, with vested and dubious interests in company A\department A?

2. Cookie cutter, old man politician B, with no real expertise in the areas he will preside over, with vested and dubious interests in company B\department B?

3. Local politician with radical political beliefs, vested interests in his constituency, rather than the general populace and no real acumen for, or experience in, being involved in large scale government?

Sure, we can find exceptions to this, but can you really disagree with people being apathetic towards voting and the current political system when those are their choices?

The core principle that gives the political system a mandate to continue is that enough people vote, no matter what. In Ireland, we have the added incentive of the "people died for this right" argument, but it's a theme throughout the world. It doesn't matter if the options are awful, they will vote nonetheless.

Come election time, when people read their 5 point plans to resolve complex and systemic problems that have been ingrained in society for years, do they really think "Yeah, this is the one. This time they're really going to sort out the HSE, the economy, crime, the education system and take the bankers to task?" Of course they don't. But we'll still vote them in, because what are the alternatives? And we have to vote, sure.

Whether you think FG and Labour are doing well or poorly at the moment, they got in because there was no real alternative. Fianna Fáil are a busted flush, the Shinners have a terrible rep due to their leadership's past indiscretions and the rest are just background noise with no real coherent plan on how to resolve things.

I don't necessarily agree with Brand's assertions - and I certainly don't wholly agree with his version of Libertarian Socialism as an answer - but he brings up a valid point about why we bother to vote. It needs to be said as we've heard the other side of the argument - you should vote, people died, you've no right to complain if it goes to tits up, it's the only way things will change - for years now.

I think you need to finish the train of thought. Brand also didn't get that far.
If most people stop voting, what then? Will some "new situation" arrive that makes people feel their lives have improved since?

The Dom

iDave wrote: »

Talking incoherent rubbish.

Crikey, one of the least incoherent people I have ever seen interviewed.

Seen him at the Olympia last night and he mentioned the Paxman interview in a self depreciating way. His knew show touches on many points he raised in the interview, was decent enough.

Seems he has now attracted Bono as a fan as a result of becoming more political as he was in one of the boxseats with his mrs.

Daveysil15

Temptamperu wrote: »

I don't know why people don't like Brand. Hes a smart and articulate individual who has over come much adversity in life to get where he is now.

Oh maybe I know, jealousy is an awful thing.

Probably because he's the most annoying celebrity in the world.

Maximus Alexander

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Probably because he's the most annoying celebrity in the world.

I'll avoid introducing you to Miley Cyrus.

Daveysil15

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I'll avoid introducing you to Miley Cyrus.

Ok, the most annoying male celebrity then.

The Dom

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Ok, the most annoying male celebrity then.

More annoying than Jeremy Kyle?

Daveysil15

The Dom wrote: »

More annoying than Jeremy Kyle?

A lot more.

The Pheasant2

Haha a lot of what Brand said and the people defending make me think of this clip from the other half of peep show

Davelarson

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Haha a lot of what Brand said and the people defending make me think of this clip from the other half of peep show

The only thing worse than Russell Brand are the idiots who bang on about 'revolution' without giving one thought as to how their going to deal with the aftermath.

Ironically, Robert Webb destroyed him in an article he wrote for the Observer

EuskalHerria

Davelarson wrote: »

Ironically, Robert Webb destroyed him in an article he wrote for the Observer

You are the first person I've seen that has said this. I'm curious as to how exactiy you think Webb 'destroyed' Brands piece? Perhaps Webbs piece in the observer you mentioned was different than his new statesmen article. An article where at no point did Webb even flirt with the idea of a valid rebuttal to anything Brand had actually wrote or said.

Muise...

tee hee!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t55WdCQF5sM

Stewart Lee's description of this interview also made me giggle: "a monkey throwing its own excrement at a foghorn."

Davelarson

EuskalHerria wrote: »

You are the first person I've seen that has said this. I'm curious as to how exactiy you think Webb 'destroyed' Brands piece? Perhaps Webbs piece in the observer you mentioned was different than his new statesmen article. An article where at no point did Webb even flirt with the idea of a valid rebuttal to anything Brand had actually wrote or said.

My mistake it was from the New Statesman. He cut Brand to pieces.

EuskalHerria

Davelarson wrote: »

My mistake it was from the New Statesman. He cut Brand to pieces.

Could you be more specific as to how Brand was 'cut to pieces'? Obviously saying it twice for me isn't exactly a further description.
Webbs article was essentially be lucky with what you've got and ramblings about re-joining the Labour Party. It appeared to be a futile reply but perhaps it was subjective and you can explain what was so devastating.

Call Me Jimmy

I'm not quite sure how you can cut pure idealism to pieces. Aside from that someone earlier in the thread 'cut him to pieces' including mainly Russel's tongue-in-cheek responses and taking them as serious points and making themselves look not so bright in the process. So I'm skeptical.

Muise...

EuskalHerria wrote: »

Could you be more specific as to how Brand was 'cut to pieces'? Obviously saying it twice for me isn't exactly a further description.
Webbs article was essentially be lucky with what you've got and ramblings about re-joining the Labour Party. It appeared to be a futile reply but perhaps it was subjective and you can explain what was so devastating.

As I read it, Webb's article pointed out that Brand's had no substance to it, so it wasn't so much cut to pieces as dismissed with a wave of the hand through its hot air and buzz.

constance tench

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltiviifnA_E

K-9

Muise... wrote: »

As I read it, Webb's article pointed out that Brand's had no substance to it, so it wasn't so much cut to pieces as dismissed with a wave of the hand through its hot air and buzz.

What did Webb offer as an alternative? Is Webb just offering a lazy analysis of a very easily derided Russell Brand piece?

I suppose you read a New Statesman piece, so you are now a member of the intelligentsia.

EuskalHerria

Muise... wrote: »

As I read it, Webb's article pointed out that Brand's had no substance to it, so it wasn't so much cut to pieces as dismissed with a wave of the hand through its hot air and buzz.

I'm not particularly sure how much substance a comedian offering his opinion on an apathetic electorate is needed? It takes basic observation skills to notice that firstly electoral turn out is poor (look at voter turnout in the last 3 refernda) and secondly that the system is geared towards serving a minority not majority.
Brand states quite clearly there are others far more qualified than himself to offer an alternative but that shouldn't stop him (and hasn't stopped him) vocalising a subjective view of the political system.

Whatever about Brands piece, Webbs response was absolute nonsense. Topped off with the rejoining the Labour Party line as if to highlight how far he missed the point.

Muise...

K-9 wrote: »

What did Webb offer as an alternative? Is Webb just offering a lazy analysis of a very easily derided Russell Brand piece?

I suppose you read a New Statesman piece, so you are now a member of the intelligentsia.

Webb simply defended the status quo against an "easily derided" attack.

Oooh look at you with your inverse snobbery!

EuskalHerria wrote: »

I'm not particularly sure how much substance a comedian offering his opinion on an apathetic electorate is needed? It takes basic observation skills to notice that firstly electoral turn out is poor (look at voter turnout in the last 3 refernda) and secondly that the system is geared towards serving a minority not majority.
Brand states quite clearly there are others far more qualified than himself to offer an alternative but that shouldn't stop him (and hasn't stopped him) vocalising a subjective view of the political system.

Whatever about Brands piece, Webbs response was absolute nonsense. Topped off with the rejoining the Labour Party line as if to highlight how far he missed the point.

Occupy Pointlessness.

EuskalHerria

Muise... wrote: »

Occupy Pointlessness.

I mentioned I was an advocate for the occupy movement, where?