Have just read his blog post written in the aftermath of the show. If he got your attention last night, have a read of this too. He writes a bit flamboyantly... as he talks, but yeah. :-)
"They didn't give me an unlimited platform so it's a stale rubbish tv show."
The more I hear from him the more dangerous and crazy I think he is. Sod the millions who do vote and think differently from him. Farage and UKIP come out with the exact same anti bbc and anti media rhetoric and yet they're pure evil and Russell brand is some kind of saviour.
I don't normally do political debates but this guy is one attention seeking plank, afraid to stick his head above the parapet as a politician, end of.
I really don't get this or saying he is a hypocrite. If he wanted attention he go back to being off his head on coke and shagging loads more celebrities like Katy Perry in California with his wealth and looks but he is staying in England on question time. His head is clearly in the right place and he is trying to do good. Of course he isn't completely knowledgeable on all aspects of politics because he is an albeit intelligent, comedian. Of course he shouldn't stand as he isn't qualified to do so but if he can get the main parties to address current issues in politics like youth disillusionment then he has done his job. I completely agree with what he said about immigration and that whilst it is an issue, there are ultimately more important things affecting the economy.
Also I've not seen it mentioned by the anti-Brand guys who brought up the people to attack Farage. The person in the wheelchair was the brother of a UKIP MEP so yeah...
I don't normally do political debates but this guy is one attention seeking plank, afraid to stick his head above the parapet as a politician, end of.
I really don't get this or saying he is a hypocrite. If he wanted attention he go back to being off his head on coke and shagging loads more celebrities like Katy Perry in California with his wealth and looks but he is staying in England on question time. His head is clearly in the right place and he is trying to do good. Of course he isn't completely knowledgeable on all aspects of politics because he is an albeit intelligent, comedian. Of course he shouldn't stand as he isn't qualified to do so but if he can get the main parties to address current issues in politics like youth disillusionment then he has done his job. I completely agree with what he said about immigration and that whilst it is an issue, there are ultimately more important things affecting the economy.
Also I've not seen it mentioned by the anti-Brand guys who brought up the people to attack Farage. The person in the wheelchair was the brother of a UKIP MEP so yeah...
You don't have to 'get it' it's not compulsory. I don't get him and that's my prerogative, he should stick to what he is good at...............on hang on a minute scrap that.
What's the problem with the guy who had a go at Brand, being related to a UKIP MP?
He has the same views that turns out to be the same as his UKIP brother. So what?
The whole bloody show has deteriorated from semi reasonable political debate (under the ego that was Robin Day) into pantomine, and poor panto at that. Bunny and the UKIP brother are plants, pure and simple. Whilst the masses waste their time and energy on arguing about who is more of a plonker, the governing class continue to laugh and rip us off.
What's the problem with the guy who had a go at Brand, being related to a UKIP MP?
He has the same views that turns out to be the same as his UKIP brother. So what?
The whole bloody show has deteriorated from semi reasonable political debate (under the ego that was Robin Day) into pantomine, and poor panto at that. Bunny and the UKIP brother are plants, pure and simple. Whilst the masses waste their time and energy on arguing about who is more of a plonker, the governing class continue to laugh and rip us off.
Sorry but Brand literally has no solutions to offer. 'Tax the rich' is as much a solution to our country's economic issues as 'invent a cure for all diseases ever' is a solution to our health issues. Here's what a Brand manifesto would look like:
- more taxes - cure for cancer - flying cars - clean air - no corruption - good teachers
Pure fantasist masquerading as enlightenment. The only thing he is good at is tricking otherwise sensible people into believing that anything he says is either interesting, new, or worth broadcasting.
Sorry but Brand literally has no solutions to offer. 'Tax the rich' is as much a solution to our country's economic issues as 'invent a cure for all diseases ever' is a solution to our health issues.
'Tax the rich', 'cut public expenditure', 'stop immigration', 'leave the EU'. I don't see anyone offering anything other than simplistic solutions. I think Brand's intervention has had some value in highlighting that the political options we are being offered are not fit for purpose in the 21st Century. He doesn't have a clue what the solution is, and nor do I, but the debate is a necessary starting point and it wasn't happening within the status quo.
People are concerned about the lack of houses, jobs, school places, overcrowded hospitals etc. It's these issues that generally are of concern.Immigration is the number one concern to the person on the street and that is why Ukip is growing. Being in Europe means we have no choice hence the debate about leaving. Russell Brand I think means well and he claims to be sticking up for the working class but it is the working class who are most affected by mass immigration and the lack of decent jobs, houses etc. It really does make me laugh how the word racist is thrown around. Controlled immigration and control of our borders is not racist. Nor is wanting to protect the UK public ( whatever colour or race ) and all our benefits! As for the big corporations yes they should be paying proper taxes and loopholes should be closed!
Oh come on Len, haven't you heard of a website called Wikipedia?
Please don't let this become your "Canterbury Prison" moment :-)
I suggest people actually read what I've written on this thread.
I've repeatedly acknowledged the existence of transaction taxes outside of the EU and acknowledged that if we left the EU we would almost certainly introduce some sort of transactions tax in place of VAT.
None of that alters the fact that VAT is an EU tax however. Here is the link again:
If you and others don't want to believe that VAT is an EU tax given the evidence nothing I can say will change your mind.
I'm not sure why this is so important to you. I believe that the UK government uses the funds collected so when you say it's an EU tax, it's not money we collect and give to the EU. If the UK government had complete flexibility wrt the rate charged and what goods and services the tax is levied on, how different would it be do you think?
I don't really get the he has no solutions argument. Is it wrong for someone to stand up and say this isn't right? We all do it. I'd wager that few of us actually have any real solutions to the problems we highlight. Essentially this is why we elect people to parliament so they can come up with solutions for our problems (obviously in reality that is rarely the case). Saying he should stand as an MP is like throwing the same response at anyone who posts in this thread.
I don't really get the he has no solutions argument. Is it wrong for someone to stand up and say this isn't right? We all do it. I'd wager that few of us actually have any real solutions to the problems we highlight. Essentially this is why we elect people to parliament so they can come up with solutions for our problems (obviously in reality that is rarely the case). Saying he should stand as an MP is like throwing the same response at anyone who posts in this thread.
Spot on. The idea that people can only speak out against the way things are run if they have a 'solution' is bullshit.
It's yet another way of stifling debate that questions the status quo.
I don't really get the he has no solutions argument. Is it wrong for someone to stand up and say this isn't right? We all do it. I'd wager that few of us actually have any real solutions to the problems we highlight. Essentially this is why we elect people to parliament so they can come up with solutions for our problems (obviously in reality that is rarely the case). Saying he should stand as an MP is like throwing the same response at anyone who posts in this thread.
Spot on. The idea that people can only speak out against the way things are run if they have a 'solution' is bullshit.
It's yet another way of stifling debate that questions the status quo.
This is a strawman. I have no issue with people raising problems, however when Brand is highlighting issues that others have been highlighting for decades, unless he has something to add to the debate (which he doesn't) he shouldn't be given free publicity through the legitimacy of state-funded broadcasters and be elevated to bring some kind of modern day Buddha when he is literally bringing nothing new to the table. Might as well give a Nobel medal to the next physicist to reassert the proof that the Earth is round.
In a recent edition of 'The Week' magazine, Ukip was referred to as the 'poundshop party' .. perhaps Brand's snipe at Farage: 'the two bob poundshop Enoch Powell' was in fact nicked from elsewhere by the gag writer for a twopenny halfpenny guttersnipe wannabe comedian, aka Brand R
I don't really get the he has no solutions argument. Is it wrong for someone to stand up and say this isn't right? We all do it. I'd wager that few of us actually have any real solutions to the problems we highlight. Essentially this is why we elect people to parliament so they can come up with solutions for our problems (obviously in reality that is rarely the case). Saying he should stand as an MP is like throwing the same response at anyone who posts in this thread.
Spot on. The idea that people can only speak out against the way things are run if they have a 'solution' is bullshit.
It's yet another way of stifling debate that questions the status quo.
This is a strawman. I have no issue with people raising problems, however when Brand is highlighting issues that others have been highlighting for decades, unless he has something to add to the debate (which he doesn't) he shouldn't be given free publicity through the legitimacy of state-funded broadcasters and be elevated to bring some kind of modern day Buddha when he is literally bringing nothing new to the table. Might as well give a Nobel medal to the next physicist to reassert the proof that the Earth is round.
And who decides whether he "adds something to the debate"? You? QT has always found space for non serving politicians with interesting views. John Lydon for example. And regrettably, Nick Griffin. You may not like Russell Brand and I not sure I do either. However it is unarguable that he speaks for a large number of people, in a way they respond to. As does Nigel Farage
I don't really get the he has no solutions argument. Is it wrong for someone to stand up and say this isn't right? We all do it. I'd wager that few of us actually have any real solutions to the problems we highlight. Essentially this is why we elect people to parliament so they can come up with solutions for our problems (obviously in reality that is rarely the case). Saying he should stand as an MP is like throwing the same response at anyone who posts in this thread.
Spot on. The idea that people can only speak out against the way things are run if they have a 'solution' is bullshit.
It's yet another way of stifling debate that questions the status quo.
This is a strawman. I have no issue with people raising problems, however when Brand is highlighting issues that others have been highlighting for decades, unless he has something to add to the debate (which he doesn't) he shouldn't be given free publicity through the legitimacy of state-funded broadcasters and be elevated to bring some kind of modern day Buddha when he is literally bringing nothing new to the table. Might as well give a Nobel medal to the next physicist to reassert the proof that the Earth is round.
And who decides whether he "adds something to the debate"? You? QT has always found space for non serving politicians with interesting views. John Lydon for example. And regrettably, Nick Griffin. You may not like Russell Brand and I not sure I do either. However it is unarguable that he speaks for a large number of people, in a way they respond to. As does Nigel Farage
It's a demonstrable fact he has added nothing to the debate, due to the fact that pretty much everything he raises has been raised countless times before, by people a lot smarter and better informed than him. I don't have a problem with non-politicians on QT, in fact they're usually the best guests, but the points Brand raises are nothing new. Honestly, Joey Barton was a more insightful guest on QT.
I don't really get the he has no solutions argument. Is it wrong for someone to stand up and say this isn't right? We all do it. I'd wager that few of us actually have any real solutions to the problems we highlight. Essentially this is why we elect people to parliament so they can come up with solutions for our problems (obviously in reality that is rarely the case). Saying he should stand as an MP is like throwing the same response at anyone who posts in this thread.
Spot on. The idea that people can only speak out against the way things are run if they have a 'solution' is bullshit.
It's yet another way of stifling debate that questions the status quo.
This is a strawman. I have no issue with people raising problems, however when Brand is highlighting issues that others have been highlighting for decades, unless he has something to add to the debate (which he doesn't) he shouldn't be given free publicity through the legitimacy of state-funded broadcasters and be elevated to bring some kind of modern day Buddha when he is literally bringing nothing new to the table. Might as well give a Nobel medal to the next physicist to reassert the proof that the Earth is round.
And who decides whether he "adds something to the debate"? You? QT has always found space for non serving politicians with interesting views. John Lydon for example. And regrettably, Nick Griffin. You may not like Russell Brand and I not sure I do either. However it is unarguable that he speaks for a large number of people, in a way they respond to. As does Nigel Farage
It's a demonstrable fact he has added nothing to the debate, due to the fact that pretty much everything he raises has been raised countless times before, by people a lot smarter and better informed than him. I don't have a problem with non-politicians on QT, in fact they're usually the best guests, but the points Brand raises are nothing new. Honestly, Joey Barton was a more insightful guest on QT.
It's your opinion. That is not the same as a "demonstrable fact". Politics is full of people who gain support by their presentation rather than the novelty of their ideas. Farage for example. I've been able to hear his poisonous anti-immigrant crap since the days of Enoch Powell but he's found the knack of packaging it up in matey saloon bar knockabout, rather than 'rivers of blood' polemics. Just my opinion of course.
I don't really get the he has no solutions argument. Is it wrong for someone to stand up and say this isn't right? We all do it. I'd wager that few of us actually have any real solutions to the problems we highlight. Essentially this is why we elect people to parliament so they can come up with solutions for our problems (obviously in reality that is rarely the case). Saying he should stand as an MP is like throwing the same response at anyone who posts in this thread.
Spot on. The idea that people can only speak out against the way things are run if they have a 'solution' is bullshit.
It's yet another way of stifling debate that questions the status quo.
This is a strawman. I have no issue with people raising problems, however when Brand is highlighting issues that others have been highlighting for decades, unless he has something to add to the debate (which he doesn't) he shouldn't be given free publicity through the legitimacy of state-funded broadcasters and be elevated to bring some kind of modern day Buddha when he is literally bringing nothing new to the table. Might as well give a Nobel medal to the next physicist to reassert the proof that the Earth is round.
And who decides whether he "adds something to the debate"? You? QT has always found space for non serving politicians with interesting views. John Lydon for example. And regrettably, Nick Griffin. You may not like Russell Brand and I not sure I do either. However it is unarguable that he speaks for a large number of people, in a way they respond to. As does Nigel Farage
It's a demonstrable fact he has added nothing to the debate, due to the fact that pretty much everything he raises has been raised countless times before, by people a lot smarter and better informed than him. I don't have a problem with non-politicians on QT, in fact they're usually the best guests, but the points Brand raises are nothing new. Honestly, Joey Barton was a more insightful guest on QT.
It's your opinion. That is not the same as a "demonstrable fact". Politics is full of people who gain support by their presentation rather than the novelty of their ideas. Farage for example. I've been able to hear his poisonous anti-immigrant crap since the days of Enoch Powell but he's found the knack of packaging it up in matey saloon bar knockabout, rather than 'rivers of blood' polemics. Just my opinion of course.
I don't think you're actually reading my posts, I never said anything about the presentation of issues (not ideas as you said as Brand doesn't have any), but the difference between Farage and Brand is that Farage is actually putting forward concrete ideas to deal with issues (whether you agree with them or not, he has at least made suggestions such as leaving the EU and capping immigration). I'm bored of hearing people moan about the cosy establishment stitch-up between big business and the main parties, I want to hear how people propose to resolve this. If Brand wants a platform to moan but not actually make any useful proposals, he can sign up to CL.
I don't really get the he has no solutions argument. Is it wrong for someone to stand up and say this isn't right? We all do it. I'd wager that few of us actually have any real solutions to the problems we highlight. Essentially this is why we elect people to parliament so they can come up with solutions for our problems (obviously in reality that is rarely the case). Saying he should stand as an MP is like throwing the same response at anyone who posts in this thread.
Spot on. The idea that people can only speak out against the way things are run if they have a 'solution' is bullshit.
It's yet another way of stifling debate that questions the status quo.
This is a strawman. I have no issue with people raising problems, however when Brand is highlighting issues that others have been highlighting for decades, unless he has something to add to the debate (which he doesn't) he shouldn't be given free publicity through the legitimacy of state-funded broadcasters and be elevated to bring some kind of modern day Buddha when he is literally bringing nothing new to the table. Might as well give a Nobel medal to the next physicist to reassert the proof that the Earth is round.
And who decides whether he "adds something to the debate"? You? QT has always found space for non serving politicians with interesting views. John Lydon for example. And regrettably, Nick Griffin. You may not like Russell Brand and I not sure I do either. However it is unarguable that he speaks for a large number of people, in a way they respond to. As does Nigel Farage
It's a demonstrable fact he has added nothing to the debate, due to the fact that pretty much everything he raises has been raised countless times before, by people a lot smarter and better informed than him. I don't have a problem with non-politicians on QT, in fact they're usually the best guests, but the points Brand raises are nothing new. Honestly, Joey Barton was a more insightful guest on QT.
It's your opinion. That is not the same as a "demonstrable fact". Politics is full of people who gain support by their presentation rather than the novelty of their ideas. Farage for example. I've been able to hear his poisonous anti-immigrant crap since the days of Enoch Powell but he's found the knack of packaging it up in matey saloon bar knockabout, rather than 'rivers of blood' polemics. Just my opinion of course.
I don't think you're actually reading my posts, I never said anything about the presentation of issues (not ideas as you said as Brand doesn't have any), but the difference between Farage and Brand is that Farage is actually putting forward concrete ideas to deal with issues (whether you agree with them or not, he has at least made suggestions such as leaving the EU and capping immigration). I'm bored of hearing people moan about the cosy establishment stitch-up between big business and the main parties, I want to hear how people propose to resolve this. If Brand wants a platform to moan but not actually make any useful proposals, he can sign up to CL.
If an ordinary citizen "demonstrably" articulates the rage of a section of the community in a way that gets the rest of us thinking - and it seems I was not the only one whom he started to impress for the first time on QT - then he has added to the debate. Should he seek election, then of course he will have to formulate and present more concrete ideas.
Fair enough. Personally I feel his articulation is unremarkable and the only reason anyone gives him the time of day is because he's got his end away with a few celebs and left a nasty message on someone's voicemail, but I suppose that says more about the state of our media and the public's engagement with current issues than it does about Brand.
Thought the journalist on Question time was very good.
For years I have wondered why the youth of today have not gone ballistic about the way society has developed. In the 60's we moved from being a nationalistic state to being individuals with a conscience (sort of). Universities were a hot bed of ideas then. Later Thatcher's years made people very materialistic and now we just seem to meander, hoping things will get better but they just seem to get worse. Brand irritates because he uses scattergun tactics instead of developing his ideas but he does raise important issues. I hope the youth will wake up and find their voice instead of being virtually spiritually and politically dead.
Thought the journalist on Question time was very good.
For years I have wondered why the youth of today have not gone ballistic about the way society has developed. In the 60's we moved from being a nationalistic state to being individuals with a conscience (sort of). Universities were a hot bed of ideas then. Later Thatcher's years made people very materialistic and now we just seem to meander, hoping things will get better but they just seem to get worse. Brand irritates because he uses scattergun tactics instead of developing his ideas but he does raise important issues. I hope the youth will wake up and find their voice instead of being virtually spiritually and politically dead.
But he advocates not voting so what does that achieve?
Thought the journalist on Question time was very good.
For years I have wondered why the youth of today have not gone ballistic about the way society has developed. In the 60's we moved from being a nationalistic state to being individuals with a conscience (sort of). Universities were a hot bed of ideas then. Later Thatcher's years made people very materialistic and now we just seem to meander, hoping things will get better but they just seem to get worse. Brand irritates because he uses scattergun tactics instead of developing his ideas but he does raise important issues. I hope the youth will wake up and find their voice instead of being virtually spiritually and politically dead.
But he advocates not voting so what does that achieve?
This is why he's in comedy for a living and not in parliament, because he got carried away with himself (which he admits he does easily) and foolishly allowed the media to jump on a quote like this and take it out of the context it was meant. It's an easy shot at Brand because it's easy to get public on board with arguments such as "people died in wars to give you the right to vote" etc. They did indeed, but not just for a vote, for wider democratic practices in general and it is your right to choose not to vote if you feel you are not represented. What I've personally learnt is that there are plenty of other, more effective ways to go about democracy than handing my support over to a suit that I share no connection with.
The point isn't "don't vote", it's don't vote out of apathy and maintain the status quo. ...unless of course, that's what you want. In that case, go ahead and vote.
Comments
''How do I know this? Canterbury prison closed last year''.
Was it closed because it was full of immigrants?
The more I hear from him the more dangerous and crazy I think he is. Sod the millions who do vote and think differently from him. Farage and UKIP come out with the exact same anti bbc and anti media rhetoric and yet they're pure evil and Russell brand is some kind of saviour.
Also I've not seen it mentioned by the anti-Brand guys who brought up the people to attack Farage. The person in the wheelchair was the brother of a UKIP MEP so yeah...
He has the same views that turns out to be the same as his UKIP brother. So what?
- more taxes
- cure for cancer
- flying cars
- clean air
- no corruption
- good teachers
Pure fantasist masquerading as enlightenment. The only thing he is good at is tricking otherwise sensible people into believing that anything he says is either interesting, new, or worth broadcasting.
As for the big corporations yes they should be paying proper taxes and loopholes should be closed!
Perhaps this is why Russell Brand does not want to be an MP,
he would be found out!
It's yet another way of stifling debate that questions the status quo.
For years I have wondered why the youth of today have not gone ballistic about the way society has developed. In the 60's we moved from being a nationalistic state to being individuals with a conscience (sort of). Universities were a hot bed of ideas then. Later Thatcher's years made people very materialistic and now we just seem to meander, hoping things will get better but they just seem to get worse.
Brand irritates because he uses scattergun tactics instead of developing his ideas but he does raise important issues. I hope the youth will wake up and find their voice instead of being virtually spiritually and politically dead.
The point isn't "don't vote", it's don't vote out of apathy and maintain the status quo. ...unless of course, that's what you want. In that case, go ahead and vote.