Jump to content

Paxman v Brand

Batman

By Batman,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

CHAPEL END CHARLIE

CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Posted
Posted

May fellow Space Cadets. I've been in orbit around Planet Brand for a while now and despite an intensive sensor sweep I've yet to detect life signs of the deep political thinker that some of you seem to have unearthed. I intend to undertake a full diagnostic check on all my systems to make sure I haven't missed anything important.

 

In the meantime, so what if he disapproves of how the big banks and those legalised loan sharks that infest our TV ad breaks have behaved themselves - join the club! This kind of obvious populist stuff hardly amounts to a coherent manifesto for change - or even evidence of any particularly original thinking for that matter. A 21st century version of Karl Marks or Adam Smith he ain't.

 

Mind you in this age of commerce and conformism I feel there is a distinct 'gap in the market' when it comes to original thinking ... but I'm just not convinced that Brand has what it takes to fill it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted

Strange that this thread has now exceeded two hundred posts and no one's quoted anything Brand has actually written. Here's a thought (?) from 'Revolution' - and one which Brand sets up as being incredibly important.

 

"If you can transcend the limits of the instinctual and anatomical self, you can become part of the kingdom of united consciousness defined by power, glory and eternity."

 

As an example of this, he recalls himself, mid-threesome, as he and two women go at it. Suddenly he has a Damascene moment:

 

"Like perfumed and gloss vultures, they peck at my carcass and a petit mort is insufficient; I am like Frankenstein here, assembled from boneyard parts...I don't want to be led back to that. I want to be delivered from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

 

So there we are: narcissism as political manifesto. No wonder it's so appealing to a few dribbling I'm-just-like-Brand-really acolytes. It's all about 'me'.

 

**** the voters - in fact, there shouldn't be any voting. Why? Simple. The acolytes have the tune down pat:

 

the moronic British public.

 

So much for a revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted

More unbridled narcissism from Brand here. Plus something about how globalisation and large food corporations get subsidised by government.

 

 

Careful kids. Bitter pseudo-retirees will be along to dismantle this message with cherry bombs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted

Been going on for ages though hasn't it Pap? Wasn't that whatthe Thatcher/Scargill battle was all about? Subsidised coal?

God this bloke is irritating. I get Minty's point which is ignore his mannerisms and concentrate on what he says, but he really comes across as a prize ****. And what is with all the touchy feely stuff? Just plan creepy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Been going on for ages though hasn't it Pap? Wasn't that whatthe Thatcher/Scargill battle was all about? Subsidised coal?

God this bloke is irritating. I get Minty's point which is ignore his mannerisms and concentrate on what he says, but he really comes across as a prize ****. And what is with all the touchy feely stuff? Just plan creepy.

 

Bit of a difference between handing out subsidies to national industries and giving corporations free money. You can argue that the state gets to keep the money invested there.

 

The question you really want to ask is that in straitened times, why this isn't on the news itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Interesting snippet in Private Eye asking why he speaks out so vehemently against tax avoiders yet is happy for Random House to publish his book - a company owned by Pearson who, wait for it, pay no tax!

 

Yeah but again, who should be the target of your ire here?

 

Logic dictates that you should march down HMRC/write to your MP/take direct action and ask why all these big companies aren't paying tax.

 

Realistically, most will just focus on calling Brand a hypocrite.

 

Practically, f**k all changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
More unbridled narcissism from Brand here. Plus something about how globalisation and large food corporations get subsidised by government.

 

Careful kids. Bitter pseudo-retirees will be along to dismantle this message with cherry bombs.

 

Zac is married to a Rothschild, grandaughter of Jacob, so Brand is co-operating with the Bilderburgs who control the world? Oh noes - he's actually a plant, a shill, a government agent. You're so hopelessly confused about what you think and say its comical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Zac is married to a Rothschild, grandaughter of Jacob, so Brand is co-operating with the Bilderburgs who control the world? Oh noes - he's actually a plant, a shill, a government agent. You're so hopelessly confused about what you think and say its comical.

 

What's your highest level of strawman qualification?

 

Sub-GCSE? Do they do a BTEC first or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted

I can see positives and negatives in the growth of multi national corporations but clearly shifting food back and forth a number of times around the world before it ends up an supermarket shelves is a nonsense. I though our supermarkets were supposed to be doing more to source local produce?

 

Still....my three kids are all teenagers. I try to get them interested in world economics but they are simply not interested. I don't think any of them have every read a newspaper and they don't engage in the news. If someone like Brand could interest them then that would be great, but like me, they think he is up his own b*m and don't take him seriously. I grew up in a country full of social unrest. Constant strikes, the 3 day week, IRA bombings etc. It was hard to ignore what was going on. Now all my kids seem to worry about is getting tickets to see London Grammer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
A weak dodge. Tell us how you square Brand working with the evil Bilderburgs who control the world.

 

Sorry. Didn't realise you were actually trying to trade on that as a serious point.

 

Y'see, for your point to have any validity, you'd kinda need to have examples of me saying the same things as you are now. You don't, so I'm not sure what your point is. Happy (h|c)unting mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
Sorry. Didn't realise you were actually trying to trade on that as a serious point.

 

Y'see, for your point to have any validity, you'd kinda need to have examples of me saying the same things as you are now. You don't, so I'm not sure what your point is. Happy (h|c)unting mate.

 

So are Zac Goldsmith and Helena Norberg Hodge the good guys or the bad guys then? Im not clear where you place them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Okay shades of grey then. Do you think Zac Goldsmith and Helena Norberg Hodge are broadly well intentioned and in alignment with Brand or not?

 

Think it's worth listening to people on a point by point basis.

 

Zac Goldsmith has a decent point about food travelling too far. I don't really agree with Brand's endorsement of the EU.

 

Acting as a permanent unpaid judge that decides that someone is irredeemable is not something that interests me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scummer

Scummer

Posted
Posted
More unbridled narcissism from Brand here. Plus something about how globalisation and large food corporations get subsidised by government.

 

 

Careful kids. Bitter pseudo-retirees will be along to dismantle this message with cherry bombs.

 

I watched it, but I must be stupid as I didn't get the point. It was just a load of statements poorly edited together, with no analysis of why or how any of these things happen. Brand asked questions with no interest in hearing the answer, interrupting her constantly to insert inane comments about molestation etc. There may well be a serious point here, but that video didn't go any way to explaining it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted (edited)
Think it's worth listening to people on a point by point basis.

 

Zac Goldsmith has a decent point about food travelling too far. I don't really agree with Brand's endorsement of the EU.

 

Acting as a permanent unpaid judge that decides that someone is irredeemable is not something that interests me.

So its possible for members of the Goldsmith family and the Rothschild family to make a contribution and be doing good in the world?

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Including Jacob Rothschild?

 

I think "anyone" is the universal set. Some people choose not to use their gifts for the betterment of others. I'd say that unless someone is a complete sociopath, they have the capability for good.

 

Is it your contention that Jacob Rothschild is a complete sociopath?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
I think "anyone" is the universal set. Some people choose not to use their gifts for the betterment of others. I'd say that unless someone is a complete sociopath, they have the capability for good.

 

Is it your contention that Jacob Rothschild is a complete sociopath?

 

So you think a billionaire member of the Bilderburg group can have a positive influence on the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
I dont think Jacob Rothschild is a complete sociopath. So you think a billionaire member of the Bilderburg group can have a positive influence on the world?

 

Then I answered your question already.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, but if you want my advice, the good you can do to yourself (assuming you're not a complete sociopath) will probably involve doing less of this, perhaps a bit more of looking after yourself.

 

If you could lose enough weight to see your cock, that'd be a start, I reckon. I thought you people were supposed to be jolly.

 

See? I could have used my powers for good there, but didn't. I can see why you're so confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
Then I answered your question already.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, but if you want my advice, the good you can do to yourself (assuming you're not a complete sociopath) will probably involve doing less of this, perhaps a bit more of looking after yourself.

 

If you could lose enough weight to see your cock, that'd be a start, I reckon. I thought you people were supposed to be jolly.

 

See? I could have used my powers for good there, but didn't. I can see why you're so confused.

 

Back to type. You default to abuse when you're shown the massive holes in the 'logic' of your view of the world. Being unable to think things through is bad enough, compounding that with poor social skills is lame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Back to type. You default to abuse when you're shown the massive holes in the 'logic' of your view of the world. Being unable to think things through is bad enough, compounding that with poor social skills is lame.

 

Coming from you, that's glorious.

 

I'm sure everyone appreciated both your attempt at a smackdown, plus the eventual delivery.

 

Find life, Tim. Crying on an Internet forum after someone beat you to the chase isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
I watched it, but I must be stupid as I didn't get the point. It was just a load of statements poorly edited together, with no analysis of why or how any of these things happen. Brand asked questions with no interest in hearing the answer, interrupting her constantly to insert inane comments about molestation etc. There may well be a serious point here, but that video didn't go any way to explaining it.

 

I struggled with the comments about molestation too. And his eyes are all over the place as he seems to be concentrating on ways to be clever/funny without listening to what is being said. I think he needs to decide what he wants to be and stick to it. Some people can make pertinent points and be funny at the same time but I am not sure if RB has that skill set. There is a real art in good communication skills. If you are leaving people confused about your message you are not succeeding in your aim. There is too much for me with RB that is distracting. Why is that? is he not confident in the points he makes so he uses diversionary tactics? I don't know. I just know that he seems to alienate a lot of people - maybe he wants to exclude old codgers like me though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
I struggled with the comments about molestation too. And his eyes are all over the place as he seems to be concentrating on ways to be clever/funny without listening to what is being said. I think he needs to decide what he wants to be and stick to it. Some people can make pertinent points and be funny at the same time but I am not sure if RB has that skill set. There is a real art in good communication skills. If you are leaving people confused about your message you are not succeeding in your aim. There is too much for me with RB that is distracting. Why is that? is he not confident in the points he makes so he uses diversionary tactics? I don't know. I just know that he seems to alienate a lot of people - maybe he wants to exclude old codgers like me though?

 

And that really is fair criticism. Potentially interested in the message, put off by the messenger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
I struggled with the comments about molestation too. And his eyes are all over the place as he seems to be concentrating on ways to be clever/funny without listening to what is being said. I think he needs to decide what he wants to be and stick to it. Some people can make pertinent points and be funny at the same time but I am not sure if RB has that skill set. There is a real art in good communication skills. If you are leaving people confused about your message you are not succeeding in your aim. There is too much for me with RB that is distracting. Why is that? is he not confident in the points he makes so he uses diversionary tactics? I don't know. I just know that he seems to alienate a lot of people - maybe he wants to exclude old codgers like me though?

 

 

Both Zac Goldsmith and Helena Norberg Hodge are serious advocates for the issues about food, farming and trade and have been for 20 years or more. They probably thought Brand would help them reach a wider audience, but the risk is you damage the credibility of the arguments by having them conveyed by him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
And that really is fair criticism. Potentially interested in the message, put off by the messenger.

 

Isnt this the problem nowadays though? Far too many politicians and public figures are not trusted and do not engage the people. Once upon a time some entertainers could get a message across ( I am thinking about Ben Elton back in the 80s ) but now that doesn't seem to work so well either. It worked for Bono for a bit but now no one takes him seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Isnt this the problem nowadays though? Far too many politicians and public figures are not trusted and do not engage the people. Once upon a time some entertainers could get a message across ( I am thinking about Ben Elton back in the 80s ) but now that doesn't seem to work so well either. It worked for Bono for a bit but now no one takes him seriously.

 

The 80s is an interesting comparison. The Conservative government of the day was truly polarising. The alternative comedy scene reacted to Thatcher and her policies, took the píss beautifully. Spitting Image was superb. Perhaps the relatively bland entertainers we have these days are a reflection of the centrist teflon twáts we have now. Or maybe I'm getting old :)

 

In the music world, people like Bono had credence because they were involved in Live Aid, and rightfully so. These days, your pop stars are more likely to be fronting Mastercard, appearing on one of Cowell's TV shows, or both.

 

It could be argued that the mainstream media has reflected the general political apathy in the population. People like Brand represent a transition into media reflecting general dissatisfaction and getting a wee bit wider. Personally, I'm glad he does his videos. He talks about off-the-menu concepts that have no coverage on mainstream television, many of great interest to anyone suffering in austerity Britain. The fact that most just aren't going to take him at face value is probably a benefit. People will be inclined to do their own research to determine whether the info checks out.

 

It'll only be jealous nobbers that go around holding "successful people that get listened to" in contempt that have a real issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted

I think you are right about the 80s. Was it Mike Yarwood who gave up impersonations because the characters were no longer there? I have heard some comedians say the same - that there is very little in politics to get excited about. I am 60 and one of the many disaffected people who no longer vote. I have worked for The Times, Guardian, Telegraph and Spectator magazine (not a jouno) over a 30 year period but have only bought a newspaper once in the last 10 years. I watch the news and Question Time occasionally but would rather watch one of the many excellent historical documentaries that pop up quite regularly. When I surf the net it is usually to look up something about Prohibition after watching an episode of Boardwalk Empire or something about King Edward when watching the two excellent programmes on the Battle of Bannockburn.

 

I currently work for a Government Agency where the cuts are hampering our ability to deliver and you can see outsourcing coming closer and closer. The Probation service is already in line and I am sure the CPS will be next. No more jobs for life in the public sector and maybe that isn't a bad thing, but the apathy is amazing and no one seems to care anymore, t hey just wait for the inevitable.

 

What am I trying to say in this ramble? I guess the world is a very difference place nowadays. Social media seems to rule the roost. Despite its stupid name, Twitter has huge potential to get big messages across. Instead is seems to be used for celebrity tittle tattle - another sign of the times. Andy Warhol only got one thing wrong. Everybody wont be famous for 15 mins, they will be famous for 15 seconds.

 

I don't know what the answer is? Has getting hip, trendy Prof Brian Cox in made programmes on space sexier to the watching public? Would people listen to him if he was a potential candidate for the Green Party? Has Homeland made more people interested in the Middle East issues or are they just tuning in to see who Carrie sh@gs next?

 

Is that there is just too much information out there now? Once upon a time the news agenda was driving by the editors of newspapers and TV newsrooms and current affairs programmes. Now you can sit down, long on, and read about what the hell you like whenever you like.

 

I have no idea what the answer is but perhaps the problem is that in the West we are too comfortable and perhaps in needs something like another Great Depression or war to wake people out of this stupor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)

Can understand why a teenager, a hormonal bedroom revolutionary, would find Brand's peter and jane portrait of democratic capitalism 'appealing'; but grown-up mboarders? At least, you could crack one off to Noreena Hertz, another complete airhead.

 

As to why Brand gets so much attention from the mainstream press -the New Statesman, Grauniad, Paxman etc; Id suggest most editors find him mildly titillating and transgressive in a voyeuristic, chattering class way - just as most deep down wish they were mick jagger, another champion of style over substance.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
RBS contractor doesn't like Brand shocker.

 

Thanks, trousers. We've all learned something new today :)

 

I agree pap. Things are only worth reading if someone writes something that is out of character.

 

At least I don't have to read Brand's book to discover that he doesn't like capitalism. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
Because he's raising valid points about the flaws in our governing system that affect us all. People are far too focussed on who's saying these things as opposed to what's actually being said.

 

Agree and hence why most of the press are so eager to do hate pieces on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...