Paxman v Brand

[Sour Mash]

If they're self made then I have no problem whatsoever with them, tory or labour. Career politicians from wealthy backgrounds are a real problem in our system. They have no idea of the real life most of us live.

Which is sort of my point. That stat alone doesn't tell us much. Also, nowadays, a Millionaire is obviously wealthy, but not hugely rich in the way it would have been 20+ years ago.

 

Ultimately, I agree, there are too many career politicians, full stop, regardless of whether they're wealthy or not. Not sure of a practical way that can be changed though.

[hypochondriac]

I think the campaign to get those flats in London to be now sold to a housing association might have been strengthened by his input and publicity.

 

So you're advocating small demonstrations by celebrities to help improve things in a small way but the system itself remains unchanged.

[pap]

If they're self made then I have no problem whatsoever with them, tory or labour. Career politicians from wealthy backgrounds are a real problem in our system. They have no idea of the real life most of us live.

 

Agreed. It is a problem that has gotten worse and is probably getting near to breaking point. I don't think we're that different from the US in the regard of most policy benefiting the elites. Even things that appear to be a benefit to the poor, such as Working Tax Credits, Housing Benefit, and the New Home Build plan are actually a subsidy to the rich and big business. Many of these career politicians are thinking beyond politics, and which cushy number they can expect after some policy they pushed through "accidentally" benefited a corporate benefactor.

 

We need a channel for normal people without rabid party affiliations to enter Parliament to moderate the excesses of the ideological vandals. I know that is supposed to be the job of the Lords, but we all know that when push comes to shove, they can be easily railroaded if the government of the day really wants its way. It has repeatedly shown itself to be ineffective in moderating those excesses where it really matters.

 

Personally, I'd create another 200 MP slots that aren't tied to constituencies, designed for non-partisan independents. Full voting rights, and I'd probably go somewhat radical on the means of selection. When someone first becomes an MP, it's more a reflection of the campaign they fought than any real notion of whether they'll be any good at representing their constituents. Why not have people apply to become MPs like we all do in the working world, and let the public vote on a shortlist?

[stug76]

100% of Russell Brands are millionaires.

 

There seems to be this notion that only the 'elite' are crap at running the country. I have a suspicion that if you chuck 200 ordinary men into Westminster they'd be equally crap. The truth is whilst Brand has simulated some debate, he is only a mouthpiece for his own ego and really, democracy works. When someone stands up and gets elected with a manifesto that offers change the country will/could change but it isn't going to happen because it's all about the economy stupid.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

If they're self made then I have no problem whatsoever with them, tory or labour. Career politicians from wealthy backgrounds are a real problem in our system. They have no idea of the real life most of us live.

Self made millionaires are sometimes the worst because they think anyone can do what they did if they just work hard enough

[Lord Duckhunter]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11304792/Russell-Brand-film-on-RBS-bankers-funded-by-City-investors-including-former-RBS-banker.html

 

This just about sums him up

[Sour Mash]

Agreed. It is a problem that has gotten worse and is probably getting near to breaking point. I don't think we're that different from the US in the regard of most policy benefiting the elites. Even things that appear to be a benefit to the poor, such as Working Tax Credits, Housing Benefit, and the New Home Build plan are actually a subsidy to the rich and big business. Many of these career politicians are thinking beyond politics, and which cushy number they can expect after some policy they pushed through "accidentally" benefited a corporate benefactor.

 

We need a channel for normal people without rabid party affiliations to enter Parliament to moderate the excesses of the ideological vandals. I know that is supposed to be the job of the Lords, but we all know that when push comes to shove, they can be easily railroaded if the government of the day really wants its way. It has repeatedly shown itself to be ineffective in moderating those excesses where it really matters.

 

Personally, I'd create another 200 MP slots that aren't tied to constituencies, designed for non-partisan independents. Full voting rights, and I'd probably go somewhat radical on the means of selection. When someone first becomes an MP, it's more a reflection of the campaign they fought than any real notion of whether they'll be any good at representing their constituents. Why not have people apply to become MPs like we all do in the working world, and let the public vote on a shortlist?

Nice idea, but I can't see it working. 200 individuals, each with their own views, no cohesive, collective plan or vehicle by which their ideas and policies can be implemented, we'd just have 200 Russel Brands giving out popular sound bites.

[pap]

100% of Russell Brands are millionaires.

 

There seems to be this notion that only the 'elite' are crap at running the country. I have a suspicion that if you chuck 200 ordinary men into Westminster they'd be equally crap. The truth is whilst Brand has simulated some debate, he is only a mouthpiece for his own ego and really, democracy works. When someone stands up and gets elected with a manifesto that offers change the country will/could change but it isn't going to happen because it's all about the economy stupid.

 

I'd dispute the fact that democracy is working. What we get is an agenda of a particular party, in recent times delivered come-what-may by presidential style cabinets. Blair and Iraq. Cameron and the NHS. The direction of travel is the same, more and more stuff run for profit - leaving more power in the hands of entities that really don't give a fúck about the lot of people. They don't care that people need local jobs. They'll happily move a factory to Poland, Turkey or the Far East if it improves the bottom line.

 

When it comes to important issues, like whether to go to war, whether we should toss banks huge bailouts to cover the losses of professional gamblers, the only regard governments for the general public is how they're going to manipulate the general public into believing a shít sandwich is a steak supper. They do a very good job on many.

 

Look at the influence banking institutions have in our lives now. You need a loan for virtually everything, because virtually everything is priced to meet the available credit out there, a particular problem during the unsustainable housing bubble. And almost everyone accepts it all as a point of truth. Banker's wet dream undersells it somewhat.

[Sour Mash]

I'd dispute the fact that democracy is working. What we get is an agenda of a particular party, in recent times delivered come-what-may by presidential style cabinets. Blair and Iraq. Cameron and the NHS. The direction of travel is the same, more and more stuff run for profit - leaving more power in the hands of entities that really don't give a fúck about the lot of people. They don't care that people need local jobs. They'll happily move a factory to Poland, Turkey or the Far East if it improves the bottom line.

 

When it comes to important issues, like whether to go to war, whether we should toss banks huge bailouts to cover the losses of professional gamblers, the only regard governments for the general public is how they're going to manipulate the general public into believing a shít sandwich is a steak supper. They do a very good job on many.

 

Look at the influence banking institutions have in our lives now. You need a loan for virtually everything, because virtually everything is priced to meet the available credit out there, a particular problem during the unsustainable housing bubble. And almost everyone accepts it all as a point of truth. Banker's wet dream undersells it somewhat.

What's the workable alternative though?

[Verbal]

What is their definition of a millionaire? What would they prefer the percentage to be? What is an acceptable level of wealth for an MP to have? How many of them we're born into Millionaire families and how many were self made? Without knowing any of that, it's a bit irrelevant.

 

The 78% is nonsense by his own admission. This supposed figure is for MPs AND members of the House of Lords. There are far more members of the latter than the former (over 800 as against 635) and, with age on their side, so to speak, and having being drawn as life peers extensively from business, are far more likely to have assets of £1 million.

 

Of course there are some wealthy MPs, but to suggest that almost four-fifths of the House of Commons has liquid assets of over a million is utter rubbish.

[pap]

What's the workable alternative though?

 

Well, we're not getting rid of money anytime soon. It's just too damn handy. One of the most interesting ideas I've seen floated is that new money should only ever be created to pay for new infrastructure, as opposed to being created on consumer whim.

 

I'm a big fan of public ownership of utility companies and the railway network - kit and caboodle. A big opponent of private firms running healthcare and prisons. I'd like to see more local industry, less commuting, more focus on addressing inequality. If EDF can make over a billion in profit from the UK, a nationalised industry itself, then I don't see why we can't do what the French do. Yes, they're loaded up to the nines with nuclear power, but we could feasibly do the same or even better, lead the way in research into alternate energy sources. There's that infrastructure money.

 

I dunno, it just seems like so much of human effort is redundant and that rampant, unending and self-feeding consumerism isn't a sustainable or equitable way to run things, especially when infrastructure is turned into a private sector product or chock-full of private sector companies ferrying their shít along the motorways 24/7. Most of all though, public money should be used to serve the public interest, not to prop up failed institutions or sell the health service off to corporations.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Proof positive that nationalised railway systems are inherently evil:

 

[hutch]

Those prices don't look cheap to me for 35 years ago.

[Sour Mash]

Well, we're not getting rid of money anytime soon. It's just too damn handy. One of the most interesting ideas I've seen floated is that new money should only ever be created to pay for new infrastructure, as opposed to being created on consumer whim.

 

I'm a big fan of public ownership of utility companies and the railway network - kit and caboodle. A big opponent of private firms running healthcare and prisons. I'd like to see more local industry, less commuting, more focus on addressing inequality. If EDF can make over a billion in profit from the UK, a nationalised industry itself, then I don't see why we can't do what the French do. Yes, they're loaded up to the nines with nuclear power, but we could feasibly do the same or even better, lead the way in research into alternate energy sources. There's that infrastructure money.

 

I dunno, it just seems like so much of human effort is redundant and that rampant, unending and self-feeding consumerism isn't a sustainable or equitable way to run things, especially when infrastructure is turned into a private sector product or chock-full of private sector companies ferrying their shít along the motorways 24/7. Most of all though, public money should be used to serve the public interest, not to prop up failed institutions or sell the health service off to corporations.

but fundamentally, none of that will ultimately change the way we live our lives in any great way, bankers will still be very powerful, some people won't feel adequately represented in government and the vast majority will get on fairly happily with their lives with the occasional moan. Re-nationalising industries isn't anything particularly new and innovative, how would it differ to the UK of 40 odd years ago?

[bridge too far]

So you're advocating small demonstrations by celebrities to help improve things in a small way but the system itself remains unchanged.

 

Worked for Joanna Lumley and the Gurkhas IIRC

[trousers]

Those prices don't look cheap to me for 35 years ago.

 

Not forgetting the tax payer's contribution on top of that.

[trousers]

Worked for Joanna Lumley and the Gurkhas IIRC

 

There's a slight difference between success with niche causes and creating peace, harmony and equality across the planet.

[buctootim]

Not forgetting the tax payer's contribution on top of that.

 

You're right, the total cost then was much less, given the much greater public subsidy of private profits now. Northern rail paid dividends of £38million despite losing 50p for every mile travelled by every passenger.

 

From the Institute of Economic Affairs - a right wing conservative think tank. "Taxpayer subsidies to the rail sector have reached astronomical levels. At £6 billion per year (including Crossrail), they have roughly trebled in real terms over the last twenty years".

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/16/rail-operators-200m-dividends-subsidy

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/why-are-rail-subsidies-so-high

Edited 21 December, 2014 by buctootim

[hypochondriac]

There's a slight difference between success with niche causes and creating peace, harmony and equality across the planet.

 

Not to mention the toppling of world governments, the upheaval of society and the demolition of the banking sector.

[shurlock]

Nice idea, but I can't see it working. 200 individuals, each with their own views, no cohesive, collective plan or vehicle by which their ideas and policies can be implemented, we'd just have 200 Russel Brands giving out popular sound bites.

 

That's arguably how Parliament ran until the late the nineteenth century and how Congress runs today. The growth of political parties was driven by strong class identities -for better or worse, those have faded in importance, replaced by more fluid allegiances. Having independent nonpartisan independents mirrors more closely how individuals view themselves what they want from the political process. By extension, the idea that such a system would grind to a halt is the kind of apocalyptic strawmen that has been used against PR, even though it underestimates the instinct for compromise and pragmatism that is a hallmark of mature democracies like the UK.

[Sour Mash]

That's arguably how Parliament ran until the late the nineteenth century and how Congress runs today. The growth of political parties was driven by strong class identities -for better or worse, those have faded in importance, replaced by more fluid allegiances. Having independent nonpartisan independents mirrors more closely how individuals view themselves what they want from the political process. By extension, the idea that such a system would grind to a halt is the kind of apocalyptic strawmen that has been used against PR, even though it underestimates the instinct for compromise and pragmatism that is a hallmark of mature democracies like the UK.

That's not how parliament ran in the late 19th Century, political parties and allegiances were well to the fore by then. And if you read the post I was replying to, it suggested creating an additional 200 seats in parliament - so individuals would be able to hold very little sway against the existing parties/government in situ. If PR came into play it wouldn't end the party system at all, just give the chance for a few smaller parties a bit more of a say, which would be no bad thing in my eyes, but won't bring about any fundamental change.

[whelk]

very good send up of Brand. Think even his fans would agree

[buctootim]

.

very good send up of Brand. Think even his fans would agree

 

Ha, thats excellent. spot on

[The Cat]

That's funny. I like Jake Yapp.

[Goatboy]

very good send up of Brand. Think even his fans would agree

 

Ta!

[pap]

very good send up of Brand. Think even his fans would agree

 

He'll probably make his name on this video.

 

"Oh hey, you're that Russell Brand bloke".

 

I agree with one of the four replies to his general tweet of this video; "Utter genius".