Brand v Farage

[sadoldgit]

Just watched last week's Question Time and was looking forward to the fireworks between these two but it turned into a damp squib. Brand seemed to lose his nerve after he was slapped down by the ladies and Nige seemed to be happy to sit back and let him hang himself.

[Lighthouse]

Brand is a plank, just a champagne socialist full of easy answers with no substance. I have no idea why anybody lends credit to his political ramblings.

[bridge too far]

So what are you saying here - if you've got a lot of money you're not allowed to hold Socialist principles?

 

Conversely, if you're poor does that mean you're not allowed to be a Tory?

[aintforever]

Is it worth a watch? I like them both.

 

Brand doesn't come up with any solutions but I like him because he communicates well what most people are thinking. Farage, whilst having some dodgy policies, is on the money when it comes to immigration. Rather watch both of them than 99% of today's politicians.

[pap]

Brand may or may not have solutions of his own, but acts as a lightning rod for some pretty interesting people. He often has guests on his Trews shows that are advocating some kind of policy change.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The whole programme is now a ****ing joke. Why on earth are the BBC giving slots on it to people like Brand,Janet Street Porter, Piers Morgan and Joey Barton. Robin Day will be turning in his grave. The audience is full of plants , the old bat with the stupid hair was a political activist and the bloke with the stick who shut Brand up was the brother of a UKIP mep. It used to be a programme with serious politicians and political commentators.Dimble is hopeless, it needs a rebrand . I'd get Andrew Neil to host, get serious guests and get the audience to ask the questions then STFU, I don't want their ****ing opinion.

 

As for the show, it was pretty pathetic. Dimble lost control and Brand was out of his depth. His Wolfie Smith tribute act lost its gloss after a few minutes. The biggest debating point of the week was the torture claims, but it wasn't debated. Obviously they were just looking for conflict between Brand and Nige with the 3 women patsys.

 

The most telling thing was the advert for a Brand BBC3 show aired straight afterwards. He was on the show because the BBC have decided to invest in him. The sooner this corrupt organisation enters the real world the better.

 

Having Brand on does the left no favours. Let's have some serious lefties on, not someone who acts like a 17 year old student.

Edited 15 December, 2014 by Lord Duckhunter

[sadoldgit]

Is it worth a watch? I like them both.

 

Brand doesn't come up with any solutions but I like him because he communicates well what most people are thinking. Farage, whilst having some dodgy policies, is on the money when it comes to immigration. Rather watch both of them than 99% of today's politicians.

 

Not really. Farage didn't bite and just sat back and let Brand make himself look silly. There was one small section when some of the audience got lively and a guy suggested that Brand should stand for Parliament (Brand just replied that he didn't want to turn into one of them which was a total cop out). I agree with Lord Duck about the dumbing down of the programme. It really needs revamping big time.

[pap]

Not really. Farage didn't bite and just sat back and let Brand make himself look silly. There was one small section when some of the audience got lively and a guy suggested that Brand should stand for Parliament (Brand just replied that he didn't want to turn into one of them which was a total cop out). I agree with Lord Duck about the dumbing down of the programme. It really needs revamping big time.

 

Yeah, that would have been this bloke:-

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/question-time-audience-member-who-defended-nigel-farage-is-ukip-meps-brother-9922648.html

 

UKIP MEP's brother. Props to btf.

[Batman]

Yeah, that would have been this bloke:-

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/question-time-audience-member-who-defended-nigel-farage-is-ukip-meps-brother-9922648.html

 

UKIP MEP's brother. Props to btf.

so many plants in the audience. for UKIP, Labour, Tory etc

why this is something you need to point out, I have no idea.

 

The point he made about Brand 'standing' remains.

[pap]

so many plants in the audience. for UKIP, Labour, Tory etc

why this is something you need to point out, I have no idea.

 

The point he made about Brand 'standing' remains.

 

Does it? Let's examine Brand standing, shall we?

 

Option one is to stand on his own account, the only feasible option to gain a seat without compromising many principles. Of course, he'll be up against the campaign machines of the other parties, but let's say his fame gets him enough of the novelty vote to gain a seat? What then? He's a voting bloc of one, so he'll have no real power. If he continues to do his videos, he'll invariably miss some Parliamentary business and get labelled a hypocrite (again).

 

Option two is to stand under another Party's banner which would mean a degree of compromise, staying on message, etc.

 

I'm sure there are other routes, but the implicit idea you're floating, that you have to be in Parliament to have or express ideas about the political system, is a load of bunk. Brand is as free to express his opinions as people are not to listen to them.

[CB Fry]

Does it? Let's examine Brand standing, shall we?

 

Option one is to stand on his own account, the only feasible option to gain a seat without compromising many principles. Of course, he'll be up against the campaign machines of the other parties, but let's say his fame gets him enough of the novelty vote to gain a seat? What then? He's a voting bloc of one, so he'll have no real power. If he continues to do his videos, he'll invariably miss some Parliamentary business and get labelled a hypocrite (again).

 

Option two is to stand under another Party's banner which would mean a degree of compromise, staying on message, etc.

 

I'm sure there are other routes, but the implicit idea you're floating, that you have to be in Parliament to have or express ideas about the political system, is a load of bunk. Brand is as free to express his opinions as people are not to listen to them.

A rare occasion when I agree with Pap.

 

Having a pop at RB for not standing in the general election is a pretty cheap, facile, point.

 

He can far more effectively give his opinion, mobilise supporters, and provide a platform for other voices without pis sing about trying to become the MP for some left leaning London borough, a role he would be utterly unsuited for.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I really don't know what's happened to the BBC's political output. Newsnight is a pale shadow of its former self , "This week" is childish in the extreme and QT is pathetic. The Daily Politics is a great show , but even Sunday Politics is slipping downhill. Why they keep having people like Nick Watt and Toynbee giving us their wisdom . Andrew Neil is fighting against the tide on those programmes .

[whelk]

I didn't catch either of their respective TV programs on tonight. Farage with Gogglebox poshos and Brand's war on drugs. Either any good?

[Batman]

A rare occasion when I agree with Pap.

 

Having a pop at RB for not standing in the general election is a pretty cheap, facile, point.

 

He can far more effectively give his opinion, mobilise supporters, and provide a platform for other voices without pis sing about trying to become the MP for some left leaning London borough, a role he would be utterly unsuited for.

 

I think what people find a big turn off for brand is his hypocrisy

 

He has millions in the bank. Yet he hates the capitalist banking system and Nigel's "mates" in the city!! The same "mates" that help him set up various off shore accounts and move his vast amount of money are just enough so he can have more than his fair share of it. The same "mates" that rent him is massively expensive flat in London, the same mates that help him own property in LA etc

 

Something that those in parliament (who he does it want to be like) would have a huge difficulty is replicating

 

He is in the perfect world for him. Able to have all the luxuries of the horrible money-first world yet campaign against it

 

Don't forget to buy his book for Xmas.!!

Edited 16 December, 2014 by Batman

[farawaysaint]

I think what people find a big turn off for brand is his hypocrisy

 

He has millions in the bank. Yet he hates the capitalist banking system and Nigel's "mates" in the city!! The same "mates" that help him set up various off shore accounts and move his vast amount of money are just enough so he can have more than his fair share of it. The same "mates" that rent him is massively expensive flat in London, the same mates that help him own property in LA etc

 

Something that those in parliament (who he does it want to be like) would have a huge difficulty is replicating

 

He is in the perfect world for him. Able to have all the luxuries of the horrible money-first world yet campaign against it

 

Don't forget to buy his book for Xmas.!!

 

Can't speak for everyone but this is definitely one of the main reasons I hate him.

[CB Saint]

Anyone can throw up statements like the economy doesn't work or the banking system is too powerful or the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor. How about coming up with some credible solutions to these problems instead of these notions of "liquid democracy" and saying "its all the bankers fault".

 

And wrt to not standing for parliament because "he is afraid he will become one of them" - that is just ridiculous - if the power of his convictions are strong enough then this will not be a problem - strikes me as cowardice.

 

Yes he would be a lone voice - but then all parties started that way. Ukip started with an MEP or two, now they have two MPs and many more to come.

[View From The Top]

Anyone can throw up statements like the economy doesn't work or the banking system is too powerful or the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor. How about coming up with some credible solutions to these problems instead of these notions of "liquid democracy" and saying "its all the bankers fault".

 

And wrt to not standing for parliament because "he is afraid he will become one of them" - that is just ridiculous - if the power of his convictions are strong enough then this will not be a problem - strikes me as cowardice.

 

Yes he would be a lone voice - but then all parties started that way. Ukip started with an MEP or two, now they have two MPs and many more to come.

 

Bolloocks. He'd need to stand as an independent and he's much better at being outside of the tent ****sing in.

 

Us oldies may not like him or his style but working in a college he certainly strikes a chord with the young.

[sadoldgit]

The party system is a mess and failing us. We need more strong independent voices in Parliament. I am no fan of Brand but if he really does want to change the system then that is where he needs to be - and many more like him.

[CB Saint]

Bolloocks. He'd need to stand as an independent and he's much better at being outside of the tent ****sing in.

 

Us oldies may not like him or his style but working in a college he certainly strikes a chord with the young.

 

That's what I meant - stand as an independent.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I'm in no way Brands biggest fan, but some of the attacks of him are frankly pathetic.

 

He's well-off, so cannot support social justice?

 

It's a point he, and others have recently made.

 

"When I was poor and I complained about inequality people said I was bitter, now I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want inequality on the agenda because it is a real problem that needs to be addressed."

[pap]

That's what I meant - stand as an independent.

 

To what end, though?

 

To pointlessly placate those that still believe in a system he doesn't believe in and don't like him anyway? From KRG's linked article:-

 

My favourite experiences since Paxman-nacht are both examples of the dialogue it sparked. Firstly my friend's 15-year-old son wrote an essay for his politics class after he read my New Statesman piece. He didn't agree with everything I said, he prefers the idea of spoiling ballots to not voting "to show we do care" maybe he's right, I don't know. The reason not voting could be effective is that if we starve them of our consent we could force them to acknowledge that they operate on behalf of The City and Wall Street; that the financing of political parties and lobbying is where the true influence lies; not in the ballot box. However, this 15-year-old is quite smart and it's quite possible that my opinions are a result of decades of drug abuse.

[sadoldgit]

I seem to remember someone called Anthony Wedgewood-Benn changing his name to Tony Benn so that he could be taken seriously as a socialist. I can see why people don't take Brand seriously though. It is easy to preach from a position of privilege. He is entitled to spend his money as he wishes but could still lead a comfortable life and use his wealth to help the underprivileged. Words are cheap - actions speak louder than words.

[KingdomCome]

The whole programme is now a ****ing joke. Why on earth are the BBC giving slots on it to people like Brand,Janet Street Porter, Piers Morgan and Joey Barton. Robin Day will be turning in his grave. The audience is full of plants , the old bat with the stupid hair was a political activist and the bloke with the stick who shut Brand up was the brother of a UKIP mep. It used to be a programme with serious politicians and political commentators.Dimble is hopeless, it needs a rebrand . I'd get Andrew Neil to host, get serious guests and get the audience to ask the questions then STFU, I don't want their ****ing opinion.

 

Have to say I've thought this for a while and have stopped watching. It's turned into a circus. As long as you say the bleedin' obvious the seals will clap and cheer and you'll win the show.

 

"I think bad things are bad and good things are good"

*crowd goes wild with salivating glee*

[pap]

[View From The Top]

I seem to remember someone called Anthony Wedgewood-Benn changing his name to Tony Benn so that he could be taken seriously as a socialist. I can see why people don't take Brand seriously though. It is easy to preach from a position of privilege. He is entitled to spend his money as he wishes but could still lead a comfortable life and use his wealth to help the underprivileged. Words are cheap - actions speak louder than words.

 

He wasn't always rich though so what's your point?

[pap]

To save a bit of time, would those that don't like Russell Brand answer one question honestly?

 

Are you at all envious of the bloke?

[View From The Top]

Have to say I've thought this for a while and have stopped watching. It's turned into a circus. As long as you say the bleedin' obvious the seals will clap and cheer and you'll win the show.

 

"I think bad things are bad and good things are good"

*crowd goes wild with salivating glee*

 

Rather reflects the pygmies that are in politics.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

To save a bit of time, would those that don't like Russell Brand answer one question honestly?

 

Are you at all envious of the bloke?

 

I'll admit (and have done) that I don't particularly like him. Though, recently I'm warming to him a bit.

 

Of course I am envious of him.

[pap]

I'll admit (and have done) that I don't particularly like him. Though, recently I'm warming to him a bit.

 

Of course I am envious of him.

 

Wasn't really thinking of you KRG, but props for your honesty.

 

Speaking of which, I think envy is the main reason people don't like him, particularly on a medium like an Internet forum, where every poster is here to express an opinion and be heard.

 

What Brand does is much like anyone here does. The only real difference is that millions of people will be on Brand's content almost immediately. You might be lucky enough to get a "THIS" here, whereas Brand was so inclined, he could put out a YouTube vid detailing all the best dumps he's ever had and still get more attention than the most eloquently expressed opinion on here.

 

The nine million quid probably doesn't help the whole envy thing either.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Wasn't really thinking of you KRG, but props for your honesty.

 

Speaking of which, I think envy is the main reason people don't like him, particularly on a medium like an Internet forum, where every poster is here to express an opinion and be heard.

 

What Brand does is much like anyone here does. The only real difference is that millions of people will be on Brand's content almost immediately. You might be lucky enough to get a "THIS" here, whereas Brand was so inclined, he could put out a YouTube vid detailing all the best dumps he's ever had and still get more attention than the most eloquently expressed opinion on here.

 

The nine million quid probably doesn't help the whole envy thing either.

 

I figured, but I think what I said is still true. I don't think my dislike for him is solely down to envy. But it would be an outright lie to suggest I'm not remotely envious of him.

 

Well exactly. Personally, I've never liked his comedy a great deal. He's clearly an eloquent chap (I'm definitely jealous of that), and he clearly has talent. My dislike of his 'act' is purely a taste thing. I'm supremely envious of his ability to talk to crowds, I had several speech impediments as a kid and still struggle hideously speaking to anything resembling a crowd.

 

Heck, it would be an outright lie to suggest I'm not envious of his bank balance.

 

I'm not however, envious of his 'fame'. I'm pretty introverted, I like to be left alone. I would hate to be recognised by as many people as I'm sure he is.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Does it? Let's examine Brand standing, shall we?

 

Option one is to stand on his own account, the only feasible option to gain a seat without compromising many principles. Of course, he'll be up against the campaign machines of the other parties, but let's say his fame gets him enough of the novelty vote to gain a seat? What then? He's a voting bloc of one, so he'll have no real power. If he continues to do his videos, he'll invariably miss some Parliamentary business and get labelled a hypocrite (again).

 

Option two is to stand under another Party's banner which would mean a degree of compromise, staying on message, etc.

 

I'm sure there are other routes, but the implicit idea you're floating, that you have to be in Parliament to have or express ideas about the political system, is a load of bunk. Brand is as free to express his opinions as people are not to listen to them.

 

Why not Martin Bell had the courage to stand. He would not stand because it would expose just how unpopular he is.

[sadoldgit]

I guess we are all envious of the money and the ability to pull fit women, but the thing that irritates me about Brand is the narcissism.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I guess we are all envious of the money and the ability to pull fit women, but the thing that irritates me about Brand is the narcissism.

 

I think to be a comedian (probably true of politicians also) of any success you need at least streak of narcissism.

[pap]

Why not Martin Bell had the courage to stand. He would not stand because it would expose just how unpopular he is.

 

What did Martin Bell achieve, exactly?

 

He went into Parliament on an anti-corruption ticket. Did he sort all that out, then?

[KingdomCome]

Rather reflects the pygmies that are in politics.

 

Chicken meet Egg.

We get the politicians we deserve.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Why not Martin Bell had the courage to stand. He would not stand because it would expose just how unpopular he is.

 

He's not an idiot. If he stood, he would pick (or have someone help him pick) a seat sympathetic to him.

 

I would not be remotely surprised to see RB win a seat if he were to stand.

[sadoldgit]

I think to be a comedian (probably true of politicians also) of any success you need at least streak of narcissism.

 

I agree but he is over the top. The way he sits with his legs open, the way he looks around when someone else is talking before spouting more of his 6th form politics. The bloke is so far up his own back passage it is untrue.

[sadoldgit]

What did Martin Bell achieve, exactly?

 

He went into Parliament on an anti-corruption ticket. Did he sort all that out, then?

 

It is going to take a lot more than either Bell or Brand to sort out the cancer within Parliament unfortunately.

[pap]

It is going to take a lot more than either Bell or Brand to sort out the cancer within Parliament unfortunately.

 

Which is one of RB's points. He has no faith in it. Doesn't believe in it. The media are doing a top job of attempting to stifle his message, judging by the comments on this thread, but I wonder, which of his comments do people take such issue with?

 

Huge corporate tax-dodging is something he speaks of loads. Who is actually opposed to that, bar the shareholders of those corporations avoiding tax?

 

Now if he was positing himself as some kind of political leader that has aspirations of becoming PM, then fair play to those calling for him to stand - becoming an MP is surely the most credible way to achieve that aim. That's not really his game though, is it? Seems to me as if he is more interested in raising awareness of the huge inequalities in our system.

[Lighthouse]

Huge corporate tax-dodging is something he speaks of loads. Who is actually opposed to that, bar the shareholders of those corporations avoiding tax?

 

That's sort of the point though. It's all well and good standing on the street with a megaphone shouting about how evil corporations are avoiding tax. Pretty much everyone is opposed to that. All he is doing is pointing out the obvious with no actual solutions to the problem.

[pap]

That's sort of the point though. It's all well and good standing on the street with a megaphone shouting about how evil corporations are avoiding tax. Pretty much everyone is opposed to that. All he is doing is pointing out the obvious with no actual solutions to the problem.

 

Nonsense. Taxing these firms is one of the few solutions he has suggested.

[sadoldgit]

Isnt he just reinventing the wheel though Pap? We all know that there are inequalities in the system - there have been for years - and we can all spout off about it. It needs someone to actually take up the reins and do something.

[pap]

Isnt he just reinventing the wheel though Pap? We all know that there are inequalities in the system - there have been for years - and we can all spout off about it. It needs someone to actually take up the reins and do something.

 

Yup. That'd be us. Whether we have the capacity to do it remains to be seen. Personally, I think the British public will remain as apathetic and misled as it has ever been, but there are some interesting things happening in the background which could act as a social catalyst. The bread and circuses thing has worked fine until now, but I do wonder how effective it'll be once the bread is removed.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Which is one of RB's points. He has no faith in it. Doesn't believe in it. The media are doing a top job of attempting to stifle his message, judging by the comments on this thread, but I wonder, which of his comments do people take such issue with?

 

Huge corporate tax-dodging is something he speaks of loads. Who is actually opposed to that, bar the shareholders of those corporations avoiding tax?

 

Now if he was positing himself as some kind of political leader that has aspirations of becoming PM, then fair play to those calling for him to stand - becoming an MP is surely the most credible way to achieve that aim. That's not really his game though, is it? Seems to me as if he is more interested in raising awareness of the huge inequalities in our system.

 

The G20 has actually (belatedly) launched some fairly major projects to work out how to clamp down on tax avoidance. Feel free to be cynical about whether they are doing enough, but international tax avoidance is a very complex problem and will take massive international cooperation to sort it out. Westminster can't doing it alone

[pap]

The G20 has actually (belatedly) launched some fairly major projects to work out how to clamp down on tax avoidance. Feel free to be cynical about whether they are doing enough, but international tax avoidance is a very complex problem and will take massive international cooperation to sort it out. Westminster can't doing it alone

 

Cop out, imo.

 

These firms enjoy all of the benefits of operating in the UK, but bear few of the costs. HMRC is a vastly powerful organisation which is directly responsible for letting a lot of these firms off fúcking huge tax bills. From that perspective, it seems that all HMRC has to do is not let them off.

[sadoldgit]

I agree about the Great British Public Pap. We are very good at moaning about things but not very good at getting things changed. The Poll Tax would be one of the few exceptions when people got motivated enough to stand up and be counted. It takes time for public opinion to make changes so we need people inside the system to do something about it. If the parties see it as a major election issue and put change at the top of their agenda that would be a start - but we know that none of them want to grasp the nettle because they are too afraid that financial institutions will leave The City and go abroad.

[CB Saint]

The tax issue is a problematic because everything theses corporations were doing wasn't illegal, they just exploited the international tax landscape to its fullest.

 

With the internet firms there is a very easy solution - change the definition of the location of the "point of sale". Currently it sits where the selling company is based e.g. Luxembourg and they can get away without charging VAT. If you changed the Point of sale to the place where the product was delivered then they would have to charge VAT and the UK based companies would be competing on an equal basis.

 

The downside is that the price of online shopping would go up, but certainly not by 20%.

[pap]

.... too afraid that financial institutions will leave The City and go abroad.

 

That's a boll*cks argument, imo.

 

At the end of the day, this is a technologically country of almost 70million people. If existing financial firms don't fancy operating in that climate because they don't like the tax regime, others will.

[sadoldgit]

That's a boll*cks argument, imo.

 

At the end of the day, this is a technologically country of almost 70million people. If existing financial firms don't fancy operating in that climate because they don't like the tax regime, others will.

 

It is one that the politicos constantly roll out though.

[CB Saint]

That's a boll*cks argument, imo.

 

At the end of the day, this is a technologically country of almost 70million people. If existing financial firms don't fancy operating in that climate because they don't like the tax regime, others will.

 

Maybe they would maybe they wouldn't - I cannot imagine that any party likes the current status quo where the city have so much power that the can pretty much dictate policy, however, because they throw so much money into the pot, any government taking them on does accept the risk that they could leave and a whopping great whole in the budget would appear. Then it comes to down to a decision of whether the potential gains of reeling in the city is worth the potential risk of not getting re-elected. The answer for a politician is no because this change would have to be a long term play and the longest a politician ever looks is five years.