Politics Russel Brand on Newsnight.

[Scouse]

I agree with everything he says but he comes across as an idiot on a rant...I couldn't watch the whole interview because he was winding me up so much with his mannerisms etc.

I got the impression he was actually really nervous in that interview and that's how he deals with it.

I was looking for something that illustrated why you're both wrong, forgot, then came across this.

Well done for explaining why politicians (and programs such as newsnight) are pompous self-important arse:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdWKQ36JkwE#


Conformity, including how we present ourselves in "serious" discussion, is the enemy of invention.

 

[Aoami]

I'm not saying Joe Politician has it right either, but Brand wilted under pressure and could provide little substance to his answers.

 

[Scouse]

I'm not saying Joe Politician has it right either, but Brand wilted under pressure and could provide little substance to his answers.

I disagree completely. I don't think he suffered pressure at all from Paxman.

I thought he wiped the floor with him.

 

[Aoami]

We'll have to agree to disagree because I think Paxman was in control the whole interview and even went easy on him.

 

[Chilly]

Not voting should be a crime. Given that that would be illegal to enforce (you never have to show anyone proof of voting), it should be heavily stigmatised in society. Kids should be taught how to vote at school and how to select candidates and taught that voting for parties is not the only way. Junkies like Brand who pretends to know what he's on about by using lots of long words are not part of any kind of solution to where we are now. He just encourages more and more people not to vote. The end result? A government that is less and less representative of the population. It doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to work that one out.

 

[rynnor]

Not voting should be a crime. Given that that would be illegal to enforce (you never have to show anyone proof of voting), it should be heavily stigmatised in society. Kids should be taught how to vote at school and how to select candidates and taught that voting for parties is not the only way. Junkies like Brand who pretends to know what he's on about by using lots of long words are not part of any kind of solution to where we are now. He just encourages more and more people not to vote. The end result? A government that is less and less representative of the population. It doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to work that one out.

If no-one represents your views why should you have to vote for someone who doesn't? Thats the bottom line - thanks to spin doctors and governing by popularity polls there just isnt the variety that once existed.

 

[Raven]

Not voting should be a crime. Given that that would be illegal to enforce (you never have to show anyone proof of voting), it should be heavily stigmatised in society. Kids should be taught how to vote at school and how to select candidates and taught that voting for parties is not the only way. Junkies like Brand who pretends to know what he's on about by using lots of long words are not part of any kind of solution to where we are now. He just encourages more and more people not to vote. The end result? A government that is less and less representative of the population. It doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to work that one out.

While I agree with the sentiment, the parties are basically the same, the candidates the same. It makes no difference who you vote for they are all just a mouthpiece for those with the money, lobbyists, business, unions, same shit.

However, not voting means they can carry on regardless and nothing will change.

 

[Raven]

If no-one represents your views why should you have to vote for someone who doesn't? Thats the bottom line - thanks to spin doctors and governing by popularity polls there just isnt the variety that once existed.

That's why people should vote for none of the above. If 40% of the population voted "none of you cunts" they would soon start listening.

 

[rynnor]

That's why people should vote for none of the above. If 40% of the population voted "none of you cunts" they would soon start listening.

Thats not an option in the UK though - in other countries (like the US) - this is an actual option on the poll but here you have to select a candidate or spoil the paper. As stated before spoiled papers are counted as turnout which helps legitimise the whole broken system.

 

[soze]

I can not remember where I read it but someone was going on about how informed voting is a full time job. And non informed voting is as bad a not voting. Most people just hear something they like a go with it. They do not check up on all of their chosen parties policies. They do not study all of the other parties policies. If you have not done that and you can not explain why you are voting for X or for Y and debate it well you are voting in little more than a popularity contest.

 

[Chilly]

Why wouldnt spoiled ballots count toward attendance? It makes an even stronger argument, IMO. If 90% turned, up, 40% of those drew a penis and the rest squabbled over red and blue it would be a HUGE DEAL. Those vying for seats would immediately have to take notice and alter their policies. The parties would love this to happen, by the way. It would allow those in the main parties who genuinely want to make things better (they do exist, you know) a way to do so without having to "damage" their party.

 

[Aoami]

I genuinely don't think it would make a difference. As long as the main parties are getting votes they'll find a way to skew the figures to make themselves look popular even if half the country turned up and spoiled their ballots. The system is so set in stone.

 

[Job]

The ancient Greek solution seems insane at first..but the more you think of the advantages the more sensible it sounds.
There is no voting..the winner is picked by chance..eliminates every bad aspect of political parties except ineptidude...which you could say is there anyway.

 

[rynnor]

I genuinely don't think it would make a difference. As long as the main parties are getting votes they'll find a way to skew the figures to make themselves look popular even if half the country turned up and spoiled their ballots. The system is so set in stone.

As long as we have a first past the post system spoiling ballots is a useless token gesture. What we really need are some new parties that offer a genuine alternative rather than single issue parties like UKIP.

 

[DaGaffer]

As long as we have a first past the post system spoiling ballots is a useless token gesture. What we really need are some new parties that offer a genuine alternative rather than single issue parties like UKIP.

Except the experience of PR in many European countries show that minority parties aren't much of a solution either. You still end up with 2-3 big parties and a bunch of single issue hangers-on, but they rarely have any real voice in actual government.

 

[DaGaffer]

The ancient Greek solution seems insane at first..but the more you think of the advantages the more sensible it sounds.
There is no voting..the winner is picked by chance..eliminates every bad aspect of political parties except ineptidude...which you could say is there anyway.

Its a noble thought, politics should be a burden you perform as a civic duty, but modern life is too complex and too large; all you'd end up with is an all-powerful civil service where the elected officials are just there to rubber stamp their policies; it would be the only way to keep the day-to-day economy and legal system running.

 

[rynnor]

Pass then - what we really need is a different electorate who are politically aware but most are hopelessly lost in the system.

There are still tribal politics in the UK and people who vote x because their dad always did or I always vote x.

 

[Scouse]

government that is less and less representative of the population.

Not a single party represents any of my views.

Spoiling the ballot legitimises the voting process. I've done it, but don't bother any more. They don't care if you spoil the ballot - they ain't changing and don't care what you think.

what we really need is a different electorate who are politically aware

Been saying this for years - you can't have democracy without a decent education.

But our education systems prepare the working class for call-centre jobs. We have mass-market dumbed down production-line education that is "enough" for us to take our menial jobs and not enough for us to be politically active.

This is by design. They don't want politically active free-thinkers.

 

[Wij]

But the in-build avoidance of revolution is one of the reasons I think one-world-government can't come soon enough. It gives a single point of protest for a revolution.

Bertrand Russell on Authority.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00h9lz3

He actually thought that the world was headed for a one-world government because in each cycle of empires to anarchy to empires the empires had been getting bigger, but recognised that, due to human nature, large nations can't survive. What he underestimated is the tribalising effect mass-communication, mass media and relative peace would have meaning that the size of empires and nations had actually peaked.

There won't be a world government and there will be no mass popular revolutions. There will just be secessions to smaller nations and narrow ethnic or interest groups. Purely by their existence, they will have to compete. Competition will mean that there will always be market forces. States that try to legislate them away will erode themselves over time. It won't be a race to the bottom but a race to a compromise position. Much as it is now.

 

[DaGaffer]

I do think the concept of nation-state and fixed physical borders is going to be eroded over time. The idea is already under pressure from people who owe their affiliation to their religion rather than their host nation, mass economic migrations and corporations who refuse to be nailed down to a single country; how long before corporations or religions take on some of the apparatus of nations themselves?

 

[rynnor]

how long before corporations or religions take on some of the apparatus of nations themselves?

I think the Catholics did this a long time ago and what about Iran?

 

[DaGaffer]

I think the Catholics did this a long time ago and what about Iran?

Yes, but the Catholics then had to accommodate the rise of the nation state, and Iran isn't actually as much of a theocracy as the West would have you believe; Saudi is far more directly controlled by Sharia. But what I was getting at is that a physical border is becoming less and less important; the Nation state is in its long twilight.

 

[Wij]

I do think the concept of nation-state and fixed physical borders is going to be eroded over time. The idea is already under pressure from people who owe their affiliation to their religion rather than their host nation, mass economic migrations and corporations who refuse to be nailed down to a single country; how long before corporations or religions take on some of the apparatus of nations themselves?

Vatican City anyone?

 

[Scouse]

Enjoyed that lecture from Bertrand Russell, Wij

However:

There won't be a world government

I disagree. I think it's inevitable as long as individuals can imagine more.

Capitalism is a hinderance rather than a boon in this though as it stimulates the greed and envy that Bertrand deplored - and in the end is a hinderance to the end of war and promotes competition rather than the cooperation he believed would be the saviour of mankind.

Even Bertrand says that in the lecture (and feels no too happy about communism either):

Capitalism gives opportunity of initiative to a few. Communism could, though it does not in fact, provide a servile kind of security for all

He knew that dogmatic following of either of the above was idiotic and self defeating. He knew we needed new politics...

I have lived in the pursuit of a vision, both personal and social. Personal: to care for what is noble, for what is beautiful, for what is gentle; to allow moments of insight to give wisdom at more mundane times. Social: to see in imagination the society that is to be created, where individuals grow freely, and where hate and greed and envy die because there is nothing to nourish them. These things I believe, and the world, for all its horrors, has left me unshaken.

Funny that he fought against idealism when idealism is essential to the first part of his social vision.

However, that could be because he was filthy rich and deep down he worried that idealism could be a threat to that