Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Seriously though I want to shove this up the arse of every tosser reposting that video on facebook or twitter with some vapid musing about how right on Russ is.
It's a solidly written point of view and I'm inclined to side with Webb
'Hi. We’ve met about twice, so I should probably reintroduce myself: I’m the other one from Peep Show.'
made it 3 more sentences before giving up. what a way to start...
seems to assume he means "don't bother voting and just let everything continue as it will". as much as i don't believe a flamboyant comic actor is going to spark a revolution (lol), he was just saying that people need to be aware of democracy's flaws.
is there an equivalent of godwin's law for whenever someone criticises democracy and the counter point is always communism and/or gulags?
He said "I will never vote and I don’t think you should, either."
is that we should be very angry about the current state of politics. if anyone takes every word as literal instruction, they possibly shouldn't be allowed near a ballot box.
cause they wouldn't vote
Democracy's flaws are that more people listen to and idolise Russell Brand than actual great thinkers.
Robert Webb isn't a great thinker. But at least he recognises it.
who (in your opinion) is a great thinker?
Didn't read the article.
Another victim of the fluoride dupe :(
but it IS mine.
fucking famous people can fuck off.
and that he thinks it's irresponsible for russell brand to tell people not to. far cry from 'i don't vote and neither should you'
this is great
He wrote a piece for the New Statesman and appeared on Newsnight. The only people who read/watch these are already more engaged with the political process than the average punter, and are probably not some 'suggestible' teenager.
If this was all over the front page of the Sun or formed the centre-piece of X Factor or something, it might be more relevant, but all this shit is just bouncing round the same old echo chamber as always.
His biggest crime with the whole article is inciting debate in people who really should just stop fucking debating
Dermot O'Leary: 'Wow, thanks Katy Perry, what a show! Is it me or is it HOT in here? Right, remember folks, the lines close in five minutes so ring to in to save the act YOU want to see performing in the Halloween special next week. Now, coming up after the break, comedian Russel Brand will be live, in the studio, discussing the Hegelian theory of dialectical materialism and the inherent entropy of late period capitalism. Buckle your seat belts, we are in for a BUMPY RIDE.'
Lots of people I know who have no interest in politics have been talking about it on Facebook.
I thik I've seen somewhere between 6-8 articles about it in the last week. All of them by smug, hand-wringing celebrities or bore-a-tron political commentators who hate the fact that Russell Brand said there's no point in voting.
And in which saying this, has a very valid point. Why play the game if it is rigged? But everyone just wet their pants about the no-voting thing.
Apathy towards voting exists because politics is shit for most people. Not voting isn't the problem of the voter, it's the problem of the politician.
It's also a democratic right not to vote as much as it is to vote BNP or UKIP or Tory.
So all of these pointless, moaning articles can truly fuck off. I don't care what their opinion is about what I do with my vote. Brand has every right, and a valid point, to talk about the worthlessness of voting and that trumps all else.
I wish they'd all stop bed wetting about it. It's a comedian talking about politics. Why don't they worry about what the government is actually doing?
Fuck knows what he's saying. Might be supporting Brand. I just wanted to rant.
How did it go?
And if you're saying I DON'T CARE WHAT THEIR OPINION IS, then it just sort of proves you're blindly holding the dick of the celebrity you think is coolest rather than listening to a variety of worldviews, no?
What I mean it, count points are cool, and fair enough. Everyone can have a say. It just seems weird that in the last week there's been a torrent of articles on why Russell Brand is some crazy lunatic who shouldn't tell people not to vote. I can't see their point.
I genuinely think it's because most people realise Brand has pulling power (literally). But instead of them worrying about what some comedian said on TV, why not worry about why people don't vote, why he doesn't vote or why they want people to voite.
I just think the focus is all wrong. It's like "how date Russell Brand talk about politics like that!" when his point was very valid and should be pushed back to politicians, not thrown back in Brand's face as if he's some kind of eccentric moron with crazy ideas who doesn't understand how the world works.
but yep, i take your point
Brand's got more people talking about the political system in a oner than any politican could.
Which is admirable / scary.
then you haven't been paying enough attention.
Because it's the only game in town.
2. Not voting isn't the problem of the voter, it's the problem of the politician.
No, social inequality, poverty, poor education, crime, healthcare etc are all problems for millions of voters who have the capacity to vote and instigate change. Not voting helps politicians maintain their status quo and passively affirms their actions.
3. It's a democratic right not to vote
Sure it is, and if that's your bag, fine. But no one is saying Brand shouldn't be allowed to say it, they're just questioning the value of him doing so.
it doesn't mean you have to play it. Not if the outcome is always shit.
you can't instigate change if you can only vote for Con / Labour / Lib Dem / Four other party maybe.
In my area, it's a Tory safe seat. Every vote I've cast has not only been like pissing in the wind, but it's been the main parties only, really. In a shitty FTPT system.
So do I vote for Tory? Or lying Lib Dems who are now Tory? Or Labour who aren't even rebutting seriously right wing Tory policy but agreeing with it and only arguing about semantics? Or do I vote UKIP which is 80s Tory?
I'd rather not vote and register my protest. It's voting that KEEPS the status quo as it gives a mandate to the next bunch of shits coming in.
Not voting challenges the status quo as the popular vote shrinks and challenges the authority of the government. Well, it doens't, but a devastatingly low turnout will / does rock the boat more than a regular election win where one similar face replaces another.
I agree they're questioning Brand but why? He's pointing something out: It's pointless voting. This has always been my experience too. Why not support that observation - Why not address the even decreasing turnouts? But no, they have a go at Brand and I suspect, in part, it's jealousy and in part it's anger that someone might openly say "don't vote". It's certainly taboo and got a taboo style reaction when really, he's saying "do what you want". People don't like that. They want you to play the game.
The last Labour government didn’t do enough and bitterly disappointed many voters. But, at the risk of losing your attention, on the whole they helped. Opening Sure Start centres, introducing and raising the minimum wage, making museums free, guaranteeing nursery places, blah blah blah: nobody is going to write a folk song about this stuff and I’m aware of the basic absurdity of what I’m trying to achieve here, like getting Liberace to give a shit about the Working Tax Credit, but these policies among many others changed the real lives of millions of real people for the better.
This is exactly what the present coalition is in the business of tearing to pieces. They are not interested in helping unlucky people – they want to scapegoat and punish them. You specifically object to George Osborne’s challenge to the EU’s proposed cap on bankers’ bonuses. Labour simply wouldn’t be doing that right now. They are not all the same. “They’re all the same” is what reactionaries love to hear. It leaves the status quo serenely untroubled, it cedes the floor to the easy answers of Ukip and the Daily Mail. No, if you want to be a nuisance to the people whom you most detest in public life, vote. And vote Labour.
But Labour also were reckless with the nation's money (even though it was a global banking crisis) and dragged us into an illegal, imperialistic war which I / we cannot forgive. Also, the rich-poor divie grew massively.
but yes, they also did a lot of good.
I'm just disappointed that Ed Miliband has been such an atrocious opposition. What's happening in this country is an open goal for him but he agreed with the tripling of fees, he didn't hold the government policies in any way responsible for the riots, he supported the welfate reform (some Labour MPs even said they'd be more harsh) and they've been terrible at pointing out the backdoor privitsation of the NHS that's clear as day to most run of the mill political bloggers.
Labour are scraping with the Tories over who is more Tory. They're no longer a party of social justice, employee rights, state provision. They're another neo-liberal conmen and I'm so disillusioned it's untrue. Who's left to vote for?!
You talk of “obediently X-ing a little box”. Is that really how it feels to you? Obedience? There’s a lot that people interested in shaping their society can do in between elections – you describe yourself as an activist, among other things – but election day is when we really are the masters. We give them another chance or we tell them to get another job. If I thought I worked for David Cameron rather than the other way round, I don’t know how I’d get out of bed in the morning.
Maybe it’s this timidity in you that leads you into another mistake: the idea that revolution is un-British. Actually, in the modern era, the English invented it, when we publicly decapitated Charles I in 1649. We got our revolution out of the way long before the French and the Americans. The monarchy was restored but the sovereignty of our parliament, made up of and elected by a slowly widening constituency of the people, has never been seriously challenged since then. Aha! Until now, you say! By those pesky, corporate, global, military-industrial conglomerate bastards! Well, yes. So national parliaments and supernational organisations such as the EU need more legitimacy. That’s more votes, not fewer.
National parliaments and corporations make a very unhealthy Venn diagram and voting is voting for them both. I'll still vote but it will be a vote against the current gov't and it saddens me that my approval of that conflict of interest is implicit.
It's troubling that anyone would think this Government is 'the same' as the last one.
The last one was hugely flawed. This one is just plain fucking evil.
^ be aware that that is a mere hint of the tuberculosis style coughing fit that you could provoke
only having one game in town is the problem. apparently the only alternative is queuing for rations in siberia though, so let's not even discuss it.
Change. Politicians challenged. Overhaul. More than we've ever got before.
to come up with a representative system for us based on their votes
comes out of this looking like the bigger tit.
if any of it makes people take an interest, generally, in the way they vote, then it's pretty much worth it
But Webb in particular sounds like such a bellend.
Just the painfully sanctimonious tone.
I think that is Brand's point. It is impossible to effect change solely by voting - if you want to make a change to something, then issue-led campaigning is the only way. Politicians are just the PR men for maintaining the status quo - and that is geared primarily towards protecting the interests of the economic elite.
He talked about this quite eloquently I think - why are we getting so hung up the "don't vote" issue?
Its mystifying in the same way capitalism is. The labour party are traitors.
Who are 'the labour party'? is it the leadership? Is it the membership?
There's a place in the labour party for radical views. If people want to democratically transform the party into genuinely democratic socialist one, they can. There is the potential to do that and you probably have to transform the Labour Party before you can 'transform' society. If you don't want a form of democratic socialism or a form of more radical socialism then Im not sure how the labour party could ever not be 'traitors' to you since it's only been a democratic socialist / social Democratic Party or some perversion thereof so dunno what they've betrayed. really uncool to be in a political party though.
btw i agree demkcracy is mystifying and i think our form of representative democracy placates people. but Im pretty sure that's not an unassailable truth. and fwiw I think the least hypocritical way for people to attack Russell brand is to attempt this. In the other thread I said critiques like the one by rb could radicalise potential labour voters. If it hasn't radicalise them it's at least mobilising someone. idk.
Public letters to one recipient unsettle me a bit. It's written as if it's between two people...but with the full knowledge that loads of other people are reading it. In fact this third group is probably the REAL recipient. It's weird.
(Fwiw I don't think that about Robert Webb or what he's written, but that's the problem with the format)
but it seemed pretty clear to me that Brand was saying that there was no party that people can vote for if they want to vote for a leftist party, and that seems like a pretty obvious truth: Labour are a bunch of crooks, Greens have no substance, the SWP are pro-sex offenders. As much as I'll probably end up voting for labour, I know by doing so I won't be voting for a party that I feel represents my views and that makes me pretty sympathetic towards people who just choose to opt out instead. Adopting the 'lesser of evils' approach to voting may succeed in getting the tories out of power, but it still dangerously implies that we support a labour government, and that's a heavy cost. I doubt that matters to robert webb though because he seems to love the labour party.
"yeah, I know. what should we do instead?"
No way near.
And I say that as someone who leans slightly more towards Webb's side (if we're gonna boil it down to one or t'other*).
Brand's argument is fuelled by spunk and fury. And whilst it might well be heading down a philosophical cul-de-sac, it's a thousand times more engaging.
Webb undermined his point by dropping in irrelevant and erroneous filler based on his inadequately explained born-again support for the Labour party. His whole thing reads like the bored mumblings of his snooker commentator character.
Brand kinda is offering something to hold on to, however flimsy.
Webb manages to smear shit all over a fairly decent piece of pragmatism.
(*Awaiting the Mitchell viewpoint.)
You can't just shout bullshit without any substance and have a proper argument. In terms of entertainment Brand wins but it depends what you really want out of this. I am looking for some genuine dialogue and ideas rather than just some blockbuster popcorn rhetoric.
I want my parties and parliament to reflect that.
Not looking for constant pantomime, but will gladly allow rabble rousers their chance to shine.
Anyone who gets huffy that someone chooses not to vote is being silly.
Kodos: It's a two party system! You have to vote for one of us!
Man: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man 2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away
In fact, this Coalition's entire raison d'etre can be accurately summed up by `The politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work again!`
Over here you're right, though. Really the two parties don't get the majority of votes because of their promises, they get them because they encourage fear of what the other party will do.
E.g. look what the Tories are doing to public stuff. I don't want that so I'll be voting Labour at the next election based entirely on fear that Tories will do that sort of thing *the most*. It doesn't really matter if Labour are standing with the promise of making everyone wear a rubber glove on their head and pretend to be a chicken once a month. (Okay, that might be too far.)
Literally, I've lost all confidence in Miliband. I knew he'd cave. Knew it.
great episode ^__^
Doesn't judge - just eloquently explains why Brand's views are relevant.
Far from it. I'd be happy to hear more of Merton's thoughts. Considering he's been on a nominally political show for aeons, you don't hear that much from him.
bunch of slightly weird and bemusingly angry people wet themselves at the thought of the concept of famous people a) existing, b) having opinions, and c) by dint of being famous, being able to get said opinion across
meanwhile i look down at you all from atop Mount High Horse
they're not :)
I think I would go Robert Brand. Bobby Brand.
B to the power of 2
I like it.
you have been assigned Russell Webb
you don't refuse to engage in the decision maing process
no doubt his behaviour and comedy persona have exuded quite a misogynistic warble. I don't know him properly or anything but I think his kind of ' cad', puerile side is quite consciously constructed. this doesn't 'exonerate' someone in my opinion but I get the impression that he's a reflective and thoughtful person. certainly he's less obviously awful about women these days. dunno how contrite someone should have to be for that sort of behaviour too cause I guess you have to treat as separate things he's done on the one hand and his honest statements about his sexuality. Im a very forgiving person too/ I believe forgiveness is important.
in any case I don't think that generates any moral imperative as to whether I'm pals with or shag him, not that you said as much.
saying that they might agree with the thrust of what Brand said in his interview/article, but that they found it hard to reconcile with the views on women that he still exhibits, outside of his constructed persona, to the point that quite a few of them have got a bit angry at other left/liberal women saying that they'd quite like to be boned by him.
But I think my answer might be that they don't have to reconcile what he's saying with his 'dodgy' gender politics. He's a man in the world. It's likely that 'his gender politics' (I don't like treating someone's politics as a bundle or a unit of analysis in this way but that's another discussion) are going to be shit. I think his own have been very much brought into sharp relief both because of fame and also his quite deliberate and funny outpourings about his penis etc etc.
And again, if liberal/left women (is that me?) want to bone him, what's the problem in that? I think it's pretty actually pretty dodgy to treat sex as in any way indexed to someone's individual politics such that wanting to shag a tory makes you a class traitor or something. Or really to police who other people fuck in any way actually.
I've by seen very much substantive discussion about his misogyny. If I thought he was predatory I would probably feel differently.
It was mainly that a lot of people (male and female) posted up the Brand clip saying 'I love him' or 'He'd get my vote' or a comment about having feelings of primal lust towards him, only for others to raise the issue of (using their words) his gender politics, which, if it was coming from anyone else, they'd have a massive problem with. And yes, I do think that's related to the knowledge that he is pretty predatory.
you've still not explained what you/your twitter friends find objectionable about people wanting to have sex with him. how does anyone know "if it was coming from anyone else they'd have massive problem with (it/them)"? i'm not going to post a video of george galloway saying i want to bone him because i think george galloway is rank. his abhorrent views about women amongst other things aren't the relevant issue. saying you want to fuck russell brand doesn't mean you don't have "a massive problem with" his attitudes to gender and think everything he says and does is wholly unproblematic. why would it?
how is he predatory? i mean this very much in the sense of him being a sex offender. not http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/news/russell-brand-im-a-predator-29359998.html
(also we can't separate this from the fact that norms about monogamy which restrict what legitimate relationships can be, and with how many people etc. any 'analysis' of how he presents his sex life in public has to bear that in mind)
was a discussion about whether it was OK to fancy Russell Brand?
i would have thought it was pretty self-evident that nobody should be castigated for who they fancy.
but this whole thing is deeply boring. I get what Russell Brand means, Robert Webb looks like a bit of a wally, everyone gets bored
which seeks to rule one, then there is no obligation by an individual to comply with any order dictated by what others consider to be the ruling bodies.
There has been no accord or compact, therefore what right can a body have over that soul? answer = 'none' morally speaking. (practically they have much resource and power and can constrain and force the individual to comply)
Should I bother?
One said don't bother voting ever, the other said, "oh well, I'm not sure I entirely agree with you but I'm going to beat around the bush with some shit fucking prose and not really make a point."
nor did he say "dont bother voting EVER"
as well you know, you naughty little Theo.
He was trying to say that voting in this pseudo democracy does not have the ability for you to chose to change anything according to how you think it should be, instead it lends legitimacy to a system that he disagrees with and enpowers groups that he regards as immoral and insincere. By going along with the 'pretence that the pseudo democratic system works well' by voting, distances the chance that the system will need to be changed.
Brand's point is not niave or insignificant. The last election proves it. opponants of his stance say well you have to vote to have a say how you want things to be run...if you want to change the system you have to vote to do so................This last election the party that had been campaigning for moderate improvement to voting democrasy, the LibDems, actually managed to get into government, but it was all pointless, because their voting reform (mild and inoffensive as it was....if you object to changing the rules so that the proportion of MPS better reflects the peoples split, then you are anti democratic.....like Labour and conservative) did not go through.
If you believed in not increasing tuition fees and voted lib dem, then again you actually voted FOR huge increase in them........sorry can these people who were DUPED or LIED to, take their vote back? (I/we all understand that not everything is predicatable, that random events sometimes have to be catered for....but the tuition fees was calculated and deliberate, no 'new' thing cropped up, they said one thing. then they did completely the other.
How is Brand's stance seen as dangerous to democracy when such examples of deciept surely have more of an effect on destroying peoples faith in the voting system....charismatic and attractive though he is, people surely would not listen to his suggestions unless he was able to wrap up peoples anger and frustration at the lies and insincerity of political parties in the first place.
Politics essentially practicallt means being economical with the truth, to hide the real debate/issues/divides from the voters....so really given this, voting is the equivalent of going and voting blind, just guessing what you are voting for, based on some salesmans spiel.
this: "I will never vote and I don’t think you should, either."
I think Theo's paraphrasing is fine.
he didnt mean that, what he meant was, given the current conditions he wouldnt, the reason he added 'never' is because he wanted to emphasise that he thinks the conditions will not change sufficiently. He wanted to emphasise that this is not a small blip in an opinion of a particular party leader or something like that, he is trying to emphasise that the problem is much deeper and across the board and involves the method of political debate as well........Russel is an impulsive man and has a beautiful immediacy to his words, unfortunately by trying to emphasise something he has come up against the problem of the literal meaning being able to be taken.
HOWEVER I do think that you lot are being naughty, because if you look at the whole construct of his argument you will be able to infer what he means....i.e. that he wants BIGGER change so that there is a SIGNIFICANT change for the better, he does use pharasing like 'its not worth voting with the current set up, its only going to be worth voting if significant change happens' If you (poncey mild intelligencia) cannot glean that from what he says then we are in a worse position than I thought, because this means that political thought and argument cannot be conveyed by language effectively to a wide audiance, which points to all...it means our political units are too large, which kind of emphasises the danger of the election set up as it is.
its very annoying and unhelpful for opponents of non voting, for them to just sloganise and try to shout down non voting stances, rather than to try to feel that they should have to explore the current inadequecies with politics that engenders the apathy and disillusionment.
Why hate Brand? he would have no threat if what he says about the state of politics wasnt true. Why not take the opportunity to change (or discuss) the state of politics for the better, rather than knocking a charming man who has brought up the debate?
(PS the lib dems brought up very mild electoral change and presented it in such a deliberately watered down and ununderstandable way that it could create apathy and boredom in even Father Stone (father ted reference), thus effectively scuppering it as appearing anything like a good idea to go with change
I love the way you argue sometimes and its silly that people seem to disregard a lot of your really excellent and well-put points.
this in particular is a good point: 'Politics essentially practicallt means being economical with the truth, to hide the real debate/issues/divides from the voters....so really given this, voting is the equivalent of going and voting blind, just guessing what you are voting for, based on some salesmans spiel.'
i dont agree with this 'because this means that political thought and argument cannot be conveyed by language effectively to a wide audiance, which points to all...it means our political units are too large, which kind of emphasises the danger of the election set up as it is' - he's not being understood very well by the public because of the symbolic order to borrow from psychoanalysis, something i know nothing about.
"If you (poncey mild intelligencia) cannot glean that from what he says then we are in a worse position than I thought, because this means that political thought and argument cannot be conveyed by language effectively to a wide audiance, ***********this next bit of text between the arrows needs to come out >>>>>>>>>(which points to all<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<************...it means our political units are too large, which kind of emphasises the danger of the election set up as it is"
for being articulate?
'Don't bother' in the Paxman interview.
If you don't vote, does it make a difference whether it was because you just didn't bother, you forgot to go to the polling station, you overslept or you deliberately made a defiant and politically trenchant point about the state of our democratic system today?
in my imo
If you actually get your ballot paper and write 'none of the above none represent my views' or 'I dont trust any of these' then this is not viewed as a protest, it is counted as the same as those papers where the voter is too drunk to be capable of putting an x in a box.
So bizarrely its best not to put a ballot paper into the box, because then even if not voting can be regarded as apathy, that can still be a damning indictment of the apathy that politics has inspired in many, thus suggesting that perhaps 'something better change'
Turning up at the polling station but not putting anything in the box is probably best. Protesting at the polling station is probably not a good idea.
but personally I'd have nothing but admiration for someone who despite being too drunk to put an x on their ballot paper, managed to remember it was voting day, decided to go and vote rather than have a nice lie down and somehow found their way to the polling station with their voting card.
they might just put you down as a bit dim.
disillusionment. Apathy is, because the value judgement that is important here is that of the political system not the voter
there's not going to be sudden upturn in dim people, so an upturn in spoilt ballot papers would be measurable.
turnout is variable. difficult to register a protest that way.
whatever. as long as the vote doesn't go to labour or conservative the hegemony is getting challenged so i'm not going to quibble too much.
of spoiled papers/non-voting does that challenge actually produce any tangible effect though? Come to think of it I have no idea how many spoiled papers there were in any election I've lived through.
We're already at the point where a pretty dismal proportion of the population actually express a positive choice in favour of the governing party, and yet that doesn't seem to be putting any obstacles in their way in terms of preventing them doing anything.
it doesnt make a difference if someone votes or not in a safe seat (?)
Does it make any difference if one votes tory or lib dem?
It doesnt make any difference if you vote green or not?
Do you think it doesnt really make any difference unless you vote for one of the 3 big parties?
Im not advocating that not voting is a great and effective way of speeding change, Im knocking the knockers of Brand. (although voting is no more of an effective way of speeding change that you want)
The most effective way of speeding change is to try to influence the masses, smear campaigns, escalate fears and phobias and underlying predjudices, effective transferance of blame for something that is more widespread onto your political opponants or an aspect of their policy, managing to convince people to always associate disaster or success with something because of a few similarities (or differences) with something historical.......those things are effective although they will need to be applied without morality or sincerity to be their most effective (selective/blinkered viewpoint will also assist in their applications effectiveness)
include a vote being cast. Whether or not a vote is cast and, if so, for whom it is cast obviously does make a difference. That isn't what I was questioning, though.
the way that Theo phrased it made it seem like he was a valueless idle jerk. Whereas he has a lot of values. Sometimes people who vote (because its kind of ordinary) are far more apathetic....they are 'not bothered to think about anything seriously or with an open mind)
Russell Brand is obviously VERY BOTHERED about the whole issue of voting.....by putting a lot of effort elsewhere he is undoubtedly going to be able to cause more of an effect by channeling his huge energy into another area of political expression (other than voting)
Unfortunately for him, it is debatable as to whether the outcome of his actions will benefit his biggest enemys most.....no matter it is more likley to effect change from the dreadful status quo that we currently have (yeah if it was sustainable then this current status quo is actually relatively equatable.....but the thing is, that it isnt, and that urgent action is required, not the ineffective insipidness of current partys stated intentions.
Don't get all up in Theo's grill, yo.
But considering Brand is obviously not employing traditional political vernacular and is trying to plead to you for you to TRY TO FIND MEANING in what he is saying, rather than to argue politically in what he is saying, since he is not arguing normally shouldn't people try to not knock his words but to try to understand where he is coming from? rather than assessing whether you can destroy his argument?
Hes is trying to be a positive and energetic person....can you not use any of that for anything?
Cant everyone find an aspect about our current system that we feel is wrong and at least see that in the context of what he is saying?
Here is an example. Party a is in power. Party a has an idea. Party b will knock it for political advantage, whether or not Party b members might largely agree with the idea.
I think both tory and labour acknowledge this happens......why?
Surely if both parties largely agree, the more common outcome is that the party in power steals the idea.
(although I do <3 TBO.....I also <3 Theo as well........why cant you <3 each other you b****ds? (in this respect Im like Brand and Jesus....I love you all why cant you get along......hate makes baby jesus/brand/creaky cry....(unless its to do with THAT woman))
Actually I like you too RaanRaals, why cant we all just love each other? You can see Brand trying to appeal to Paxman in a similar way :D
because I enjoy laughing at Robert Webb and although I thought him jumping in to attack Brand was very wrong, I think that we need to get people like Robert Webb round to our way of thinking rather than drawing them on the other side of a battle line.....Robert Webb is probably nearly a good person who could understand and 'see it' he just needs a bit of help to get there.
We need to win the battle to connect to people, for that it would be better to have people like Paxman and Webb convincing the more intellectual and polite people. If you had people like Paxman and Brand working together they could move mountains, Problem is they are very good at what they do as individuals.....political parties seem to be people who are good at closing ranks and gaps because they are not such towers of strength