Russel Brand - Paxman Interview

[Voll Blau]

He's so edgy, funny and cool that he makes me want to abstain from voting.

[Alf Bentley]

Maybe serious people don't care for talking about these kind of problems because they're not serious problems? Or at the very least not problems which vague political discussion is ever going to solve. [...]

You disregard his inability to offer anything close to a suggestion of a solution but what is the point in bringing up something like global warming when you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about? Do you not realise that many of the world's greatest scientists are devoted to the study of global warming? What extra benefit do you expect to be generated by having laymen like Brand offering nothing whatsoever to the ongoing international dialogue? [...]

My main problem with lefties is encapsulated quite well by Brand. He talks about things he knows nothing about but feels qualified to comment upon because he's read a few lines about it in the Guardian. 

 

I share your frustration with people (left or right) who rant on about issues without taking the trouble to inform themselves to some extent. However, I don't agree with the opposite extreme either - only allowing experts to express opinions about global warming, the economy or whatever. That's an argument against democracy, in effect.

 

The extra benefit that might be generated by Brand spouting off is to highlight the fact that important issues are not being addressed by the political class and to get people talking about them. Yes, the media occasionally mentions some (but not all) such issues, but most are not high up the political agenda - and should be:

- Global warming has the potential to cause food shortages, natural disasters, global unrest, even endanger civilisation....it might not, depending on politics/technological progress, but is worth discussing, which politicians rarely do;

- Inequality/underclass: Societies with greater inequality (e.g. US, Brazil, Mexico, Qatar) tend to have more social problems;

- Voter alienation: Having large swathes of society switch off from the democratic process could be very dangerous in future, particularly if economic times get even tougher (I disagree with Brand almost encouraging people to abandon mainstream politics); particular groups (e.g. the young) switching off leaves them under-represented in politics compared to pensioners etc.

- Corporate influence (on all parties) encourages corruption, hinders small business and damages diversity on the high street;

- Drugs contribute massively to crime and damage the economy (and people), yet we persist in the same failed responses.

 

Brand is the sort who polarizes opinion. I'm sure he's a willy puller in some ways, but if he pushes such issues up the agenda and gets people talking about them, he'll have done us a favour. As for his playful/creative use of language, I find it entertaining, and I'm sure he's aware that he sounds pretentious to some. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt that he was on drugs - that's just his hyper personality. It probably contributed to him getting into drugs in the past, but some people are just like that (particularly if they've been heavily into drugs/drink and then stop - lots of surplus energy).

[Finnegan]

Your best post ever.

Only if by "best post ever" you mean "most hilariously ironic." I hope it's deliberate.

The only difference between Brand and Moose is their political orientation and the fact Moose's platform is a small internet forum.

Moose has no solutions, just a garbled mix of populist Mail and occasional Telegraph diatribe. They both deflect with their creative use of English when cornered, Brand by spitting out pages of the Oxford English and Moose with (mostly) funny insults (with the odd tired gay/rentboy joke bundled in.)

Brand has the tired student-left rhetoric (I used to be guilty of it myself, now Large Al has taken over and he'll grow out of it too) about global inequality because it's hard to argue against morally, even when you have no depth. But Moose just counters with the equally unintelligent, Mail-right rhetoric "this is what all lefties think, everybody l o l."

Great. Have fifty million YouTube hits / ten FT rep points, you both really changed the world.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to put some humble pie in the oven before someone points out the hypocrisy of my own rambling. Ciao.

[sdb]

I think he's brilliant, although there needs to be some genuine substance there. 

 

I hate the way society is going, with the rich getting richer and more powerful by the day, more so than ever. Just because RB doesn't have the solution doesn't mean he's wrong to raise the issues. 

[Guest MattP]

Cannabis yeahhh, if Cameron dropped a few E's all our problems will be solved man, its like, bankers yeah. Banking.

 

Save Africa man, its like why these rules, I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas...

[sdb]

It's also quite refreshing to see some passion regarding modern day politics. Cameron, Osbourne and Gove have drained me of any optimism so fair play to Brand for not just wanting to jump under a bus like I sometimes do.

[Alf Bentley]

Cannabis yeahhh, if Cameron dropped a few E's all our problems will be solved man, its like, bankers yeah. Banking.

 

Save Africa man, its like why these rules, I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas...

 

I thought that you'd gone to the pub for your drug of preference (and mine)?! 

[Guest MattP]

I thought that you'd gone to the pub for your drug of preference (and mine)?! 

 

On the way now

[MooseBreath]

- Global warming has the potential to cause food shortages, natural disasters, global unrest, even endanger civilisation....it might not, depending on politics/technological progress, but is worth discussing, which politicians rarely do;

- Inequality/underclass: Societies with greater inequality (e.g. US, Brazil, Mexico, Qatar) tend to have more social problems;

- Voter alienation: Having large swathes of society switch off from the democratic process could be very dangerous in future, particularly if economic times get even tougher (I disagree with Brand almost encouraging people to abandon mainstream politics); particular groups (e.g. the young) switching off leaves them under-represented in politics compared to pensioners etc.

- Corporate influence (on all parties) encourages corruption, hinders small business and damages diversity on the high street;

- Drugs contribute massively to crime and damage the economy (and people), yet we persist in the same failed responses.

There's nothing wrong with raising undervalued issues and if that was what Brand was doing I'd find him far more tolerable. But these issues are not undervalued:

- the impact of global warming is a key driver in just about every major initiative I can think of. Everything from cars to houses, power generation to manufacturing is now heavily influenced by environmental legislation. We're way past the point of having a little chat about this and have moved on into clear, defined actions with measurable outputs. All of this while the level of impact we even have on climate is still quite contentious, especially in the context of the earth not actually having warmed at all for over a decade now.

- inequality and the underclass again are things I think get talked about an awful lot, probably too much, and in the wrong ways by politicians. It's more a subject for economists. I don't think people shouldn't be allowed an opinion, but it's obvious some political parties are using these issues to try and buy and lock in votes rather than having any real desire to tackle them. Brand is just the same. Another champagne socialist trying to curry up support by offering a soothing massage to the bruised ego of people who have failed to take opportunities in life and would jump at the chance to have someone to blame. Witness the entitlement culture. It's legitimately dangerous, but is itself much more undervalued than any of the issues raised by brand.

- voter alienation you could argue is caused by the fact that most people's lives are at least 'alright' in this country, regardless of who is in power. If things went down the pan people would be back voting immediately. Maybe lack of voting is just a symptom of a good thing. Besides, more voter engagement would just lead to more populist policies. We choose a representative democracy because we don't want to suffer the tyranny of the majority, an admittance that we'd rather the public didn't have too much say because we recognise how dangerous it would be to have people who aren't experts having strong influence over major decisions. Apply that same principle to voting, and maybe we're better off with only those with an interest and knowledge about politics actually going to vote.

- corporate influence is just another topic like inequality that left leaning politicians prefer to spin into a victim story. There might be a legitimate need to talk about the power of corporations, but that's not why Brand wants to talk about it, he justs wants to pitch them as the pantomime villain when they're anything but.

- drugs, I don't know why this makes the list. I'm pretty sure drug use has reduced a lot. We have drug education, drug clinics, drug rehab. We have a legal system where possession of small amounts of even class A's often carries no penalty. What else do drug addicts want? Brand does actually blame politicians for his drug problems in that interview. No, Brand, it was your own fault for not having the willpower to resist a quick hit of something tasty. If he's the kind of guy who can't even admit that it was his own decision to repeatedly jab the needle in his arm then I struggle to take anything else he says seriously. If Finnegan wants me to provide ideas then I have plenty, and here's one: stop going down this path of removing personal responsibility. Making people think someone else is to blame stops them from looking for a solution to their problems, it doesn't empower them, it keeps them down. We should become a nation where personal accountability is held in the highest regard. People should be encouraged to take charge of their own lives, to make their own mistakes and to recognise those mistakes as self-inflicted, to learn from them and to grow as individuals. That'd be more effective in getting people off drugs and out of the underclass than by feeding them an excuse and some beer money in return for a vote.

[Mr.X]

Brand made himself look like an idiot

[purpleronnie]

Brand made himself look like an idiot

Thats odd...for a comedian.

[Benji]

What a goon - don't let his vast vocabulary camouflage a complete lack of substance.

[Rincewind]

I watched it. Although he made some good points, his rantings were a bit OTT. The right will dismiss him as a loony, the centre will be as apathetic as ever and the left will say maybe next year. The general public will have their own lives to worry about.

[Mr.X]

Thats odd...for a comedian.

He thought he was being intelligent, when all he did was show what an idiot he is

What a goon - don't let his vast vocabulary camouflage a complete lack of substance.

That is what I thought

[Webbo]

Only if by "best post ever" you mean "most hilariously ironic." I hope it's deliberate.

 

No I meant it. Post 34 in this thread is also excellent.

[Vacamion]

All these posts and not one person has mentioned that Mr Brand is also an excellent "swordsman", "squire"  and "man about town", in short, he is, ahem, a right old fanny rat.

 

Whatever his repugnance to males, he can charm a lady, that one.

 

Now I'm less than keen on him and find his unnecessary use of polysyllables show-offish and occasionally distracting from what he is trying to say, but I wonder how much of my dislike for him (and that expressed elsewhere in here) is motivated by the knowledge that he is so unfathomably charming for 50% of the population... 

 

[MooseBreath]

I'm sure being rich and famous helps a bit with the ladies. Let's be honest if you're rich and famous you can be utterly horrendous with women but still be able to quite easily drown yourself in pussy if that's what you want.

[foz.foz]

All these posts and I've not read anyone mention his up coming tour. Think he's achieved what he set out to do and get people talking about this interview keeping his name fresh in the minds of people who some of them will go out and buy a ticket. As for his vocabulary, yeah his uses some choice words which a few of them I've never heard of, let alone know WTF they mean, but I think some of the things he says and does are funny, and even in that interview, Paxman hadn't got all the "comebacks" and was once or twice looking second best.

[Rincewind]

If he flummaxed Paxman he's OK by me

[Voll Blau]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/robert-webb-re-joins-labour-protest-russell-brand

 

One of the unexpected consequences of Russell Brand's guest-edit of the New Statesman is that Robert Webb (of Peep Show fame) has rejoined the Labour Party (no, I didn't know he was a member either).

In an open letter to Brand in tomorrow's NS (which you can read in full here), he writes:

I read your thing on revolution in these pages with great interest and some concern. My first reaction was to re-join the Labour Party. The Jiffy bag containing the plastic membership card and the Tristram Hunt action figure is, I am assured, in the post. I just wanted to tell you why I did that because I thought you might want to hear from someone who a) really likes your work, b) takes you seriously as a thoughtful person and c) thinks you’re wilfully talking through your arse about something very important.

Webb warns that "when you end a piece about politics with the injunction 'I will never vote and I don’t think you should either', then you’re actively telling a lot of people that engagement with our democracy is a bad idea. That just gives politicians the green light to neglect the concerns of young people because they’ve been relieved of the responsibility of courting their vote.

In a spirited defence of the last Labour government's record, he argues:

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.

[Out Foxed]

he gave leicester a shout out

 

Stop press: Russell Brand has responded to Robert Webb's response to Russell Brand. Speaking at a Huffington Post event on Monday, our would-be saviour returned fire after Webb criticised the political opinions Brand advanced in a New Statesman essay a fortnight ago. Webb accused Brand of romanticising violence and of risking the further disenfranchisement of young people by urging them not to vote. "Just for the record," Brand now tells us, "I'm not in on the old death camps … I'm double, double against genocide." Brand went on to suggest that Peep Show star Webb didn't understand the lives of people less fortunate than him. "If you went to Oxbridge, if you went to a private school, no one is coming for your kids," he told his audience. "I didn't have an education like Robert Webb had. But there are people from Leicester in Guantánamo Bay. [Whereas] it's okay for Robert Webb; no one is going to take his kids away."

 

http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2013/nov/06/reginald-hunter-facebook-feud

[Kyle_Le_Don]

Can't be assed to read through all the comments but did anyone else think Brands face in the 1st 3 seconds was a bit weird.

Anyway I think he talks a lot of sense...

I've been thinking since before I could vote Whether our votes really do count!?

[Guest MattP]

Who from Leicester is in Guantanamo Bay?

[Guest MattP]

Russell Brand on Bashar Al Assad

 

Um. He doesn't know who that is. When Mehdi tells him, he's not keen.

 

On Syria, he says he is devastated by the pictures from the war-torn nation. But not pro-intervention.

 

 

He's actually a famous version of Rincewind.

[ADK]

I do enjoy a good protest as long as it's done right. While it might seem odd for Russell Brand to go to an anonymous protest and not be anonymous it is all about raising the profile. Like it or not, he has some influence over people as a celebrity and i'm pleased he is getting involved in politics.