Harry - LCFC Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 Popular with whom? Just because he's on the telly a lot doesn't mean anyone's listening. The Trews regularly gets into six figures and his book has done fairly well I think. Frankly I don't see why it's so outrageous to think that a commentator (I'd say he just about qualifies as one) who's enjoying a bit of popularity at present should get a chance on QT. I don't like the guy either but the BBC aren't wrong to put him on IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 It annoys me how Brand acts like he's fighting for the working man. Yeah being a millionaire and not actually answering any questions because he's avoiding then using lengthy words that your average working man doesn't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 It annoys me how Brand acts like he's fighting for the working man. Yeah being a millionaire and not actually answering any questions because he's avoiding then using lengthy words that your average working man doesn't understand. He doesn't understand them either. It's just meaningless waffle that no one can argue against as no one knows what he's talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 Although Brand doesn't adhere to decent debating standards he is, whether you like it or not, a popular figure atm. I think his selection is justified although they should definitely have a word with him about interrupting, melodramatic speeches and generally hogging the mic. His last performance was pathetic, silly little jibes, as usual accusations of bigotry against anyone who dared disagree with him, then of course the usual homosexual innuendo that follows any sort of debate regarding social policy, it's pathetic, for the first time in years I've started turning off this show and I'm what would there core audience. They should be careful, the morons watching it for Brand will be back watching X Factor in a few years. The Trews regularly gets into six figures and his book has done fairly well I think. Frankly I don't see why it's so outrageous to think that a commentator (I'd say he just about qualifies as one) who's enjoying a bit of popularity at present should get a chance on QT. I don't like the guy either but the BBC aren't wrong to put him on IMO. The guy has 6million twitter followers, anyone who watches 'The Trews' with a hint of seriousness shouldn't be getting into politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 His last performance was pathetic, silly little jibes, as usual accusations of bigotry against anyone who dared disagree with him, then of course the usual homosexual innuendo that follows any sort of debate regarding social policy, it's pathetic, for the first time in years I've started turning off this show and I'm what would there core audience. They should be careful, the morons watching it for Brand will be back watching X Factor in a few years. The guy has 6million twitter followers, anyone who watches 'The Trews' with a hint of seriousness shouldn't be getting into politics. I agree with all of that. He's obtained his popularity through the naivety of his audience. Even so, the BBC doesn't have the right to censor any political opinion regardless of what we might think of it. If a commentator/party is popular amongst a large enough group of people they deserve to get air time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 5 December 2014 Author Share Posted 5 December 2014 Russell Brand who tells us to boycott companies who avoid tax, then publishes his book through a publishing house renowned for tax avoidance and pays a fortune in rent to an offshore company for his London home. Much like rich musicians telling us to give our money to fight Ebola no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 Russell Brand who tells us to boycott companies who avoid tax, then publishes his book through a publishing house renowned for tax avoidance and pays a fortune in rent to an offshore company for his London home. Much like rich musicians telling us to give our money to fight Ebola no? Snide. I agree with all of that. He's obtained his popularity through the naivety of his audience. Even so, the BBC doesn't have the right to censor any political opinion regardless of what we might think of it. If a commentator/party is popular amongst a large enough group of people they deserve to get air time. Britain First has more likes than any other political party kn Facebook, they shouldn't be allowed on Question Time though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 Britain First has more likes than any other political party kn Facebook, they shouldn't be allowed on Question Time though. I'm a bit unsure about them. Yeah they have a lot of likes but is it genuine support? A lot of their content seems only semi-serious, I mean, what is this? Brand, and I think his followers too, are serious and that's the difference between the two IMO. I'd have no problem with a representative of Britain First appearing on QT if they could demonstrate real support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 If you're not elected/standing for election or have a job of great responsibility then what is the point of being on the show? The pubs and internet forums are full of gobshites (like me) who can spout nonsense knowing that nothing they say will come to pass and they won't be held responsible for the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 If you're not elected/standing for election or have a job of great responsibility then what is the point of being on the show? The pubs and internet forums are full of gobshites (like me) who can spout nonsense knowing that nothing they say will come to pass and they won't be held responsible for the results. Didn't see Question Time last night, so can't comment on Brand's performance. I disagree with the idea of limiting it to people in "jobs of great responsibility", though. I'd certainly hate it to just be a load of party politicians spouting the party line, avoiding the question and getting pre-prepared points across. Throwing in the odd politically-minded journalist, businessperson, union leader, comedian, musician or public figure gives it a different quality. OK, sometimes the conduct or answers to particular questions will be ill-informed, but other times they'll have a different perspective from the narrow Westminster agenda. I'm a bit unsure about them. Yeah they have a lot of likes but is it genuine support? A lot of their content seems only semi-serious, I mean, what is this? Brand, and I think his followers too, are serious and that's the difference between the two IMO. I'd have no problem with a representative of Britain First appearing on QT if they could demonstrate real support. I agree with Matt that Britain First should not be appearing - whereas I agreed with Nick Griffin being on, as his party had demonstrated real support, however much I might not have liked that fact. Britain First is a BNP offshoot adopting a different (very cunning) strategy: they're targeting Facebook/Internet big time to gain "support" - and funds - through deceit. In between anti-Muslim diatribes, they post lots of stuff that people will "like" on Facebook ("support our lads" poppy day appeals, opposing cruelty to animals, supporting Lee Rigby, funny men in kilts etc.); they've even used Remembrance Day to flog their own poppy merchandise. Here's info: http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/12-things-britain-first.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_First If they ever won support for their far right views, I'd support them going on Question Time - and being vigorously challenged by all other panelists - but for now they're just a dodgy little bunch of fascists with a completely false level of "support" because they've been deceiving a lot of people who are too naive to question the source of "nice images" that appear on their Facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 Imagine the outcry on here if Muslims 'invaded' churches, trying to hand-out copies of the koran: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/farright-activists-hand-out-bibles-outside-mosques-in-bradford-9352271.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 Yeah, that's well put. You can see by their content that they aren't trying to make a serious point, just a lot of playing on emotions and prejudices. People see it as a 'fun' page, not a political one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 Imagine the outcry on here if Muslims 'invaded' churches, trying to hand-out copies of the koran: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/farright-activists-hand-out-bibles-outside-mosques-in-bradford-9352271.html I doubt anyone would say anything, it probably wouldn't even make the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col city fan Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 Tory are gonna win ain't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 Hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 6 December 2014 Author Share Posted 6 December 2014 Tory are gonna win ain't they? I hope so, though I rather wish we had a more credible PM. Shame there aren't candidates! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 6 December 2014 Share Posted 6 December 2014 Nah, not popular enough across a big enough area to get an overall majority. But then Inspid Ed isn't doing much either. Hung parliament all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevosevic Posted 6 December 2014 Share Posted 6 December 2014 Hopefully, we are moving in the right direction, let it continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 6 December 2014 Share Posted 6 December 2014 Hung parliament nailed on. Due to the Liberals the Tories effectively need 40-41% for a majority and that's well out of reach for a Tory government that seeks a middle ground and is happy to piss off it's core voters. Nah, not popular enough across a big enough area to get an overall majority. But then Inspid Ed isn't doing much either. Hung parliament all the way. If that 'big area' was just England they would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 6 December 2014 Share Posted 6 December 2014 Hung parliament nailed on. Due to the Liberals the Tories effectively need 40-41% for a majority and that's well out of reach for a Tory government that seeks a middle ground and is happy to piss off it's core voters. If that 'big area' was just England they would be. Most definitely. In this case though Cameron decided that supporting unity was better than guaranteeing a majority at the next election. You reckon that if the Tories lurched a bit further to the right and picked up most of the Kippers it would be enough for an overall majority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 6 December 2014 Share Posted 6 December 2014 Possibly. Although I can also understand long term doing it in 2020 might be the better option as the next 5 years will be hell for whoever is PM. I'm convinced whoever leads parliament next year won't be seeing power again until at least the 30's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 6 December 2014 Share Posted 6 December 2014 Possibly. Although I can also understand long term doing it in 2020 might be the better option as the next 5 years will be hell for whoever is PM. I'm convinced whoever leads parliament next year won't be seeing power again until at least the 30's. You could be right with that one. However, as we've both said before, I think the future is going to be much more about compromise, especially if there's a deadlock next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 6 December 2014 Share Posted 6 December 2014 Yes, I can't see past a hung parliament, possibly a very hung parliament (neither main party able to command a majority without the support of TWO smaller parties). Nerd that I am, last night I drew up some figures for seats changing hands, based on current polling: Con->Lab 30; Lab->Con 1; LD->Con 10; Con->UKIP 5..................................... Overall Con 307->283 Con->Lab 30; Lab->Con 1; LD->Lab 10; Lab->SNP 12; Lab-> UKIP 2.............. Overall Lab 258->283 LD->Con 10; LD->Lab 10; LD->SNP 6 .............................................................. Overall LD 57->31 Lab->SNP 12; LD->SNP 6 ................................................................................ Overall SNP 6->24 Con->UKIP 5; Lab-> UKIP 2 ............................................................................ Overall UKIP 0->7 (I've assumed that Plaid Cymru stick on 3, Greens on 1, with 18 seats in N. Ireland) With 326 seats needed for a majority, to form a government on those figures either Tories or Labour would require the support of both the SNP and the Lib Dems, though depending on precise figures, UKIP, Plaid or N. Irish parties could get involved. That could easily lead to another general election within a year, possibly under different party leaders. Here are Labour's target seats: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/ Unless something unexpected happens in the next 5 months, I can't see the Tories holding many of the first 30 on that list....but I can't see Labour taking many from No. 40 onward, apart from Lib Dem seats. So, it'll probably all come down to events over the next 5 months, including the campaign. Here are 2 scenarios: - Scenario 1: Real pay starts to inch up; unemployment continues to fall; international economy picks up; Cameron gets a good EU deal; SNP remains strong; Miliband has a nightmare election campaign - Scenario 2: Real pay continues to fall; Eurozone crisis worsens; unemployment plateaus or worse; Cameron gets humiliated by the EU; SNP slips back; Miliband surprisingly good in election campaign Scenario 1 could allow the Tories to stay on with the support of the Lib Dems, Ulster Unionists or UKIP - or they could even win a small majority Scenario 2 could allow Labour to form a govt with the support of the Lib Dems or SNP - or they could even win a small majority In all likelihood, we'll see a mixture of those 2 scenarios, and the 2 main parties will be very close in number of seats, in a hung parliament.....We could be in for a transitional period of real political instability. As Matt said, whichever party ends up forming a long-term government (which might not happen for a couple of years) might live to regret it for a decade, given the state of the deficit, the international economy, the cuts v tax dilemma etc. By then, the old party system could have crumbled a lot more, with the rise of UKIP, the Greens or others,.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 7 December 2014 Share Posted 7 December 2014 I've said it all along and I continue to believe it: the election in 2015 will lead to near-total deadlock, and as a result voting reform afterwards as everyone will realise just how broken FPTP is in a case like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavrentis Posted 7 December 2014 Share Posted 7 December 2014 I've said it all along and I continue to believe it: the election in 2015 will lead to near-total deadlock, and as a result voting reform afterwards as everyone will realise just how broken FPTP is in a case like this. They should replace FPTP with FHRITP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.