|
Kiss my bant
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
team overhead smash posted:I don't care enough about Brand to have checked it out, but I've heard that his view isn't a straight up "don't vote". I'd also point out that although I think not voting is stupid, even if that's what he is saying he is clearly asking young people to engage in politics in other ways (like protesting) instead rather than not engaging at all. This is from Brand's Guardian article he wrote after that Newsnight appearance: quote:The only reason to vote is if the vote represents power or change. I don't think it does. I fervently believe that we deserve more from our democratic system than the few derisory tit-bits tossed from the carousel of the mighty, when they hop a few inches left or right. The lazily duplicitous servants of The City expect us to gratefully participate in what amounts to little more than a political hokey cokey where every four years we get to choose what colour tie the liar who leads us wears. Is it really so unfair to summarise that as saying 'don't vote'? His general argument seems to be, 'the system is bad, so voting within that system is bad. Voting would only have any point if the system was a good one to start with. So don't vote unless the system improves.' By saying that he's ruling out the idea that the system could improve through voting. I agree with him that our political system is dysfunctional in many many ways, but the idea that voting is totally pointless is misguided. Politicians do respond to large voting trends, which is one reason why all parties pursue policies to the benefit of the older demographics and at the expense of the younger demographics. It's also the reason politicians shape their policies toward certain constituencies, because those are the constituencies that tend to swing elections. Voting is not a panacea and political reform is definitely required, but voting is genuinely one of the best ways to effect political reform, imperfect as it is. I think Brand presents a view that is a mixture of cynicism and utopianism. It's utopian because he wants a kind of left wing paradise where inequality doesn't exist and climate change is being dealt with (and I'm fully in support of tackling inequality and climate change), but it's cynical because it says that nothing about the current system can be salvaged, and everything as it currently exists is pointless and corrupt. Because of that he thinks you should refuse to engage with things as they currently are, but somehow he still wants to get to this utopian idyll at the same time. If that's your worldview you're setting yourself up for failure and apathy, because you're not giving yourself any practical, realistic steps forward. You're encouraging people to complain about the way things are without giving them any insight into how to make things better. So you stir up a desire in the audience who listen to you, but you suggest no practical way to satisfy that desire. In the long run it makes people feel more powerless and more apathetic. Basically, I think that if you want to change a system you need to be sceptical about that system, but cynicism is self-defeating. Big changes are hard to bring about, and if you want to pursue big changes you need to be quite hard-headed, realistic and pragmatic about it. I'm not saying Russell Brand needs to provide a fully-realised and concrete programme for political reform. But if he wants people to engage with politics to change things he needs to encourage a sensible approach. If Russell Brand used his influence to say, 'engaging in politics will not bring instant results, but if we don't engage then we cede all of that battlefield to the people who got us into this mess in the first place', that would be a much more attractive message.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
It's nice that we all think our Vote is important and changes anything. Remember when that massive Youth Vote turned out for the Lib Dems and finally showed everyone that the youth vote is important? That really worked out for them!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
It got the lib dems in for the first time in ages tbf, and I reckon they've acted as a useful brake on some of the Tories' worst instincts
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
Vote Lib Dem: "It might be slightly less awful"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
To be fair, the Lib Dems were always awful so they got what they voted for. Even if you assume that there is absolutely no value in a vote for the main parties, the existence of third parties, independents and the ability to run for government yourself means that there is surely some value to a vote even if it doesn't amount to much per vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
There's a lot of reification of The Vote going on here. A regular persons influence over the political process is so minimal and super focused on their vote that the disconnect between action and consequence is visibly apparent which deters and annoys people. Simply saying this should not get such a negative reaction and yet it does. If many demographics fail to vote firstly that's a failure of the democratic process which is suppose to universally enfranchise everyone (and if the failure to participate can be observed along demographic lines that is far far more than an individual preference not to vote) and secondly getting these demographics to start acting politically in ways which cannot easily be diverted to 'so vote for X' then you are vastly more likely to see a government actually respond to their wishes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
I don't know how germane it really is but remember that Australia has compulsory voting, leading to turnout upwards of 90%, and they still seem happy to elect complete pricks. At least in their case, turning out most demographics has not led to any radical improvements (unless you are a racist) and only 3 or so percent get spoiled or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
Maybe the people you refer to as pricks because they aren't Marxist enough for you actually reflect the will of the Australian people??
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
Doesn't stop them being pricks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 11:39
|
|
|
what we need is a bit of old-fashioned demagoguery to get people engaged again
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
Don't think it has been mentioned but Farage is going to appear on a Gogglebox spinoff. Because that's all we need. What the hell does the media see in him?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:What the hell does the media see in him? a ridiculous rubber-faced xenophobe who will say outrageous poo poo that racist cunts love and everybody else finds so repugnant that they can't resist watching and talking about?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
hmm i dont understand why the morally bankrupt media would give a platform to this performing clown offering easy answers instead of to a pedestrian lefty hand-wringing about inequality. it just doesn't make ANY SENSE
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Don't think it has been mentioned but Farage is going to appear on a Gogglebox spinoff. Because that's all we need. What the hell does the media see in him? Eh, it's a pretty smart (but lovely) move. People who like him because he "tells it like it is" will watch it to see him "telling it like it is", and people who disagree will watch to sneer at his lovely opinions and probably give the show free publicity getting outraged on twitter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
Burqa King posted:Maybe the people you refer to as pricks because they aren't Marxist enough for you actually reflect the will of the Australian people?? Maybe I was talking about literal concentration camps for refugees and not economic issues, champ. And anyway despite getting caught up in the thread rhetoric I am a social democrat, not a Marxist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
Please don't call me champ when you don't really mean it, that's very disrespectful, passive-aggressive and counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:a ridiculous rubber-faced xenophobe who will say outrageous poo poo that racist cunts love and everybody else finds so repugnant that they can't resist watching and talking about? But they have Jim Davidson and similar for that. Why do they have to choose the politician? It's not like Farage is the singularly most exciting prospect they could have picked, surely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
IMO Clegg's U turn was one of the most damaging political lies told to my (early 20s) generation. So many people I know (yes, anecdotal but look at the protests) used their vote for the first time, and were completely and utterly poo poo upon with only a paper thin apology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:But they have Jim Davidson and similar for that. Why do they have to choose the politician? It's not like Farage is the singularly most exciting prospect they could have picked, surely. e: what the hell is his name anyway? I can't remember it for the life of me and don't want to be googling it on my work pc. communism bitch fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:But they have Jim Davidson and similar for that. Why do they have to choose the politician? It's not like Farage is the singularly most exciting prospect they could have picked, surely. Yeah, why would they pick someone who is constantly on the front pages and shows up on tv more than Stephen fry over a comedian who is only mentioned nowadays when journalists need an easy "isn't racism bad" story? It's a real head scratcher.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
I'm personally waiting to see what side of the debate Roy Chubby Brown is coming out. He's the swing vote imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
lol Roy is just gonna go with whatever Freddie Starr thinks is best and u loving know it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
Fans posted:It's nice that we all think our Vote is important and changes anything. According to Ipsos Mori less than 50% of under 35s voted at the last election versus over 70% of 35+s. (https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2613/How-Britain-Voted-in) Although this did represent an upswing in under-35 voting numbers, it's still a significant disparity. Moreover, the long term trend is that older people vote more than younger people, so even if there was a one-off election where more young people voted, unless there's a trend of young people voting more across multiple elections, it still makes more sense for politicians to focus on the interests of 35+s at the expense of under-35s. The attitude of, "we tried to vote once and nothing good happened so there's no point doing it again" is exactly the kind of simplistic view that Russell Brand is advocating for. Voting either has to work perfectly or there's no point at all in doing it. Why adopt that view to start with? Politicians are under pressure from a number of directions. One of them is the interests of the people who elected them. Another is the interests of their party. Another is the interests of corporate lobbyists. Another is the interests of the press. How people vote is only one factor on what politicians do, but it's wrong to say that it isn't a factor at all. Voting doesn't cost anything and can have an effect. So refusing to do it just because it isn't a panacea is stupid. namesake posted:There's a lot of reification of The Vote going on here. A regular persons influence over the political process is so minimal and super focused on their vote that the disconnect between action and consequence is visibly apparent which deters and annoys people. Simply saying this should not get such a negative reaction and yet it does. Apart from the bit in bold I agree with everything you say. None of it implies that you shouldn't vote or that Russell Brand is right to tell people not to vote. I'm not sure about the bit in bold at all. Why do you say that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Maybe I was talking about literal concentration camps for refugees and not economic issues, champ. And anyway despite getting caught up in the thread rhetoric I am a social democrat, not a Marxist. Marxism is not a political position damnit!! Hug a marxist today (wash afterwards) e; Lord Twisted posted:IMO Clegg's U turn was one of the most damaging political lies told to my (early 20s) generation. So many people I know (yes, anecdotal but look at the protests) used their vote for the first time, and were completely and utterly poo poo upon with only a paper thin apology. Wait he apologised? I only remember him trying to claim it had never happened when they talked about raising the fees again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Wait he apologised? I only remember him trying to claim it had never happened when they talked about raising the fees again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDjRZ30SNo
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
Whitefish posted:The attitude of, "we tried to vote once and nothing good happened so there's no point doing it again" is exactly the kind of simplistic view that Russell Brand is advocating for. Voting either has to work perfectly or there's no point at all in doing it. Why adopt that view to start with?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:(wash afterwards) bourgeois excess!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
Shelf Adventure posted:Yeah, why would they pick someone who is constantly on the front pages and shows up on tv more than Stephen fry over a comedian who is only mentioned nowadays when journalists need an easy "isn't racism bad" story? It's a real head scratcher. Because him having that fame is just something he has always naturally had and not itself a product of the very media attention I'm decrying?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Because him having that fame is just something he has always naturally had and not itself a product of the very media attention I'm decrying? Farage was the punchline to a joke up until the time when his party managed to secure a parliamentary seat a few weeks ago, and now he's all over the news non-stop because gaining that small amount of legitimacy is all the licence that the media needs to throw him all over the front pages - he's outspoken and controversial (which makes him more appealing to the media than the usual carefully managed politician), but still defensible in the sense of being "newsworthy" by virtue of that minuscule political success. That's all the justification the media needs to start covering somebody who is guaranteed to stir up debate and interest. He's gonna generate papers sold and clicks on websites. The exact same poo poo happened when the BNP got their MEP and council seats back in.... was it 2010?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Whitefish posted:Although this did represent an upswing in under-35 voting numbers, it's still a significant disparity. Moreover, the long term trend is that older people vote more than younger people, so even if there was a one-off election where more young people voted, unless there's a trend of young people voting more across multiple elections, it still makes more sense for politicians to focus on the interests of 35+s at the expense of under-35s. So the Under 35's have to vote consistently for ten to fifteen years (Or more) before they're even really considered? It's not exactly a vote of confidence for the system where just waiting to be over 35 would make more sense. Brand's view isn't "We tried it and it doesn't work" it's "It just doesn't work, it's a fix for two parties who are only different around the edges." I mean yes do what you can to get Labour in and stop the Conservatives because some people are being thrown under the bus on those edges, but the illusion that if we all band together we can vote in a lefty party is a dream. It won't happen with the system we have. Spangly A posted:Wait he apologised? I only remember him trying to claim it had never happened when they talked about raising the fees again. Not only apologized but got into the charts with it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDjRZ30SNo
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Farage was the punchline to a joke up until the time when his party managed to secure a parliamentary seat a few weeks ago, No, I think he's been less then a joke for at least for more than a year now, definitely since his party started picking up steam with hard-right Tories and the remnants of the BNP - he may be treated more seriously now, but I don't think he's been treated as a joke for quite some time now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Farage was the punchline to a joke up until the time when his party managed to secure a parliamentary seat a few weeks ago, and now he's all over the news non-stop because gaining that small amount of legitimacy is all the licence that the media needs to throw him all over the front pages - he's outspoken and controversial (which makes him more appealing to the media than the usual carefully managed politician), but still defensible in the sense of being "newsworthy" by virtue of that minuscule political success. To be honest, Question Time completely hosed the BNP as an institution. They'd been making gains in councils for the previous TinTower fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:No, I think he's been less then a joke for at least for more than a year now, definitely since his party started picking up steam with hard-right Tories and the remnants of the BNP - he may be treated more seriously now, but I don't think he's been treated as a joke for quite some time now. I'll admit my personal exposure to Farage and Ukip has mostly been "lmao this oval office nearly died in a plane crash" ....................... "oh poo poo they got a parliamentary seat", so I'll concede I don't really know to what extent they were in the public consciousness beyond that. My local council is like half Ukip and has been for a while, though. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:The exact same poo poo happened when the BNP got their MEP and council seats back in.... was it 2010? Yep, Britain First got a lot of air time too if only for the "Look at this loony bastard" factor. I can't recall the last time I've seen someone like the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition get air time. Heck the Green's are only in the press of late when it's talking about how (Or why) they're basically being ignored.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
just because we may not agree with ukip's policies, the timing of their surge and the fact that they seem capable of taking votes from all three parties is cause enough to cover them on TV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
TinTower posted:To be honest, Question Time completely hosed the BNP as an institution. They'd been making gains in councils for the previous year, with their biggest moment getting elected to the European Parliament. Then, after Griffin made a tit of himself on Question Time, they gradually ended up losing all their council seats, including their entire group in Barking (where they were the Official Opposition) in the 2010 election. I'm sure the alleged financial mismanagement/outright fraud that the BNP perpetrated with their EU funding also probably played a part in their implosion. Also was it really even before 2010? Time flies when you're miserable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Farage was the punchline to a joke up until the time when his party managed to secure a parliamentary seat a few weeks ago, and now he's all over the news non-stop because gaining that small amount of legitimacy is all the licence that the media needs to throw him all over the front pages - he's outspoken and controversial (which makes him more appealing to the media than the usual carefully managed politician), but still defensible in the sense of being "newsworthy" by virtue of that minuscule political success. He's been getting disproportionate coverage and being treated relatively seriously for far longer than the last few weeks. You can do quick web searches and find people in 2008 complaining about his disproportionate Question Time appearances for instance, which he got because of the coverage and interest he'd been afforded in other media. It has been continuous and going on for a long time. I know why the likes of the Mail and the Express and the like do it, which is obvious enough, but have no idea why the rest of the media decided to get in on the action before there was a furore to draw them in. Just let sleeping fascists lie (before you slit their throat).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
He's excitingly anti-establishment, without being left-wing and so unSerious and threatening to wealthy people. If an articulate socialist got the media treatment Farage does their party would be making progress in the polls, but the complaints about disproportionate coverage would be much more acute from the perspective of media decision-makers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Burqa King posted:just because we may not agree with ukip's policies, the timing of their surge and the fact that they seem capable of taking votes from all three parties is cause enough to cover them on TV. Ditto the Greens?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 13:36
|
|
