Printable View
Paxman there really is just an annoying little twat, being narrow minded, being a hypocrite, and offering absolutely no solution to anything. I'm not likely to agree with a lot of Brand's left wing views, but he does something very important that very few have the courage to do: stand up for democracy and defend it. I think with the work he does, he's near-genius status and his heart is definitely in the right place.
Paxman is just there to scrutinise and question a stance like he does in every interview. He's very good at what he does and its usually refreshing to see people squirm under questioning. Brand holds himself very well though I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by webberf1
It is not the job of the interviewer to offer any solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by webberf1
No he doesn't. He has never voted and, instead of encouraging people to vote, believes in the imposition — without, it would seem, recourse to the ballot box — of some form of unspecified alternative system. How is this 'standing up for democracy and defending it'? He shows no signs of even believing in democracy as we understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by webberf1
I don't agree at all — not about the specific example of Occupy, but the general point. Not all change is effected by MPs. And, as I said, I resent the notion that I am somehow disengaged because I currently choose not to vote on points of principle. I think this makes me a hell of a lot more engaged than, say, someone who always votes Labour or Tory without a moment's thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
So the Great Russell Brand is calling for a Socialist revolution.
He did this from his Multi-Million Dollar Mansion but he got the idea during his destination wedding in Northern India while he and Katy Perry rode on their ceremonial Elephants.
I sh*t you not. The man of the people rented Elephants. http://www.people.com/people/article/0, ... 91,00.html
Wake up people. He only talks like that to get the easily manipulated, jealous masses to watch his movies and TV shows.
You will notice if you read the rest of the thread that not everybody is asleep to the empty, hypocritical nature of his remarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I think that there does need to be a socialist revolution but I don't see not voting as the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I for one question the sanity of concentration of power in the hands of business and the current political machines which have thrown their old voting base off the boat.
There's a very strong argument to be made for instance, that increased socialism and programs which helped normal people, led to rising incomes and real increases in GDP throughout the 1950s and 60s and that pulling away from it in the 1980s and 1990s (coupled with an expected period of dissaving from baby boomers) will lead to fallling GDP in real terms. Proper investments in health, education and infrastructure can and did lead to real GDP growth in the past and we're beginning to see the effects of privatisation of those sorts of things now.
I do not believe that voting is a privilege, I do not believe that voting is even a mere right but a civic duty which stems from being a citizen.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
I would also suggest that it would be an excellent idea that all ballot papers should include a "none of the above" option. There should be a way for the electorate to voice civil disgust at the ballot box and be able to force new elections if the quality of the candidacy is not up to scratch.
While we seem to agree on the importance of expressing, through ballots, one's views, I don't think a socialist revolution would be a good thing. Quite the contrary. Though the truth is that a socialist "creep", as opposed to a revolution, has been going on for some time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Strong argument? Doubtful, though a case could be made either way if you wanted to take the time.Quote:
There's a very strong argument to be made for instance, that increased socialism and programs which helped normal people, led to rising incomes and real increases in GDP throughout the 1950s and 60s and that pulling away from it in the 1980s and 1990s (coupled with an expected period of dissaving from baby boomers) will lead to fallling GDP in real terms. Proper investments in health, education and infrastructure can and did lead to real GDP growth in the past and we're beginning to see the effects of privatisation of those sorts of things now.
On this we agree completely. Else why live in a democracy?Quote:
I do not believe that voting is a privilege, I do not believe that voting is even a mere right but a civic duty which stems from being a citizen.
An excellent suggestion which I would support.Quote:
I would also suggest that it would be an excellent idea that all ballot papers should include a "none of the above" option. There should be a way for the electorate to voice civil disgust at the ballot box and be able to force new elections if the quality of the candidacy is not up to scratch.
I just don't see the evidence of socialist "creep" either in the UK or Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
In the UK, British Airways, British Petroleum, British Aerospace, British Gas, British Steel, British Rail, the Austin Rover Group, Rolls-Royce, Sealink, the electricity boards, regional water authorities, the Post Office, council houses...
In AUstralia, the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, Telstra, CSL, the Federal Airports Corporation, Commonwealth Oil Refineries, the various states electricity and water companies, the Government Insurance Office, all of the state owned banks, all rail freight services in Australia and public transport in Melbourne...
All of this proves otherwise.
Government privatisation and pulling out of the provision of services by definition is the exact opposite of socialist "creep".
The difference is that I'm US based and you can see it for sure here. It's been working since the sixties, with a very slight decline during the Reagan years. Even Bush's administration was more about government power and control than it was about capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo