Russel Brands "The Trews"

[DCJonah]

Turns out the bald guy who had a go at him is the brother of a UKIP politician.

[villaajax]

Turns out the bald guy who had a go at him is the brother of a UKIP politician.

 

I called it!

 

 

 

 

That he was a UKIP guy at least...

[Richard]

If you fundamentally do not believe in the system then how you can you partake in it? You've got to try and change it.  Many people have tried to change it within.  It just doesn't work.  Look at Obama.  He might as well be another Bush. 

That's democracy.  The alternatives as I see them are autocracy or anarchy.

For me it's about having strong beliefs in how things should be ,  how our lives and laws should be influenced and then arguing and debating your point to try and get sufficient numbers to support your view and by people indicating that they support your view,  how else do we know if a certain way is what people want unless we consult with them and persuade them?

 

Now there is a strong argument to say that political parties of all colours are not making their case sufficiently to enthuse enough people and that they have to do better. That they are not giving people reason to vote for them but there is a huge difference between that and basically just not giving a chance to vote / change.

 

If you have a belief over how things should be then tell people and get their support,  majority rules. 

 

Now i have huge issues with UKIP.  They are abhorrent their tactics are abhorrent and they have no policies apart from two. Remove the influence of Jonny Foreigner and any Foreigner living here should clear off,  if that happens everything will be fine. Or at least that is what the public seem to believe.  UKIP have not really disputed that and to be honest it suits them.  It plays to a fear and perpetuates that fear and while people are talking about that it ignores the fact that they have no other policies to talk of.

 

Now while i disagree with UKIP what they are at least doing is standing their and seeing if people will support them.  I do not believe they will get enough support to get control but they may get enough support to get influence a stepping stone for them.  It is up to the other parties to discredit UKIP but more fundamentally show another way.  Are they doing that at the minute,  perhaps not. Will the do it to be successful in May,  remains to be seen but that debate and consultation and offering people a chance to have their say is the system we are in.

 

This is where I have a problem with Brand.  To just carp on the sidelines,  to say "I know how things should be" but then not giving people a chance to show their support for that is basically saying "I know this will not get huge support and then when it doesnt it's basically dead in the water.  Things will not change and I want change to be my way and when I dont get the support my argument will cease well i cant risk that so I'll still just carp thanks"  It's showing a fear to consult and persuade not having enough faith in your argument that others will too.

 

People should not mistake others not voting as support for removal of the system altogether when it is more likely that they have not been persuaded by one group of people over another.

 

People may want Greens ,  for example,  and vote for them.  But then Greens may not get enough votes to get control.  Those who want greens may then think whats the point they dont get in.  Well I'm afraid that's a democracy and it's up to the greens to get more people enthused enough to vote for them.  Not just throw it all out just because you havent got your way. 

[blandy]

If you fundamentally do not believe in the system then how you can you partake in it? You've got to try and change it.  Many people have tried to change it within.  It just doesn't work.  Look at Obama.  He might as well be another Bush.

That's democracy.  The alternatives as I see them are autocracy or anarchy.

For me it's about having strong beliefs in how things should be, how our lives and laws should be influenced and then arguing and debating your point to try and get sufficient numbers to support your view and by people indicating that they support your view, how else do we know if a certain way is what people want unless we consult with them and persuade them?

Trouble is that's not what happens.

Take the main 2 parties and their MPs. They are appalling at representing and carrying out what they know people want.

What they try and do is tell people what they want, at the most simple level and then act in every way possible to ensure that the thing they told people they want is kept at the top of the agenda, and that anyone proposing any improvement, tweak or anything different is locked out.

So whether it's war in Iraq, war in Syria, "Deficit reduction" or whatever else - the party in power will do all they can to make "their" thing happen, irrespective of the wishes of either the majority, or advice from experts.

They will also lie, deceive, block out any inconvenient facts which show what they are doing is wrong, or they're going about it the wrong way.

Occasionally, the opposition party will manage to stop something. But mostly not. There are few MPs who rebel, and even fewer who rebel according to the wishes of their constituents. It's All about "party discipline" and retaining (or gaining) control, and little if anything about doing the right thing by the population.

Then you get the influence of donors - big business. Then you get the even more insidious appointment of big business to advise on an area - whether it be PWC on Tax avoidance or Petro chemical firms on global warming.

You get everyone from the PM, to IDS, to Osborne lying, brazenly about what they have done, what the facts are and what they will do. And previously Blair etc were the same.

there is a strong argument to say that political parties of all colours are not making their case sufficiently to enthuse enough people and that they have to do better. That they are not giving people reason to vote for them but there is a huge difference between that and basically just not giving a chance to vote / change.

It's not about, IMO, "presentation". They are (the main ones) largely the same in terms of policy. They are largely all under control of money men and big business, though the Tories more so.

People may want Greens , for example, and vote for them. But then Greens may not get enough votes to get control. Those who want greens may then think whats the point they dont get in. Well I'm afraid that's a democracy and it's up to the greens to get more people enthused enough to vote for them. Not just throw it all out just because you havent got your way.

IN real terms there are maybe 100 seats in the UK where the voters have a real chance of having their vote matter. the other 550 it'll make no odds. The system is wrong - it is the best one for the two party politics of 50 years ago. It is utterly unfit for purpose for the modern world.

The vote of a green supporter, or a Labour supporter in say Chipping Norton has 0 value. The same applies to a Tory in Sunderland. And it's that, millions of times over. Their votes don't count, don't matter, are worthless.

So to say "that's democracy - sorry - no it isn't. It's "the current [broken]system" It needs throwing out. It will be eventually, but it'll take another 15 years, because the bigger parties both benefit from it. So again what's better for the nation is not acted upon, and indeed is opposed, for purely "party" reasons.

I don't like Brand, either. And I loathe the UKIPs. But Brand is right at least not to enter the tent. He's right in what he says about the system and the tories and the UKIPs.

I'm not sure of his genuine reasons for all this publicity - maybe he's genuine, maybe not. But he's largely correct. He's under no obligation to come up with the solution. He's entirely right to speak about what he thinks is wrong, and a lot agree with him. The same applies to Occupy, 38 degrees, change.org and all the rest.

The more that join in, the more it's so clear that the traditional parties are just the wrong answer.

They need to stop acting for themselves and do what they're paid to do, and act for us.

[OutByEaster?]

 

unfortunately bicks in today society (the future generation) they are more interested in their ipads then whats really going on in the world

 

Think that is harsh on Obama Omar, real politik, Machiavelli and all that, he is trying to make things better within the constraints of a really really messed up system. I can't blame him for that even if he didnt live up to the Yes We Can bull shit he rode in on.

 

Anyone who really believed he was the new Messiah and is now dissapointed should slap themselves in the face.

 

Obama is a confidence trick - let's give them someone who looks, feels and talks a bit differently and while they're not looking we'll carry on just the same. Change to way America operates was never on the cards!

[Jon]

If you fundamentally do not believe in the system then how you can you partake in it? You've got to try and change it. Many people have tried to change it within. It just doesn't work. Look at Obama. He might as well be another Bush.

That's democracy. The alternatives as I see them are autocracy or anarchy.

For me it's about having strong beliefs in how things should be, how our lives and laws should be influenced and then arguing and debating your point to try and get sufficient numbers to support your view and by people indicating that they support your view, how else do we know if a certain way is what people want unless we consult with them and persuade them?

Trouble is that's not what happens.

Take the main 2 parties and their MPs. They are appalling at representing and carrying out what they know people want.

What they try and do is tell people what they want, at the most simple level and then act in every way possible to ensure that the thing they told people they want is kept at the top of the agenda, and that anyone proposing any improvement, tweak or anything different is locked out.

So whether it's war in Iraq, war in Syria, "Deficit reduction" or whatever else - the party in power will do all they can to make "their" thing happen, irrespective of the wishes of either the majority, or advice from experts.

They will also lie, deceive, block out any inconvenient facts which show what they are doing is wrong, or they're going about it the wrong way.

Occasionally, the opposition party will manage to stop something. But mostly not. There are few MPs who rebel, and even fewer who rebel according to the wishes of their constituents. It's All about "party discipline" and retaining (or gaining) control, and little if anything about doing the right thing by the population.

Then you get the influence of donors - big business. Then you get the even more insidious appointment of big business to advise on an area - whether it be PWC on Tax avoidance or Petro chemical firms on global warming.

You get everyone from the PM, to IDS, to Osborne lying, brazenly about what they have done, what the facts are and what they will do. And previously Blair etc were the same.

there is a strong argument to say that political parties of all colours are not making their case sufficiently to enthuse enough people and that they have to do better. That they are not giving people reason to vote for them but there is a huge difference between that and basically just not giving a chance to vote / change.

It's not about, IMO, "presentation". They are (the main ones) largely the same in terms of policy. They are largely all under control of money men and big business, though the Tories more so.

People may want Greens , for example, and vote for them. But then Greens may not get enough votes to get control. Those who want greens may then think whats the point they dont get in. Well I'm afraid that's a democracy and it's up to the greens to get more people enthused enough to vote for them. Not just throw it all out just because you havent got your way.

IN real terms there are maybe 100 seats in the UK where the voters have a real chance of having their vote matter. the other 550 it'll make no odds. The system is wrong - it is the best one for the two party politics of 50 years ago. It is utterly unfit for purpose for the modern world.

The vote of a green supporter, or a Labour supporter in say Chipping Norton has 0 value. The same applies to a Tory in Sunderland. And it's that, millions of times over. Their votes don't count, don't matter, are worthless.

So to say "that's democracy - sorry - no it isn't. It's "the current [broken]system" It needs throwing out. It will be eventually, but it'll take another 15 years, because the bigger parties both benefit from it. So again what's better for the nation is not acted upon, and indeed is opposed, for purely "party" reasons.

I don't like Brand, either. And I loathe the UKIPs. But Brand is right at least not to enter the tent. He's right in what he says about the system and the tories and the UKIPs.

I'm not sure of his genuine reasons for all this publicity - maybe he's genuine, maybe not. But he's largely correct. He's under no obligation to come up with the solution. He's entirely right to speak about what he thinks is wrong, and a lot agree with him. The same applies to Occupy, 38 degrees, change.org and all the rest.

The more that join in, the more it's so clear that the traditional parties are just the wrong answer.

They need to stop acting for themselves and do what they're paid to do, and act for us.

Pete. I think I love you man x

[maqroll]

 

People may want Greens ,  for example,  and vote for them.  But then Greens may not get enough votes to get control.  Those who want greens may then think whats the point they dont get in.  Well I'm afraid that's a democracy and it's up to the greens to get more people enthused enough to vote for them.  Not just throw it all out just because you havent got your way. 

 

Unless your party is stonewalled from participating in said "democracy", for example:

 

[Oaks]

The problem I have with Brand is how he's selling this anti capitalist revolution for £16.99 at your local book store. It's all a money making scheme.

[villaglint]

 

 

I agree with most of that Richard however I think it is wrong to view UKIP and Brand as in any way two sides of the same coin. UKIP have been going a long time and in some ways (although I'll agree this is not obvious) they are a professional political party.

 

Brand is just a man looking to cause mischief. He openly admits he is not coming to this with any formed ideas about what the solutions. To me his perspective seems to be I think there are a huge amount of problems with our modern political system, I think there are a lot of other people who think the same as me. So lets shine a light on that (carp on at the sidelines if you will) and then have a debate about what is a better way forward.

 

In that sense there is nothing to vote for at this stage. It's not a case of vote UKIP or Brand though he media would love that as they are crying out for any kind of narrative which motivates people unlike the three centre ground parties.

[Richard]

 

 

Sorry I'm not clever enough to select certain bits or chop and multi quote within a post and as I dont really want to requote the whole thing i'll post my response without it if thats ok

 

I absolutely know what you are saying,  it's not new and has been said many times before ,  just for me it doesn't address the problem.  It just for me says "there is an issue where my ideas are not represented,  so lets change the system".  Ignoring the fact that the ideas in question may not actually be shared by the majority of people in the country so why should they have a major platform?

 

The stuf you've posted in the first bit fair enough that's your opinion on how politicians behave when in power,  on the influence of other groups to their decision making.  Even if that were true,  and it is not something I agree with and I do think the whole group of MPs should not be judged on a few people,  that is not the system.  It is the people in the system.  You say that they ignore the majority,  well typically when a party gets elected (different in the case of the coalition as there was no coalition manfiesto) but they will have a single manifesto which then forms how they will govern.  So people know what they will do. You talk about them lying and just doing what they want,  well again I do not agree but that is individuals not the system

 

In terms of votes counting for nothing in safe seats well that is incumbent upon parties to change that,  not by altering the boundaries as Labour did,  but by giving a better way by showing that they offer what people want.  Look at Bliar in 97 and 2002.  He won seats in places he had no real right to,  in seats that were not traditional Labour seats.  And he did that by offering a message of hope , by promising to make things better.  Sure it was all presentation and spin as many at the time could see,  but he gave a message that people bought into.  His failing was not delivering and basically I feel that he and the new Labour project is one of the main reasons why people are so disillusioned with politics today.  They were looking for something,  he offered it and they are so let down by that then they feel why bother.

 

The fear for me is that UKIP are doing similar but instead of offering a message of hope of looking for the need of people to believe in something they are actually playing to a fear,  of looking for the need of people to blame something,  to blame an outside influence for the ills of their life,  to be fearful of that. That for me is abhorrent.  They are winning votes in both Labour and Tory seats ,  Sunderland and Chipping Norton to use your examples.

 

This is where the mainstream centre parties have to be better.  In not just offering the message of hope of showing people there can be a better way,  but in delivering against the message.  It aint the system that's broke.....

[blandy]

I absolutely know what you are saying,  it's not new and has been said many times before ,  just for me it doesn't address the problem.  It just for me says "there is an issue where my ideas are not represented,  so lets change the system".  Ignoring the fact that the ideas in question may not actually be shared by the majority of people in the country so why should they have a major platform?

My point is that it's not about "my ideas are not represented" as in my individual ideas. I think the system of "majority" views having complete precedence is defective. On most individual issues there isn't a majority view. And then you get the notion that electing (say) the Labours to be Gov't means that ALL the things they put in their manifesto are agreed to by the majority (because in that example they got elected). An example would be with the current Gov't the NHS. What they're doing to the NHS is and was against the wishes of the majority (whatever you might think of the merits of what they're doing). So we have a case where more people agree with Labour on the NHS and more people agree with the Tories on the economy. 2 of the most fundamental issues in the country, and the two parties are not working together to address them, but fighting each other. Now the differences between them are not massive, (their rhetoric would make you think the difference is huge, but it isn't). But they do not work together to reach a mutually agreed way to proceed, in line with the best economic or Health expert advice, and the wishes of the country on that issue. Instead it's "we got voted in, you didn't, we're doing it our way, eff off".

And it's been like that for a hundred years.

The last election, and the next will see no party get overall majority, in all probability. God knows when the last time was that a party got more than 50% of the votes = an actual majority.

There's basically a third Labour, a third Tory and a third "other" at the moment. None of them, if they manage to get the most number of seats can claim to have a mandate from the electorate on their manifesto.

Yet still the parties, as you do, say "It aint the system that's broke".

You say "In terms of votes counting for nothing in safe seats well that is incumbent upon parties to change that...by giving a better way by showing that they offer what people want."

Assuming you actually, really, think that then the only logical way I could see that actually being done (without changing the system to a more proportional one, which you seem to be against) would be for the parties to co-operate massively more with each other. So that a Labourist in Oxfordshire might see the tories working with Labour to stop selling off public assets, say. Like the East Coast Main line, for example.

Can't see that happening, myself, not while the two main ones are fighting each other to inherit what the flawed voting system pops out as the "winner".

The winner should be the public, the nation, not any political party.

There is no perfect system, there is no system alone that can be put in place to sort things out. It needs people, elected people, to work together much much more to do what they are paid to do. to represent the people that vote as their masters, rather than Vodafone, Shell, Barclays, PWC, Bernie Ecclestone, Imperial Tobacco, Cuadrilla, themselves and their directorships and so on.

You also say "typically when a party gets elected they will have a single manifesto which then forms how they will govern. So people know what they will do. You talk about them lying and just doing what they want, well again I do not agree but that is individuals not the system" Do me a favour - "No top down re-organisation of the NHS. The greenest government ever. No frontline cuts. No VAT rise. We are all in this together...." Either "individuals" (the PM, Osborne, the Manifesto wroters) are liars, or they are fine honest people forced to do the opposite of what they said, by, er, the system - in which case the system must be defective.

And that's just a few or the more well known lies. There are loads, loads, more.

I picked those because the tories are in charge now. Labour was as bad, I'm sure.

The party system is a misfit and the electoral system is unfit for the 21st Century world.

It's because of these things that the likes of the UKIPs can thrive. So many lies, so much hidden agenda, so much failure.

[omariqy]

Your hatred for Russell Brand is irrelevant

177 Replies

Ever since Russell Brand dismissed the effectiveness of voting in Britain, the comedian-turned-activist has rarely been out of the news. Since then, he’s claimed 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ (except he didn’t), ‘attacked a journalist’ (that neither) and made light of Hugo Boss’s history as ‘stylist for the Nazis’ (that one’s true, but it’s a fact, so it’s fair game really). The important thing about these stories is not just that they’re non-truths grown by the mainstream media from vague kernels of truth, but that these stories and others have been used to influence how you feel about Russell Brand on a personal level, as opposed to how you feel about his concerns. Consider C4 reporter Paraic O’Brien turning up to a Brand-supported, Downing Street-set protest objecting to a group of single mums being turfed out of their homes by the UK’s richest MP and asking Brand, “What kind of rent are you paying?”.

It’s a bit like a journalist today hearing Martin Luther King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech and claiming King is racist for not making room in his dream for Native American kids, or questioning peace icon Mahatma Gandhi’s fasting credentials because he’d conveniently spent most of his life eating food. That is to say, who these men are and who they have been is – in this context – totally besides the point. I’m not comparing Russell Brand to Mohandas Gandhi or Dr King, but I am saying you should be focusing not on the man, but on what the man is saying – what he’s actually saying, not what the media is telling you he’s saying – as should surely always be the case.

15542268811_f7e77c9e59_h

Hundreds of thousands already use Brand’s The Trews (816k subscribers and counting) as an alternative source of news, and hardly because it’s a platform for Brand’s particular type of comedy. The Trews offers hard-hitting, largely non-trivial information that directly impacts you and the society you’re inescapably part of, discussed in an honest, open way (and not just by Brand, either – guests have so far included former government spin doctor Alistair Campbell, RT’s financial expert Max Keiser and Guardian columnist and political activist George Monbiot).

For instance, arguably no one else with a similar level of exposure is talking about TTIP. The mainstream media certainly isn’t doing much to warn you about a prospective trans-Atlantic trade act that’s being put forward in secret, is virtually irreversible once in place and which will essentially leave EU nations including the UK enslaved by transnational corporations (as much as I wish it was, that’s barely an exaggeration). Neither is it telling you about how US workers are striking just to make minimum wage, how your tax money is being used to support corporations, and how Nobel Peace Prize-recipient Barack Obama is spending a trillion dollars on nuclear weapons. Is this stuff serious enough to override your dislike of Russell Brand yet?

5623329921_9cb1651dd5_b

I understand why people don’t like Russell Brand as a person. Ignoring the fact that he used to be a drug addict (because, if we’re going to fall back on criticising people for their pasts, we’re gonna be left with no one to look up to here), Brand dresses and acts like a Dickens character adapted for the screen by Tim Burton, and he’s known to talk at a pace so rapid that the internet viralled up a meme for use exclusively at the end of his rants. Some also take into account Brand’s current situation as a reason to dismiss him, as The Sun newspaper did last week. Even though it would take social media users and Brand himself no time at all to highlight the sheer idiocy of The Sun’s latest hate campaign, the paper decided to label Brand a hypocrite, because of his tenuous link to someone else’s tax activities.

Still, how you or anyone else feels about Russell Brand as a person is irrelevant. You should instead take interest in what he’s talking about. If you can’t do that, then the media has successfully swayed you into caring about the wrong things, which is basically the intention. It doesn’t matter how you feel about one British comedian; economic inequality matters, governmental corruption matters, media brainwashing matters, and things like TTIP most certainly matter – Russell Brand is talking about all of it, and he’s simply using his fame to spread the facts. Brand’s house price or hairdo doesn’t directly affect you, but the aforementioned all do. His concerns are your concerns; ignore that at your peril.

Edit: This article originally alleged that Brand hadn’t specifically told the public not to vote, which has now been corrected.

https://shamocracy.org/2014/12/08/hatred-russell-brand-irrelevant/

[Risso]

UKIP have shown that it's possible for a newish party to come from nowhere and have a say in British politics.  If that many people are disaffected with the current system of government, then somebody needs to start something off.  Whether it's Brand or anybody else, doesn't really matter, but all this "the system is rubbish, life ain't fair" is meaningless unless you're prepared to get off your arse and do something about it.  It's very difficult to achieve of course, but then nothing ever happened without somebody trying.

[tonyh29]

UKIP have shown that it's possible for a newish party to come from nowhere and have a say in British politics.  If that many people are disaffected with the current system of government, then somebody needs to start something off.  Whether it's Brand or anybody else, doesn't really matter, but all this "the system is rubbish, life ain't fair" is meaningless unless you're prepared to get off your arse and do something about it.  It's very difficult to achieve of course, but then nothing ever happened without somebody trying.

 

it probably says a lot that their immigration policy is what has allowed them to come from nowhere though

 

I don't think we are a racist country but when everyday on facebook I see sensible people posting tripe about Muslims this , Romanians that  , without even checking the facts behind the article they are being outraged by  , then you know something has gone wrong  somewhere ...

 

ultimately in times of hardship  its easy to have someone to blame and UKIP have latched onto this .... and now the Tories and Labour have decided they need to jump on the bandwagon   ... In labours case I think they are gambling slightly more on their spreading of lies on the NHS to get them home rather than immigration  , they'd better hope they have it right and it's a bigger issue for people than immigration otherwise  we may well be looking at all manor of rainbow coalitions next year

Edited December 15, 2014 by tonyh29

[villaglint]

Be interesting to see whether all the UKIP hype turns into votes come the election. It is one thing to do well in the odd by election but another to translate that into results come the main event.

 

My impression is they are getting pumped up big time by the media because they want more of a traditional left vs right narrative.

 

I struggle though to imagine anyone who has followed the litany of gaffes over the last 18 months and thinks yes... that is the party for me.

 

Obviously a lot of people will have been oblious to all that and just go on the immigants out, they took our jobs stuff so they will definitely get a bump because of the increased exposure if nothing else but I'd be sceptical that they will make any significant steps.

[omariqy]

The way things are going there will be no clear winner which means UKIP may have a say on some policy decisions.

[bickster]

The way things are going there will be no clear winner which means UKIP may have a say on some policy decisions.

One suspects for that to happen the Tories will get the most seats.

I think we're more likely to get a coalition of Labour, SNP and Liberal.

I also suspect that the UKIP storm may have blown through by then as the media will round on them more and more in the coming months. Apart from the pornographer at Express Group

[tonyh29]

 

The way things are going there will be no clear winner which means UKIP may have a say on some policy decisions.

One suspects for that to happen the Tories will get the most seats.

I think we're more likely to get a coalition of Labour, SNP and Liberal.

I also suspect that the UKIP storm may have blown through by then as the media will round on them more and more in the coming months. Apart from the pornographer at Express Group

 

the SNP can jog on with their dictating  terms to the English parliament  .... we might as well let Brussels have a say on everything we do ... oh wait

[omariqy]

Stop and watch this. Forget Russell Brand. Listen to Moazzam Begg. There is no doubt in my mind that this is still happening. These are the people we trust to run our countries.

Edited December 15, 2014 by omariqy

[Demitri_C]

I think we're more likely to get a coalition of Labour, SNP and Liberal.

 

They wouldnt even last 12 months working together