Bolitics The New Condem Government

[mjmooney]

For the majority of kids I think it's more a case of "Haha, Russell Brand said something funny to some random guy about people I've never heard of" than "I have grown so tired of party politics".

 

 Nailed it. 

[tonyh29]

I thought everything he said was rational and mature, I think it's a real worry that people are conditioned to think anything outside the box is extremist or naive when the real extremists are ones in the 'system'. I say this without a hint of irony, I'm not trying to controversial or goad our Tory posters or be party political, Blair was the same as were most of his Labour cronies.

I'd say its more of a worry that people are condition to think that Brand was mature in an interview where he talked about the interviewers beard

Ajax summed it up perfectly really

Brand can fool some people but thankfully it only seems to be a small minority ...

[villaajax]

I thought everything he said was rational and mature, I think it's a real worry that people are conditioned to think anything outside the box is extremist or naive when the real extremists are ones in the 'system'. I say this without a hint of irony, I'm not trying to controversial or goad our Tory posters or be party political, Blair was the same as were most of his Labour cronies.

 

But when questioned on any of his 'points' he had no answer, just some silly off topic remark... not terribly rational or mature, I really have to agree with Dr P on the subject.

 

If a real politician came out with the things Brand said, they'd be ridiculed and laughed out of the House of Commons for nonsensical ideas that have no substance. But when Brand says it, the papers think he's some kind of revolutionary.

 

That's the modern Britain we live in. Brand for Prime Minister and Morrissey's book in the classic literature section.

 

Reminds me of a really awful film I once watched called Idiocracy.

[Kingfisher]

I think your second paragraph says it all. The media have not taken it seriously or ever have taken anything like it seriously, and he would be laughed at in the circus that is the House of Commons. But who would be laughing? What is the record of this sensible, intelligent congregation? What is it's moral framework?

[villaajax]

Would you care to explain to use how his points are rational and mature? How they are realistic?

 

Please, I'm interested.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Many people, young and old, are fed up with the current state of politics. Not just in the UK, throughout Europe. You only have to look at Italy, with some comedian turning up and getting at third or so of the vote. There is a desire for change, and at the moment the far-right, however distasteful their policies, are the only game in town (outside the status quo). Look at Greece, the rise of the NF in France, the various far-right parties in Eastern Europe. The left, the genuine Left, not bloody Labour,  have the rhetoric, but very little in the way of policies that resonate (rightly or wrongly) with the masses.

 

Anyway, Brand is a sexist goon. There are better spokespeople out there and I'd rather they were given a voice on Newsnight.

[villaajax]

The problem is that everyone wants some kind of a utopian system that caters specifically for their own individual needs or wants regardless of how it may differ from the next person's.

[Kingfisher]

Would you care to explain to use how his points are rational and mature? How they are realistic? Please, I'm interested.

Because they're built upon a moral framework that, to me at least, addresses the needs of the collective, rather than the individual. Edit - realistic? Well, whether something is realistic or not depends on the will of the people. Edited October 27, 2013 by Kingfisher

[Kingfisher]

The problem is that everyone wants some kind of a utopian system that caters specifically for their own individual needs or wants regardless of how it may differ from the next person's.

I disagree with that, I think people are only selfish to a degree.

[snowychap]

Ajax summed it up perfectly really

Quoted for posterity.

[villaajax]

 

Ajax summed it up perfectly really

Quoted for posterity.

 

 

It feels weird that we agree on something

Edited October 27, 2013 by villaajax

[chrisp65]

ah don't worry about it, you can still quote each other for 6 pages working out exactly what it is that you agree on

[meregreen]

The worlds full of cynics who lambast the system. Well democracy is still the best form of govt. we have . How many of those cynics have actually got off their arses and tried to do something about a system they say is going so badly wrong. Very few I'll warrant. We have the representation we vote for, if you're not happy vote them out. There are people in this world risking their lives to attain what we take for granted. There is no perfect world out there, you take our Parliamentary system warts and all. By and large it has served us reasonably well. 

[colhint]

i think you are right but only to a point, that point being about 95% right by the way. The problem now it seems is they just want to be in power regardless of their principle. So what they actually believe in goes out of the window. 

[villaajax]

i think you are right but only to a point, that point being about 95% right by the way. The problem now it seems is they just want to be in power regardless of their principle. So what they actually believe in goes out of the window. 

 

The Lib Dems?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I don't think I was alive the last time there was a party with beliefs.

[mockingbird_franklin]

The worlds full of cynics who lambast the system. Well democracy is still the best form of govt. we have . How many of those cynics have actually got off their arses and tried to do something about a system they say is going so badly wrong. Very few I'll warrant. We have the representation we vote for, if you're not happy vote them out. There are people in this world risking their lives to attain what we take for granted. There is no perfect world out there, you take our Parliamentary system warts and all. By and large it has served us reasonably well. 

I guess an awful  lot of the dissatisfaction with our current democracy is it's to all purpose an illusion, yes you can vote out the current incumbents and vote in some others that are near enough the same just under a different name. bit like having a choice of either red or green jelly babies when the problem is you really don't want jelly babies at all.

[snowychap]

We have the representation we vote for...

That's a bit circular taking in to account the previous sentences (and I think it misses the point - people aren't complaining about democracy but about our form of it, the party political system and how it distorts representative democracy, &c.).

... if you're not happy vote them out.

Do people get an opportunity to 'vote them out'? The opportunity is to vote for someone else which, slightly more than pedantically, is a bit different from voting them out.

...you take our Parliamentary system warts and all. By and large it has served us reasonably well.

Which would appear to be just another way of saying what you did earlier in your post: put up with the status quo.

Edit: If we put up with the status quo all the time then we wouldn't even have the current status quo.

Edited October 27, 2013 by snowychap

[drat01]

I would vote for Status Quo - they would always deliver on "whatever you want"

[bickster]

if you're not happy vote them out

We live in a democracy by name only. We vote one bunch out and the other similar bunch get in.