October 27, 2013 at 5:36 amChristopher Goodfellow
theguardian.com, Saturday 26 October 2013 02.02 AEST
. . . . But the left is ripe for a unique, intelligent leader who can truly work with the protest movement. Often the underdog is simply the politician that breaks from the normal rhetoric and speaks in manner which sounds different to the existing political elite.
Brand hasn’t put in the work, but the stage is set, so to speak. Paxman rather likes Brand too, and that’s probably something that would help should he take up my call and lead the revolution. And, if you look closely, he’s already made the implicit nod he’ll take up the mantle: “I don’t need the right [to be involved in politics] from you, I don’t need the right from anybody, I’m taking it.”
“The existent political elite” is mentioned in the above comment. At present the voter has no alternative but to vote for the existent political elite of one of the two major parties who differ only slightly in what they want to achieve politically. For if you vote for one of the minor parties your vote does not really count. As far as I can see it is about the same in all the Western Democracies. For people who absolutely do want a change in policies there should be the opportunity to vote for a true alternative. I think many people who are as frustrated with the political system as Brand is, would welcome the chance to be able to vote for a change.
-
ThePoliticalVagina Says:
October 27, 2013 at 6:27 amThere is no alternative. I, like you wanted to believe our hard fought for votes meant something.
This present political system is flawed and broken.
Russell is saying he does not want to be a part of the old paradigm. He advocates for a total change – not politicians but “admin bods” which is really what politicians are or should be. Which is a type of public servant. The public is us – the tax payer – the majority. They should be looking after and serving us and not their corporate overlords and sponsors. It is reaching critical mass now, a tipping point .-
auntyuta Says:
October 27, 2013 at 6:59 amCome to think of it we should really all be some kind of public servants, namely do whatever is good for the general public. Not everyone has the same qualifications or abilities. We all need to keep learning right into old age and pass on the knowledge we have acquired. There are very well qualified and highly trained people in our society. We should value them for the work they do for the whole community.
We should respect each other, not waste our energies abusing each other!
I agree, our present political system seems to be rather flawed. “The existing political elite” may not want any changes. Someone belonging to this elite should point out to them that changes are necessary and genuinely welcome some new ideas by people who do not belong to the established ‘elite’.
Personally I prefer a well functioning society to one where ‘chaos’ prevails. We need capable, well trained people for a well functioning society. But we also need new ideas for instance how corruption can be prevented. We definitely ought to introduce measures to slow down climate change as much as possible.
-
AuntyUta 
Well put, Uta. I was impressed by what Russel Brand said, but am not sure whether to trust him – he’s been the “bad boy” for so long. and is now acting rather like a new convert. If he can walk the walk as well as talk the talk, I’ll be very pleased for him.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/25/russell-brand-crisis-civilisation-what-now
Hi Cat, so it seems he can ‘talk the talk’. Of course a lot of people do not want to take him seriously. But if his talk makes some kind of sense, why not think about it what he has to say? That does not mean he should be given the power to do something. (Just being able to speak freely is power enough, isn’t it?)
I reckon it is up to the people in power to start thinking about it what can be done to make this a more sustainable world.
What we need are more politicians that can solve problems rather than create them.
I could not agree more, Robert! 🙂
I have very mixed feelings about Russell Brand and his words – on the one hand he is an intelligent, articulate and confident man with seemingly his heart in the right place, but on the other he is a foul-mouthed, overgrown schoolboy who thinks it’ ok to “prank” people such as when he got sacked from the radio for being extremely rude about Andrew Sachs’ granddaughter. I watched a video clip of him interviewing two members of the Westboro Baptist Church and thought he was brilliant with them. He didn’t rise to their anger or their taunts, but then he did a silly stunt by bringing on three gay friends to deliberately wind them up. What started out as a really good platform for discussion turned out to be nothing more than a TV entertainment slot which undermined his point. Sad really, because he could really shake up the establishment right round the world with his straight talking, no-nonsense approach to politics.
Thank you very much, dear Pam, for this very interesting comment.
You say you have very mixed feelings about Russell Brand and his words. Knowing him as well as you do I am not surprised at all. I guess he would be a character who can stir a lot of feelings in people. They say he is rich. So his shows must have been very successful. He seems to be a rather controversial character.
You say: “What started out as a really good platform for discussion turned out to be nothing more than a TV entertainment slot which undermined his point.”
I ask myself now how can you shake up the establishment and avoid at the same time a revolution? I mean we do not want things to evolve as they did in Syria! Do you think his “straight talking, no-nonsense approach to politics” may lead to further discussion among some influential commentators?