|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 15:04:42 GMT
Tony Benn has being making these points for over 30 years (before he passed away earlier this year) and a lot more. Why have you not been on here praising his visionary comments? (like I have done and accepted the abuse that goes with it) Because Politics and Personality are inextricably linked. Do you not understand that? Man alive Few points to make If the topic of thread was politics in general I'd be citing a wide range of my influences, Russell Brand isn't the only one, I just like what he's got to say and think it's relevant and the thread is about Russell Brand. Russell Brand is relevant to our time now, I'm making an assumption here but I think it's fair to say that due to the rise in social media and platforms like YouTube and Twitter the views of Russell Brand are far more likely to be heard and listened to because of Brand's status. Tony Benn's views would have had to go through the mainstream media (for which the majority of them don't talk about these issues) or through his publications so unfortunately his views probably went largely unnoticed. Basically Brand has a larger audience and a more direct means to communicate with them than anyone else who has ever discussed this topic and therefore the more such views get aired, the more people that engage and debate these views the more likely it is that we can make changes that benefit society. Personality and politics are inextricably linked I understand that clearly, but just because you and others don't like Brand it doesn't mean there aren't many others that do like him. Like I've mentioned before he's got 8.7 million followers on Twitter, more than David Cameron, Ed Milliband and more than any other British politician or journalist you can possibly think so whether like it or not he's a very influential figure and people are listening to him. No-one on here has been able to put any successful argument that what he's saying is incorrect, so as far as I'm concerned if even the people who dislike him can't find fault with what he's actually saying then that's good enough for me. its like pulling teeth with you no-one is arguing that what he is saying isnt correct, people are stating the obvious that he is an hypocrit for saying it and takes away from the message, the fact he has 8m followers on twitter is irelevant, i follow all sort of people who i dont agree a word of what they say.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 15:18:17 GMT
Few points to make If the topic of thread was politics in general I'd be citing a wide range of my influences, Russell Brand isn't the only one, I just like what he's got to say and think it's relevant and the thread is about Russell Brand. Russell Brand is relevant to our time now, I'm making an assumption here but I think it's fair to say that due to the rise in social media and platforms like YouTube and Twitter the views of Russell Brand are far more likely to be heard and listened to because of Brand's status. Tony Benn's views would have had to go through the mainstream media (for which the majority of them don't talk about these issues) or through his publications so unfortunately his views probably went largely unnoticed. Basically Brand has a larger audience and a more direct means to communicate with them than anyone else who has ever discussed this topic and therefore the more such views get aired, the more people that engage and debate these views the more likely it is that we can make changes that benefit society. Personality and politics are inextricably linked I understand that clearly, but just because you and others don't like Brand it doesn't mean there aren't many others that do like him. Like I've mentioned before he's got 8.7 million followers on Twitter, more than David Cameron, Ed Milliband and more than any other British politician or journalist you can possibly think so whether like it or not he's a very influential figure and people are listening to him. No-one on here has been able to put any successful argument that what he's saying is incorrect, so as far as I'm concerned if even the people who dislike him can't find fault with what he's actually saying then that's good enough for me. its like pulling teeth with you no-one is arguing that what he is saying isnt correct, people are stating the obvious that he is an hypocrit for saying it and takes away from the message, the fact he has 8m followers on twitter is irelevant, i follow all sort of people who i dont agree a word of what they say. You haven't provided any evidence that shows he's a hypocrite, just because he's rich it doesn't make him one www.vice.com/en_uk/read/russell-brand-calling-someone-a-snide-905I think this is a pretty balanced view, this bit is especially relevant "As part of a wider whole, yes, a rich person paying rich-person rent prices to another rich person for an undoubtedly nice house is one of the facets driving the London housing market into the distant stratosphere. But then, what do we expect? Is Brand supposed to live like a divorced dad, in some kind of room-and-a-bathroom travel kettle arrangement, with a very murder scene-looking stain on the carpet, just so he spends less on rent? Would that legitimise his rage, somehow? Can Brand only speak for the people when he lives like one of them? If I had Russell Brand money, I would wear clothes made of banknotes and shoes made of gold. I would destroy supercars and make Bond villain bets in VIP casinos. I would buy Rangers. In comparison, he wears his wealth quite modestly.
I can see why people might find it tough to reconcile Russell Brand, the shouting man, with Russell Brand, the good-doer. I get that his smoke-and-mirrors essence – the constant wrestling between ego and empathy, of rich man and man-of-the-people, of Parklife self-lampoons and actual books where the word "love" is highlighted in red – makes it hard for some to take him seriously. And those accusations of hypocrisy settling like a thin mist around Brand in today's newspapers – accusations he's since ?threatened legal action over – do seem to be clouding the good, important conversations he is very loudly having at and around people. I'm just not sure who benefits if a useful and impassioned mouthpiece is shut down for renting a nice house. I'm pretty sure the New Era protesters wouldn't have made it as far as Number 10 without him – look what happened ?when Brian Harvey tried it. Yes, he might call someone a "snide" sometimes. But to the 93 people who are facing up to the prospect of being homeless, a champagne socialist is better than no kind of socialist at all."Even if you want to falsely accuse him of being a hypocrite, if you want to say its all about his ego. He's doing a damn sight more to help and debate things and bring about much needed than any other celebrity I can think of. How can anyone seriously dislike the guy. Its like some of you don't even want the change he's trying to bring about. Oh who's saying it? Russell Brand? Well his message doesn't mean anything because he's a rich hyopcrite. You're all talking out of your backsides.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 15:26:04 GMT
ive provided evidence, you just choose to ignore it because your russell brand love clouds your judgement
how anyone can believe that that owning a firm that courts tax avoiding investors but moans about tax avoidance, or admits to using tax avoidance because it is there isnt hypocritical, is beyond my tiny mind
and you know what whilst posting a huffington post link to prove your points then dismissing my own huffington post link is just as hypocritical
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 9, 2014 15:28:37 GMT
I agree with a lot of his criticism of the state, but he essentially wants to replace one system based on coercion with another one which is more to his liking. He's not really espousing anything new, just warmed up sub chomsky fare. His criticism of capitalism is woefully cliche.
Someone recently described him as a "jesus clown with political tourettes", on the whole i feel this is an accurate description.
The guy is reportedly worth £9 million, if he really believes in the redistribution of wealth what is he waiting for ? as one of his heroes once noted, be the change you want to see!.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 9, 2014 15:36:54 GMT
left leaning prospect magazine on brands ramblings Russell Brand lives the lifestyle of the international party class, and he wants you to know it. His first mention of attending the Oscars is ten pages in—but don’t worry, they were “fucking boring.” This example of the humblebrag gone wild is combined with total hypocrisy. In parts of the book he writes as if totally detached from the rest of civilisation. “When travelling in impoverished regions in galling luxury, as I have done, you have to undergo some high-wire ethical arithmetic to legitimise your position. If you can’t separate yourself from poverty geographically then you have to do it ideologically. You have to believe inequality is okay.” Unless you’re Russell Brand, obviously. Flailing to defend himself, Brand says giving away his vast wealth would be pointless without systemic change. Tell that to the poor and needy people his millions could set free www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/no-russell-brand-youre-no-noam-chomskyAgain Salop this is really poor, he's not bragging about living the lifestyle of the international party class he's saying he's been a part of it and that the lifestyle isn't all its cracked up to be. It's not Russell Brands job/responsibility to help the poor and needy, its the responsibility of the system we've set up to do this, and its failing. At what point is it the responsibility of the individual to do something for themselves. I'm not a fan of state dependency - it's pernicious.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 16:03:31 GMT
ive provided evidence, you just choose to ignore it because your russell brand love clouds your judgement how anyone can believe that that owning a firm that courts tax avoiding investors but moans about tax avoidance, or admits to using tax avoidance because it is there isnt hypocritical, is beyond my tiny mind and you know what whilst posting a huffington post link to prove your points then dismissing my own huffington post link is just as hypocritical Erm no you haven't provided at evidence at all, all the articles you've posted as 'evidence' contradict themselves and its also important to clarify that tax breaks aren't the same thing as tax avoidance. Even the mainstream media (other than the article you've posted, which contradicts itself) hasn't been stupid enough to say he's guilty of tax avoidance and therefore a hypocrite, because he isn't. some of my favorite contradictions The Daily Mail article says; "It must be pointed out that none of this is against the law. Mr Brand’s representative said that ‘MFP had encouraged investment in it through an EIS scheme’, but that these Enterprise Investment Schemes are ‘not tax avoidance schemes’ and not the sort that had been challenged by HMRC."and the accountancy article says; EIS is designed to help smaller higher-risk trading companies to raise finance by offering a range of tax reliefs to investors who purchase new shares in those companies. HMRC guidance warns that both investors and companies should note that no relief will be given (or if it has been given, it will be withdrawn) if any scheme has as its main purpose, or one of its main purposes, the avoidance of tax. However, it does add that 'the tax reliefs available under the EIS are of course not considered to be avoidance of tax'. So if Brand's company is guilty of tax avoiding why haven't HMRC taken their money back? Oh wait they haven't, because he isn't avoiding tax. It's also completely relevant to point out that the companies that Brand criticises, Google, Apple, Starbucks, Vodafone. They aren't small higher-risk trading companies, they aren't using tax breaks like those referenced in the articles above as you can see in the below article. www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20560359You simply cannot compare the tax breaks that Brand's company has received to the tax avoidance carried out by large, multinational corporations.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 16:18:30 GMT
It's like arguing with a 5 year old. Or huddy
Let's put this in simple terms.
YOU posted tha brand hates tax avoidance but takes advantage because its there.
Please tell me how that isn't hypocritibal
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 16:34:24 GMT
It's like arguing with a 5 year old. Or huddy Let's put this in simple terms. YOU posted tha brand hates tax avoidance but takes advantage because its there. Please tell me how that isn't hypocritibal You've twisted what I said, because I didn't say he avoids tax at all. I said 'if' he was avoiding tax then he would also lose the benefits he gains from it and he seems just fine with that idea so he can't be hypocritical. Why are you asking questions I've already answered, the answer is right above in my last post but nevermind I'll repeat myself. You cannot legitimately compare the tax breaks that Brands company received with the practices carried out by huge multinational firms like Google, Starbucks, Amazon and Vodafone in order to avoid tax, practices such as switching money to a Dutch sister company, and also like Philip Green, the owner of TopShop not paying tax, because its all in his wife's name and she lives in Monaco because they simply aren't the same thing. There's nothing immoral or underhand about what Brand has done which is EIS is designed to help smaller higher-risk trading companies to raise finance by offering a range of tax reliefs to investors who purchase new shares in those companies. HMRC guidance warns that both investors and companies should note that no relief will be given (or if it has been given, it will be withdrawn) if any scheme has as its main purpose, or one of its main purposes, the avoidance of tax. However, it does add that 'the tax reliefs available under the EIS are of course not considered to be avoidance of tax'.I'm not against companies receiving some tax breaks, neither is Brand, some of the schemes are perfectly legitimate and they help smaller companies like the one Brand has a hand in as above. What his company is doing isn't the same as what the other massive companies carrying out tax avoidance are doing. And just to repeat, if he's avoiding tax why hasn't it been splashed all over the mainstream media by now, why isn't he being investigated by HMRC. (big hint; he isn't avoiding tax) If he was carrying out the same practices as those large multinational companies he would most certainly be a hypocrite, but as it is, he isn't. Not a difficult concept to grasp
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 16:47:11 GMT
Tax avoidance using loopholes isn't illegal
He is speaking out against it yet uses it himself.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Dec 9, 2014 16:49:35 GMT
Without wishing to cause offence, I find Brand appeals to a certain type. He delivers compact, easily digestible commentary to people who can't/can't be bothered to work it out for themselves. Hes making a very good career out of it, but he's no visionary. Isn't that politics in a nutshell? You could say the same about Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Farage. They are polar opposites. Those four, whether you agree with them or not, have offered what they all think to be a solution. Brand can tell us all how the system is broken, but short of us all going to live in a hippie commune he hasn't a clue what he wants to happen next. He's just a fool who wants to play at being anarchist. Unfortunately there are enough other fools in the UK who think he's something more. We appear to have one in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 16:51:57 GMT
Tax avoidance using loopholes isn't illegal He is speaking out against it yet uses it himself. I'm not quite sure how you still haven't grasped that what Russell's company has received (which is a tax break for smaller high risk companies), and what the big companies he is criticising are doing are two very different things.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 17:02:08 GMT
Isn't that politics in a nutshell? You could say the same about Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Farage. They are polar opposites. Those four, whether you agree with them or not, have offered what they all think to be a solution. Brand can tell us all how the system is broken, but short of us all going to live in a hippie commune he hasn't a clue what he wants to happen next. He's just a fool who wants to play at being anarchist. Unfortunately there are enough other fools in the UK who think he's something more. We appear to have one in this thread. Are any of the above four calling for the tax loopholes to be closed? erm nope There's no doubt that there may be better qualified minds than Brand to come up with solutions but the depressing thing is that it seems like everyone knows these problems (no-one is denying that the points Brand is making aren't correct) exist but the politicians and the majority of the mainstream media aren't speaking out or doing anything about them. So the question is, why not? Why is Brand the person currently capable of shouting the loudest about them in our society? It reflects badly on us as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Dec 9, 2014 17:06:04 GMT
They are polar opposites. Those four, whether you agree with them or not, have offered what they all think to be a solution. Brand can tell us all how the system is broken, but short of us all going to live in a hippie commune he hasn't a clue what he wants to happen next. He's just a fool who wants to play at being anarchist. Unfortunately there are enough other fools in the UK who think he's something more. We appear to have one in this thread. Are any of the above four calling for the tax loopholes to be closed? erm nope There's no doubt that there may be better qualified minds than Brand to come up with solutions but the depressing thing is that it seems like everyone knows these problems (no-one is denying that the points Brand is making aren't correct) exist but the politicians and the majority of the mainstream media aren't speaking out or doing anything about them. So the question is, why not? Why is Brand the person currently capable of shouting the loudest about them in our society? It reflects badly on us as a whole. I think you'll find the mainstream media has been shouting out about this for years now. No one is following Brand because most of what he is saying is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 17:11:04 GMT
Are any of the above four calling for the tax loopholes to be closed? erm nope There's no doubt that there may be better qualified minds than Brand to come up with solutions but the depressing thing is that it seems like everyone knows these problems (no-one is denying that the points Brand is making aren't correct) exist but the politicians and the majority of the mainstream media aren't speaking out or doing anything about them. So the question is, why not? Why is Brand the person currently capable of shouting the loudest about them in our society? It reflects badly on us as a whole. I think you'll find the mainstream media has been shouting out about this for years now. No one is following Brand because most of what he is saying is ridiculous. Even if they have been shouting about it (if they have its certainly not high on the agenda), why haven't the people we pay to sort things like this out, the politicians done anything about it? Doesn't that tell you that our society is broken and that things need to change. Plenty of people are listening to what Brand has to say.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 17:18:03 GMT
I think you'll find the mainstream media has been shouting out about this for years now. No one is following Brand because most of what he is saying is ridiculous. Even if they have been shouting about it (if they have its certainly not high on the agenda), why haven't the people we pay to sort things like this out, the politicians done anything about it? Doesn't that tell you that our society is broken and that things need to change. Plenty of people are listening to what Brand has to say. Yes....I've counted two so far ... Do please continue ....
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Dec 9, 2014 17:18:24 GMT
I think you'll find the mainstream media has been shouting out about this for years now. No one is following Brand because most of what he is saying is ridiculous. Even if they have been shouting about it (if they have its certainly not high on the agenda), why haven't the people we pay to sort things like this out, the politicians done anything about it? Plenty of people are listening to Brand has to say. Have you been living under a rock for the last 6 years? They have been addressing it. Its not as simple as just closing all the tax loopholes. What do you think a Google will do if you just double their tax bill overnight? They will bugger off somewhere that won't and take what tax they do pay, all their jobs and all their knowledge somewhere else. I said earlier, fools are listening to Brand. Noone else.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 17:26:06 GMT
Even if they have been shouting about it (if they have its certainly not high on the agenda), why haven't the people we pay to sort things like this out, the politicians done anything about it? Doesn't that tell you that our society is broken and that things need to change. Plenty of people are listening to what Brand has to say. Yes....I've counted two so far ... Do please continue .... On this thread there are a few, it's not really representative though is it. why haven't the people we pay to sort things like this out, the politicians done anything about it? Doesn't that tell you that our society is broken and that things need to change.you can take the quote above and apply it to a wide variety of things, the system we created to serve the needs of its people isn't working inequalitybriefing.org/brief/briefing-36-the-uk-has-become-one-of-the-most-unequal-countries-in-the-worlRussell Brand is one of many people saying things need to change, even most of you criticsing him recognise this, the current system is an ideological system that isn't fit for purpose it was created for.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 17:29:52 GMT
Even if they have been shouting about it (if they have its certainly not high on the agenda), why haven't the people we pay to sort things like this out, the politicians done anything about it? Plenty of people are listening to Brand has to say. Have you been living under a rock for the last 6 years? They have been addressing it. Its not as simple as just closing all the tax loopholes. What do you think a Google will do if you just double their tax bill overnight? They will bugger off somewhere that won't and take what tax they do pay, all their jobs and all their knowledge somewhere else. I said earlier, fools are listening to Brand. Noone else. Oh right that's why companies have now stopped avoiding taxes. Oh wait they haven't, it's still ongoing. And this is exactly why the system doesn't work, whats the point in having a system that allows itself to be held ransom by large multinational companies. "Oh we can't tax them properly they'll just take their business elsewhere" Is this some kind of sick joke?
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 17:39:54 GMT
I don't like being lectured to by a champagne socialist.
"'I was in the difficult position of being at an anti-corruption, anti-democracy protest and then saying "my god, I've got to rush", I've got to be at the theatre.'"
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 17:52:39 GMT
I don't like being lectured to by a champagne socialist. "'I was in the difficult position of being at an anti-corruption, anti-democracy protest and then saying "my god, I've got to rush", I've got to be at the theatre.'" I wouldn't call speaking loudly about social injustices within our society so that more and more people demand change rather than putting up with the current system lecturing you. I certainly don't feel lectured, are the media and politicians constantly 'lecturing' you as well. Obviously you're way too knowledgeable to and superior to have anyone tell you what you should be thinking. Oh wait you do constantly have people telling you what to think, but 'that's OK because they aren't champagne socialists'. Champange socialists can go and sit in the corner and be quiet. Its the most pathetic excuse ever, I'd rather have 'champagne socialists' like Brand publicising the faults in our society than no champagne socialists at all.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Dec 9, 2014 17:52:44 GMT
Isn't that politics in a nutshell? You could say the same about Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Farage. They are polar opposites. Those four, whether you agree with them or not, have offered what they all think to be a solution. Brand can tell us all how the system is broken, but short of us all going to live in a hippie commune he hasn't a clue what he wants to happen next. He's just a fool who wants to play at being anarchist. Unfortunately there are enough other fools in the UK who think he's something more. We appear to have one in this thread. True he has no answers but at least he's asking the right questions. Also, is it his job to provide the answers? I would say that lies with the politicians, who as far as I can tell have no answers to the questions he is asking. I'd like to think it's possible to question something, without being in the position to offer a solution. For example, I can question the Iraq War without being expected to come up with a new British defence strategy in the Middle East. It doesn't make my questioning less plausible, it just means I wouldn't make a good candidate for Foreign Secretary
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Dec 9, 2014 17:57:11 GMT
I don't like being lectured to by a champagne socialist. "'I was in the difficult position of being at an anti-corruption, anti-democracy protest and then saying "my god, I've got to rush", I've got to be at the theatre.'" Can you explain to me what is wrong with a Socialist drinking champagne?
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 18:23:53 GMT
I don't like being lectured to by a champagne socialist. "'I was in the difficult position of being at an anti-corruption, anti-democracy protest and then saying "my god, I've got to rush", I've got to be at the theatre.'" Can you explain to me what is wrong with a Socialist drinking champagne? He is as bad as the system he lambasts. It's easy to sit in a castle on top of a large pile of cash and bemoan social injustice
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Dec 9, 2014 18:46:02 GMT
There's a fine tradition in Britain of social reformers and philanthropists coming from the 'priviliged' classes. From Robert Owen, through the Fry's, to Anthony Wedgwood Benn etc. We've benefitted massively from their activities, champagne glass in hand or not.
I personally find some of Brand's affectations a little irksome, and I'm jealous of his swordsmithery but I'm glad he's chosen to use the profile and platform that he's earned to turn the spotlight onto such issues.
I'm with Edge on this.
{Obviously not The Edge, nor indeed Bono.}
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Dec 9, 2014 18:58:26 GMT
Can you explain to me what is wrong with a Socialist drinking champagne? He is as bad as the system he lambasts. It's easy to sit in a castle on top of a large pile of cash and bemoan social injustice Oh, I thought it was a general comment and not just about Russell Brand. What exactly is the amount of money you're allowed to have before you can not be a Socialist anymore? And, once you've exceeded that limit what are you allowed to believe politically?
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 19:11:50 GMT
He is as bad as the system he lambasts. It's easy to sit in a castle on top of a large pile of cash and bemoan social injustice Oh, I thought it was a general comment and not just about Russell Brand. What exactly is the amount of money you're allowed to have before you can not be a Socialist anymore? And, once you've exceeded that limit what are you allowed to believe politically? i don't know but far too much to go news-night calling profit a dirty word
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 9, 2014 19:22:36 GMT
Tax avoidance using loopholes isn't illegal He is speaking out against it yet uses it himself. I'm not quite sure how you still haven't grasped that what Russell's company has received (which is a tax break for smaller high risk companies), and what the big companies he is criticising are doing are two very different things. Because you're right and he's wrong as usual. Cognitive dissonance at it's finest. He also voted for Cameron of course.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Dec 9, 2014 22:12:35 GMT
You have to ask yourself. Why are Murdoch's Sun so obsessive with going after Russell Brand?
Obviously to deflect attention away from corprate criminals who continue to exploit ths country for its wealth through tax avoidance with the backing of this government. It's classic establishment trying to protect itself and trying to turn the masses against eccentrics who dare to raise a murmur of dissent.
Anyone who goes head to head with the Sun has my backing
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Dec 10, 2014 0:52:18 GMT
They are polar opposites. Those four, whether you agree with them or not, have offered what they all think to be a solution. Brand can tell us all how the system is broken, but short of us all going to live in a hippie commune he hasn't a clue what he wants to happen next. He's just a fool who wants to play at being anarchist. Unfortunately there are enough other fools in the UK who think he's something more. We appear to have one in this thread. True he has no answers but at least he's asking the right questions. Also, is it his job to provide the answers? I would say that lies with the politicians, who as far as I can tell have no answers to the questions he is asking. I'd like to think it's possible to question something, without being in the position to offer a solution. For example, I can question the Iraq War without being expected to come up with a new British defence strategy in the Middle East. It doesn't make my questioning less plausible, it just means I wouldn't make a good candidate for Foreign Secretary True, but then you're not attempting to influence the opinions of thousands of others with your thoughts. As far as I know you also don't have stupid ideas that sound a lot better in your head than they do in reality. What Brand is doing is appealing to the low brow audience who don't know any better. Its a problem because too many think he actually knows what he's talking about, and it becomes a problem when the people who do know what they're talking about try to talk to the population. They expect you to sit in the back of your Rolls Royce whilst you rant about poverty, or you're dismissed as one of the 'rich'.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 10, 2014 10:53:32 GMT
True he has no answers but at least he's asking the right questions. Also, is it his job to provide the answers? I would say that lies with the politicians, who as far as I can tell have no answers to the questions he is asking. I'd like to think it's possible to question something, without being in the position to offer a solution. For example, I can question the Iraq War without being expected to come up with a new British defence strategy in the Middle East. It doesn't make my questioning less plausible, it just means I wouldn't make a good candidate for Foreign Secretary True, but then you're not attempting to influence the opinions of thousands of others with your thoughts. As far as I know you also don't have stupid ideas that sound a lot better in your head than they do in reality. What Brand is doing is appealing to the low brow audience who don't know any better. Its a problem because too many think he actually knows what he's talking about, and it becomes a problem when the people who do know what they're talking about try to talk to the population. They expect you to sit in the back of your Rolls Royce whilst you rant about poverty, or you're dismissed as one of the 'rich'. Can you give examples of the ideas he's provided that you're so dismissive of?
|
|