Question Time & This Week

[Untied]

Brand well out of his depth. Nervous as feck

Nah. I have an awful lot of time for him, I just thought he was trying to restrain himself. His only poor moment was on the question about grammar schools (which the awful Conservative MP answered best). He just resorted to a pre-canned Farage bash (who can blame him).

He was more impressive overall than either of the MPs, which says a lot.

 

[Sweet Square]

It's just painful viewing. I've gone through a cycle from thinking watching Question Time made me a political scholar to avoiding it like the plague. The questions are always tabloid style clichés that get tabloid style answers with tabloid style clapping or booing from the cherry picked audience.

Pretty much this.

 

[Raoul]

Felt a bit bad for Brand. He was clearly out of his depth and the audience weren't making it any easier on him.

 

[Mozza]

Bollocks, Brand did well

 

[Vidic_In_Moscow]

I felt after a poor start Brand did reasonably well. He was visibly nervous for sure but I wasn't really sure that it detracted anything from his performance. Only a couple of times where he acted petulantly but his overall views seemed pretty well received. Adding to my previous post though what is really considered doing 'well' on this show when it seems so scripted anyway.

 

[Ubik]

Yeah didn't think he was "out of his depth" at all, he was more reserved than the last couple of times he's been on but that was probably to his benefit, although the "make emphatic point before lying back in chair with finger on lip and looking serious" thing he does is irritating. His ideas on voting annoy me and are counter-productive but I agree with the idea it's derived from, that being the general lack of choice we possess as an electorate.

 

[Dion]

Yeah, Brand was fine. Made a genuine effort to give the immigration agenda the correct perspective instead of pretending it's "the issue" and generally handled the other questions well. Took a couple too many cheap shots at Farage but who can blame him?

Farage was the real weak link, even by his own low standards that was exceptionally poor.

Just pointless that there is another debate on immigration, suggesting somehow it's a key issue.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

I don't know how representative it is of the wider discussion surrounding immigration, however i have just seen the following clip from last night's QT:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...Nigel-Farage-on-BBC-Question-Time-review.html

With the praise that some of you are making toward Brand i can only assume that the above was not typical of his manner elsewhere in the programme. The answer there is a poor one, it fails to engage with the issue in the same way that Westminster did for all too many years. It seems that the left veer towards such unmanaged immigration that a portion of their number either find themselves exploited or trapped, whilst UKIP go too far the other way and the migrant reaches a similar end by different means.

 

[Amethyst]

Don't think Brand really had anything much to say, it was either him attacking Farage's work or education background without answering any questions or just saying 'it's the system'.

That women in the audience though.

 

[Raoul]

Don't think Brand really had anything much to say, it was either him attacking Farage's work or education background without answering any questions or just saying 'it's the system'.

That women in the audience though.

I was hoping he would have prepared a more coherent argument for his views, but he wound up being drowned out by the substance of those around him. At one point he ducked everything by saying he was just a comedian. At another he zoned out and went missing for a 10-15 min stretch because the discussion got too much into specifics about the NHS and other topics.

 

[Sassy Colin]

It's just painful viewing. I've gone through a cycle from thinking watching Question Time made me a political scholar to avoiding it like the plague. The questions are always tabloid style clichés that get tabloid style answers with tabloid style clapping or booing from the cherry picked audience.

This is the most annoying thing about QT, the inane clapping from the audience. One starts they all start, doesn't matter what the point is, even it if it's complete & utter bollocks. The funniest is when one of them starts to clap someone from the government, a couple of them join in then you can almost here the brain cells whirring, Government bad, me no clap.

I can watch it for about 15-20 mins then I have to turnover otherwise I might put my foot through the TV.

 

[Adebesi]

the "make emphatic point before lying back in chair with finger on lip and looking serious" thing he does is irritating.

I commented on this to my missus last night, its almost like pantomime the way he projects himself. I thought he did quite well, his problem here was that he was called out on not really answering the question and he could have done better tying his rants back to the question, like that one on immigration where he started ranting on about UKIP, it wouldnt have been that hard to say the same thing more or less but actually answer the question within his rant, but he declined to do that.

I thought he also needed a better retort to the guy who told him to run for parliament as that is such an obvious stick to beat him with and the more he campaigns with his bizarre instructions to not vote, the more he is going to encounter this. Just saying "I dont want to become one of them" is a massive cop out and will continue to erode his credibility if he doesnt come up with a better reason not to do it. Sniping from the sidelines will get you some laughs for a while but people will stop listening to him sooner or later.

But it was great listening to him tear into Farage, calling him a two-bit Enoch Powell or whatever he said, that was good and needs to be said more often.

I enjoyed the episode. Yes it is OTT adversarial and a bit contrived at times but it makes good telly IMO.

 

[AkaAkuma]

Its a waste of time, issues get tide up in point scoring. The first question of this episode summed it up, asking about petty politics. The show then decended down that path.

 

[Member 39557]

I commented on this to my missus last night, its almost like pantomime the way he projects himself. I thought he did quite well, his problem here was that he was called out on not really answering the question and he could have done better tying his rants back to the question, like that one on immigration where he started ranting on about UKIP, it wouldnt have been that hard to say the same thing more or less but actually answer the question within his rant, but he declined to do that.

I thought he also needed a better retort to the guy who told him to run for parliament as that is such an obvious stick to beat him with and the more he campaigns with his bizarre instructions to not vote, the more he is going to encounter this. Just saying "I dont want to become one of them" is a massive cop out and will continue to erode his credibility if he doesnt come up with a better reason not to do it. Sniping from the sidelines will get you some laughs for a while but people will stop listening to him sooner or later.

But it was great listening to him tear into Farage, calling him a two-bit Enoch Powell or whatever he said, that was good and needs to be said more often.

I enjoyed the episode. Yes it is OTT adversarial and a bit contrived at times but it makes good telly IMO.

I guess that makes Brand a two-bit Montgomery "None of the above" Brewster?

I recorded this with the view of watching it tonight but I'm not sure if I will now. I thought Brand vs Farage would make good viewing and I wanted to see if Brand had added some substance to the anti vote stuff he spouted with Jeremy Paxman.

 

[Adebesi]

If youre looking for good viewing, I would watch it. But I guess we all have our opinions on what makes good viewing. I mean, Im not sure what you were expecting when you recorded it but for me it did exactly what it said on the tin. If you seriously expected substance from Russell Brand... well, you didnt, seriously, did you? Ive never heard him say anythign really substantial in my life, he usually comes out with "yeah but IM not a politician" kind of answers, "its not MY job to come up with the answers, it isnt MY job to come up with a carefully costed manifesto, I just want to get the debate out into the open."

You are right, he is no better than Farage in the sense that they are just two extremes at either end of the political spectrum. But then, that's what entertaining telly is all about, isnt it. Its like in the old days, people wouldnt have paid money to go and see gladiators resolve their differences which each other, or with the lions, by means of debate and compromise. It was a fight to the death, that's what people want to see.

 

[Cheesy]

The whole problem is that it's ultimately trying to get viewing and ratings. In Britain, we have a sort of weird obsession with the whole tabloid celebrity culture. Because of that, they turn a programme like QT into more a Jeremy Kyle style shouting match with big personalities who will sometimes make decent points, but often just sort of search for the loudest cheer they can get with the best soundbite.

Last night was probably this to the extreme with Brand/Farage on, and you sometimes get decent discussion on it, but with the audience it's often easier to just go for the cheer if you're on the panel.

 

[JmRssll555]

The irony of the opening question concerning petty, adversarial, 'Punch and Judy' politics last night was poetic.

I thought Brand was pretty bad, though that wasn't entirely surprising to see. I agree with @Adebesi that he needs to come up with a much better reason for not standing than he did, as it really undermines a lot of what he says. Regardless of that, however, most of his ranting consists of generalised statements about "the system" and how awful the bankers and politicians are. It's pretty tiresome, I find him rather hypocritical and if he wants to be taken seriously, I completely agree with those who have said he needs to add some substance to what he says.

I know he's "only a comedian, not a politician" but he needs to decide which persona he's going to take seriously. He can't sincerely rant about the system, call for revolution and act like a politician, then when he's posed difficult questions fall back on the "I'm just a mere comedian" safety net. It's unhelpful and annoying.

 

[Member 39557]

If youre looking for good viewing, I would watch it. But I guess we all have our opinions on what makes good viewing. I mean, Im not sure what you were expecting when you recorded it but for me it did exactly what it said on the tin. If you seriously expected substance from Russell Brand... well, you didnt, seriously, did you? Ive never heard him say anythign really substantial in my life, he usually comes out with "yeah but IM not a politician" kind of answers, "its not MY job to come up with the answers, it isnt MY job to come up with a carefully costed manifesto, I just want to get the debate out into the open."

You are right, he is no better than Farage in the sense that they are just two extremes at either end of the political spectrum. But then, that's what entertaining telly is all about, isnt it. Its like in the old days, people wouldnt have paid money to go and see gladiators resolve their differences which each other, or with the lions, by means of debate and compromise. It was a fight to the death, that's what people want to see.

I wasn't expecting substance, but I did wonder if he'd added any. He seems to be getting his fingers in a few political pies lately, so I wondered if he'd evolved his arguments a bit. From the comments above, it would seem that he hasn't.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Wasn't Matt Forde on QT a few weeks back? Did he ever use the "I'm just a comedian" line?

 

[Dion]

Are we really suggesting that the idea Brand should stand was anything but silly point scoring?

Just because you have an opinion on something doesn't mean you should stand for parliament for feck sake. "I'm just a comedian" is about all that suggestion deserves because it's utterly moronic.

 

[Adebesi]

Are we really suggesting that the idea Brand should stand was anything but silly point scoring?

Just because you have an opinion on something doesn't mean you should stand for parliament for feck sake. "I'm just a comedian" is about all that suggestion deserves because it's utterly moronic.

Hang on, he has more than an opinion about it. The guy is a one-man crusade, he's banging on about this thing every single day, calling for people not to vote, calling for revolution. He is a long way from being a simple comedian, he has become an anti-establishment activist.

I think he should stand, absolutely - if he is going to bang on about politics constantly, with the ludicrous message that people shouldnt vote because there is nothing to vote for. If he really believes that, he should absolutely give people something to vote for.

Or he could stop telling people not to vote.

Anything outside of those two options just makes him look idiotic really. And this is from someone who has some sympathy for some of what he says. A lot of the problems he identifies are real problems, he should use his profile and his obvious passion for the subject a bit more constructively.

 

[JmRssll555]

Are we really suggesting that the idea Brand should stand was anything but silly point scoring?

Just because you have an opinion on something doesn't mean you should stand for parliament for feck sake. "I'm just a comedian" is about all that suggestion deserves because it's utterly moronic.

He seems to hold his own opinions in particularly high esteem though. If you want to preach about the failings of the system in the way that he does - and you have the ability to stand for Parliament - then why shouldn't people question his reasons for not doing so?

Everyone, or most people, have opinions on politics, but most people don't have the ability to get huge media coverage of those opinions. Brand is using that media coverage to attempt to whip people up into joining him in starting a "revolution" but laughs off the idea of standing for Parliament. It's counter-productive and makes him look stupid.

If he wants to be a comedian and simply comment on political activity, then that's fine. However, whilst he talks of starting a revolution, encourages people not to vote, appears on Question Time and conducts a political interview with Jeremy Paxman, he has moved beyond being a mere comedian, in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Russell Brand should be standing for Parliament and nor would I vote for him, if he did. Regardless, he can't act like a politician when it suits him and a comedian on other occasions, in my opinion.

 

[JmRssll555]

Hang on, he has more than an opinion about it. The guy is a one-man crusade, he's banging on about this thing every single day, calling for people not to vote, calling for revolution. He is a long way from being a simple comedian, he has become an anti-establishment activist.

I think he should stand, absolutely - if he is going to bang on about politics constantly, with the ludicrous message that people shouldnt vote because there is nothing to vote for. If he really believes that, he should absolutely give people something to vote for.

Or he could stop telling people not to vote.

Anything outside of those two options just makes him look idiotic really. And this is from someone who has some sympathy for some of what he says. A lot of the problems he identifies are real problems, he should use his profile and his obvious passion for the subject a bit more constructively.

I totally agree with this. You've said what I was trying to say, but better.

 

[Raoul]

The trouble with Brand is he's good at polemic, headline grabbing statements about what's wrong, but he hasn't seem to have taken the time to come up with specific solutions. I think this leaves those who admire his intentions and contributions to bringing a few important issues to light, a bit underwhelmed.

 

[JohnLocke]

I’ve only watched about half of it and thought he did okay, but as people said he could have answered the questions he was asked whilst at the same time putting his point across. But in saying that he did get a few good points across, from the half I watched anyway.

His first point about MP’s only turning up for matters of pay was actually based on an error from a meme that was posted on Another Angry Voice blog, for which the author apologised as he hadn’t checked the authenticity of the two pictures that show a full house on the issue of MP’s pay and expenses. Although the point still stands that there was ridiculously low turnout on some very important issues.

The lady in the black outfit seemed to share some of the same opinions and was able to put her point across better, but I didn’t really like the way she played the sexist card – although Brand referring to one of the panel guests as “love” probably riled her into it, along with his “outburst”.

Russell should have said that the reason people are fed up / disillusioned with politicians is because they constantly lie to the general public and don’t represent the electorates views on matters of policy. For example, David Cameron said that he wouldn’t privatise the NHS but has carved it open to private investors, the head of the Department of Health has co-authored two books on why the NHS should be privatised, and around 65 Tory MP’s have financially benefited from the privatisation of the NHS.

So when we are told that the NHS is in safe hands and will be looked after, and then for it to be shown as nothing but a bare faced lie (among a sea of other lies). This is basically sticking two fingers up and saying they don’t care what we think, they are going to do what they want anyway and will line their own pockets along the way. That would have been a good point to make.

With regards as to why he doesn’t stand for office he should simply reply that he doesn’t want to be a politician as he doesn’t think he would be good at it and his time would be better spent putting a spotlight on issues that people with little to no voice / power are able to bring to the debate. The line that he would turn into one of them was a complete cop out and I doubt he genuinely believes that for a second, it actually made me cringe a bit when he said it.

But all in all, I’m glad he’s doing what he’s doing, even if it is only to open the door to people who wouldn’t normally partake in political matters, for a number of differing reasons.

I don’t vote for the same reason that Russell doesn’t, but not because he told me that was the thing to do. Although this time round I may vote for the Green Party to see if they can offer something better than what we have. But I live in N Ireland and the whole political system over here is a poor joke at best, minus the voting system I suppose, which is an improvement on the FPTP system used on the mainland.

Also, as a side note I thought it was funny when the Sun said that 64% of people don’t think Russell is funny, which means 36% think he does. Which is about the same percentage that the Tory’s garnered in votes to form the government, albeit a coalition, but I think Labour got about 40% in the previous election and were able to form a single party government. But you don’t hear that mentioned all that often that most of the people didn’t even vote for who gets into power.

 

[Adebesi]

Another point he made which I thought was a good one - and definitely from the populist perspective of representing the views of the people - was after Farage had said he had 20 years in business, therefore had real world experience that other politicians dont have. Brand said he had 20 years in the business of finance, which is who politicians work for and which is not the same thing as experience of the real world at all.

Yes, these things are easy ways to play to the gallery and get a cheer but let's face it, that is how people see the relationship between politicians and banks. It was a good point, succinctly made and it was good to see someone saying it to Farage because he loves spouting this shit about career politicians like he has the first idea what life is like for most people.

 

[Vidic_In_Moscow]

I can't believe more Grammar schools aren't a more popular idea, it's one thing I think Farage was absolutely spot on about and all the other parties are missing a trick.

The main argument seems to be an idealist 'all schools should be a high standard' and I'm sorry but in reality that will absolutely never happen, it's simply impossible and nothing more than a crowd-pleaser. One of the biggest problems in our society right now, recognised by almost everyone on all sides is that everyone at the top is privately educated, be it company directors, politicians or Olympic athletes, kids are getting huge and more importantly - unfair - advantages in life because their parents are rich. Grammar schools allow people from all walks of life to get a great education because you don't pay to attend them, only pass a test. In essence, Grammar schools are a pathway to the top for people who aren't necessarily from a privileged background and encourages success on merit rather than a silver spoon. To me it's such an obvious solution, but I may be missing something as it doesn't seem like such a great idea to everyone else.

Does anyone have a good argument against them?

 

[Dion]

Hang on, he has more than an opinion about it. The guy is a one-man crusade, he's banging on about this thing every single day, calling for people not to vote, calling for revolution. He is a long way from being a simple comedian, he has become an anti-establishment activist.

I think he should stand, absolutely - if he is going to bang on about politics constantly, with the ludicrous message that people shouldnt vote because there is nothing to vote for. If he really believes that, he should absolutely give people something to vote for.

Or he could stop telling people not to vote.

Anything outside of those two options just makes him look idiotic really. And this is from someone who has some sympathy for some of what he says. A lot of the problems he identifies are real problems, he should use his profile and his obvious passion for the subject a bit more constructively.

He seems to hold his own opinions in particularly high esteem though. If you want to preach about the failings of the system in the way that he does - and you have the ability to stand for Parliament - then why shouldn't people question his reasons for not doing so?

Everyone, or most people, have opinions on politics, but most people don't have the ability to get huge media coverage of those opinions. Brand is using that media coverage to attempt to whip people up into joining him in starting a "revolution" but laughs off the idea of standing for Parliament. It's counter-productive and makes him look stupid.

If he wants to be a comedian and simply comment on political activity, then that's fine. However, whilst he talks of starting a revolution, encourages people not to vote, appears on Question Time and conducts a political interview with Jeremy Paxman, he has moved beyond being a mere comedian, in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Russell Brand should be standing for Parliament and nor would I vote for him, if he did. Regardless, he can't act like a politician when it suits him and a comedian on other occasions, in my opinion.

That's utter nonsense and you know it. Amnesty international are on a crusade against human rights abuses, do you want them to run for parliament? Bob Geldof? Should Joanna Lumley have ran for parliament to get rights for the ghurkas? You're allowed to campaign for change without having to be the agent of change yourself, the ability to recognise your own unsuitability for running the country doesn't discount your right to vocally express your disgust at how things are done.

It's such an unfathomably stupid position to hold.

 

[JohnLocke]

The general argument against the 11+ / entrance test is that it labels children as failures and puts a lot of pressure on them from an early age.

Even though I think a lot grammar schools have their own entrance test now to get round it being scrapped.

I went to a grammar school and am from a working class background and it is a good idea IMO. Although being a working class child in a middle class environment isn't all it's cracked up to be sometimes, but I think the benefits of it outweigh the negatives.

I always thought I would pass the test but my P7 teacher didn't think I would, and to be fair I think it would have been hard to take if I hadn't of got the grade I thought I would.

 

[Dion]

I can't believe more Grammar schools aren't a more popular idea, it's one thing I think Farage was absolutely spot on about and all the other parties are missing a trick.

The main argument seems to be an idealist 'all schools should be a high standard' and I'm sorry but in reality that will absolutely never happen, it's simply impossible and nothing more than a crowd-pleaser. One of the biggest problems in our society right now, recognised by almost everyone on all sides is that everyone at the top is privately educated, be it company directors, politicians or Olympic athletes, kids are getting huge and more importantly - unfair - advantages in life because their parents are rich. Grammar schools allow people from all walks of life to get a great education because you don't pay to attend them, only pass a test. In essence, Grammar schools are a pathway to the top for people who aren't necessarily from a privileged background and encourages success on merit rather than a silver spoon. To me it's such an obvious solution, but I may be missing something as it doesn't seem like such a great idea to everyone else.

Does anyone have a good argument against them?

Because it strips away the best staff from comprehensive schools and makes an already two tier system universal across the country. It's fine for the people who get into grammar schools, but for the people left behind it's no solution at all and those people still feel completely disconnected for the elite. Simply put you aren't going to solve the disillusionment.

The issue of politicians all coming from a small group of people is a problem, but grammar schools aren't the answer. Our education system is chronically under-funded but we have more top class universities with people from a large range of backgrounds than we ever have. The problem isn't solved by getting a few plebs into Oxbridge, it's solved by recognising the excellence of all the other institutions across the country.

 

[Adebesi]

I can't believe more Grammar schools aren't a more popular idea, it's one thing I think Farage was absolutely spot on about and all the other parties are missing a trick.

The main argument seems to be an idealist 'all schools should be a high standard' and I'm sorry but in reality that will absolutely never happen, it's simply impossible and nothing more than a crowd-pleaser. One of the biggest problems in our society right now, recognised by almost everyone on all sides is that everyone at the top is privately educated, be it company directors, politicians or Olympic athletes, kids are getting huge and more importantly - unfair - advantages in life because their parents are rich. Grammar schools allow people from all walks of life to get a great education because you don't pay to attend them, only pass a test. In essence, Grammar schools are a pathway to the top for people who aren't necessarily from a privileged background and encourages success on merit rather than a silver spoon. To me it's such an obvious solution, but I may be missing something as it doesn't seem like such a great idea to everyone else.

Does anyone have a good argument against them?

I agree with you.

Others will know a lot more about this Im sure and Ill be interested to see what other responses you get.

But I think the main point is the one you touched on. People see them as still elitist, even if they are meritocratic and open to all. People dont like the idea that your life chances can hinge on exams you take or performance you achieve at a relatively young age. It is quite binary: you pass, youre in and youre on the path to Oxbridge. You fail and you are condemned to a comp education followed by a life working in KFC. People feel it is a) unfair pressure on kids and b) will undermine the performance of comps by taking all the best pupils out of them, leading to a greater disparity between the haves and have nots.

But yes, I agree with you, people have this romantic ideal of brilliant schools everywhere so everyone goes to their local school, gets a world class education, comes out having fulfilled their potential and then goes on to get a great job. People dont like the idea of separating kids into streams, with bright kids educated together in one place and less bright kids taught at a slower speed somewhere else. I think it is seen as unfair on the less bright kids, the notion that it holds back the bright kids is less worrying, somehow. Clearly both ways have their disadvantages, I think it is fairly clear that if you separate all the best kids then the ones who are left are going to suffer. Its just a case of whether that is a better problem to have.

Maybe it comes down to what you think equality of opportunity is all about. If its about rewarding the brightest academically and improving social mobility it seems like a good idea. If you want to get to a place where all schools are of the same standard, so you have better opportunities for the less academically gifted, its probably a bad idea. But if course until you ban private schools you are never actually making all schools the same standard. the rich will always pay for the best education money can buy.

 

[Kag]

For all of the rightful criticism Farage attracts, he's a very articulate man and a very, very good politician. His agendas may not always be reasonable, but he answers questions, distributes facts and speaks a great deal of sense. It shouldn't be the case that he is the politician on the panel with whom one can most relate to.

Brand was out his depth. He's vaguely likeable but full of hot air. He's good to listen to when discussing subjects he genuinely understands, such as drug addiction and how best to combat it. He should stick to that.

Camilla Cavendish was outstanding.

Question Time needs freshening up. I've been watching it for around five years or so now and it's just the same faces with the same things to say. More of an effort should be made to get those who won't tow the party line on the programme, instead of mundane cabinet rhetoric.

 

[Adebesi]

That's utter nonsense and you know it. Amnesty international are on a crusade against human rights abuses, do you want them to run for parliament? Bob Geldof? Should Joanna Lumley have ran for parliament to get rights for the ghurkas? You're allowed to campaign for change without having to be the agent of change yourself, the ability to recognise your own unsuitability for running the country doesn't discount your right to vocally express your disgust at how things are done.

It's such an unfathomably stupid position to hold.

Those people you mention do a lot more constructive stuff for the causes they represent than just tell people not to vote.

Your choice of words was a good one, this does seem to be a bit unfathomable for you.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Those people you mention do a lot more constructive stuff for the causes they represent than just tell people not to vote.

Your choice of words was a good one, this does seem to be a bit unfathomable for you.

To be fair to Brand he is doing more than just telling people not to vote. I personally didn't think he did a great job yesterday but he raised two good points; one being the media and certain politician's desire to blame all ills on immigrants and ignore the true cause of the economic crisis, and the other calling Farage out for what he really is. The first point at least is something not many people in the country are really doing. He's the only one that I can think right now who has pointed out that the working classes are being made to turn on each other than focus on the government and those really in charge.

 

[Dion]

Those people you mention do a lot more constructive stuff for the causes they represent than just tell people not to vote.

You know this is nonsense as well. If that was all Brand was doing you'd still be wrong but it would at least be understandable. However he's clearly doing more than telling people not to vote and calling for a revolution. He's bringing attention to the massive inequality and the false equivalence placed on immigration when nobody else was willing to. He doesn't need to run for parliament to be justified in doing that.

 

[Adebesi]

To be fair to Brand he is doing more than just telling people not to vote. I personally didn't think he did a great job yesterday but he raised two good points; one being the media and certain politician's desire to blame all ills on immigrants and ignore the true cause of the economic crisis, and the other calling Farage out for what he really is. The first point at least is something not many people in the country are really doing.

Oh absolutely, if you read my other posts in this thread today I am not really being overly critical of Brand and I do think he makes some good points. But the other people mentioned in that post above campaign on specific issues and are effective at raising the profile of or raising money for those causes. Brand shouts a lot about everything that is wrong with the world without putting forward any suggestion for what we should be doing... except for not voting. Its all very well saying the ruling class are the ones to blame, not the immigrants, I agree with that to quite a considerable extent. So what should I do, Mr Brand? Youve convinced me, I want to get involved, tell me how. What's that you say? Dont vote? You really think thatll help? OK....

As I said a bit earlier, he doesnt have to get into politics, he can also just stop telling people not to vote and find something else more constructive to advise. The fact is the system can only be changed from within, disengaging from the system will definitely not change it. But if there was a party that had credible ideas about how we could do things differently, maybe people would vote for it and maybe things could change. You only have to look at UKIP to see what is possible, a party that came from nowhere and is now dominating the political debate. There's no reason it can only work for the far right.

 

[Vidic_In_Moscow]

The general argument against the 11+ / entrance test is that it labels children as failures and puts a lot of pressure on them from an early age.

Even though I think a lot grammar schools have their own entrance test now to get round it being scrapped.

I went to a grammar school and am from a working class background and it is a good idea IMO. Although being a working class child in a middle class environment isn't all it's cracked up to be sometimes, but I think the benefits of it outweigh the negatives.

This is my own experience too.

Because it strips away the best staff from comprehensive schools and makes an already two tier system universal across the country. It's fine for the people who get into grammar schools, but for the people left behind it's no solution at all and those people still feel completely disconnected for the elite. Simply put you aren't going to solve the disillusionment.

The issue of politicians all coming from a small group of people is a problem, but grammar schools aren't the answer. Our education system is chronically under-funded but we have more top class universities with people from a large range of backgrounds than we ever have. The problem isn't solved by getting a few plebs into Oxbridge, it's solved by recognising the excellence of all the other institutions across the country.

That is a good point. It is so easy to get carried away into ideal-land with this topic but teachers should and could really be paid more to combat that and attract more people into the profession. Even though I'm a big supporter of Grammar Schools, my absolute 'ideal' would be to get rid of private schools and have everybody attend the same system. I should probably have mentioned that, it's only under the pretence of the rich being able to get a better education that I think the academically gifted should also receive that advantage via Grammar Schools. As touched on before though I feel like getting rid of private schools is encroaching too far into 'ideal-land'. It would never happen.

 

[Adebesi]

You know this is nonsense as well. If that was all Brand was doing you'd still be wrong but it would at least be understandable. However he's clearly doing more than telling people not to vote and calling for a revolution. He's bringing attention to the massive inequality and the false equivalence placed on immigration when nobody else was willing to. He doesn't need to run for parliament to be justified in doing that.

No youre right, he doesnt. And if that was all he was doing nobody would ever have even suggested it.

Again, im not saying people dont have a right to lobby or bang their drum about any issue they want to. What I am saying is quite simple.

Anyone who goes around the place regularly telling people not to vote because there is nothing worth voting for should instead give them something to vote for instead. This is broadly true but especially for someone like him who is extremely high profile, wealthy and has all the means at his disposal to do exactly that. Joe Bloggs would feel the odds are stacked against him and there was no point but Brand is not Joe Bloggs, as someone said he has like 9m Twitter followers, he has influence, people listen to him. He could probably get elected as an independent and do all the things he is currently doing but with considerably more leverage. The only thing is he would have to have answers about how to do things differently and this is where he falls down. As I said, I agree with a lot of his complaints about what is wrong with the world but I have heard literally not one word from him about how things could be done better.

 

[Dion]

No youre right, he doesnt. And if that was all he was doing nobody would ever have even suggested it.

Again, im not saying people dont have a right to lobby or bang their drum about any issue they want to. What I am saying is quite simple.

Anyone who goes around the place regularly telling people not to vote because there is nothing worth voting for should instead give them something to vote for instead. This is broadly true but especially for someone like him who is extremely high profile, wealthy and has all the means at his disposal to do exactly that. Joe Bloggs would feel the odds are stacked against him and there was no point but Brand is not Joe Bloggs, as someone said he has like 9m Twitter followers, he has influence, people listen to him. He could probably get elected as an independent and do all the things he is currently doing but with considerably more leverage. The only thing is he would have to have answers about how to do things differently and this is where he falls down. As I said, I agree with a lot of his complaints about what is wrong with the world but I have heard literally not one word from him about how things could be done better.

But Brand isn't saying "I have all the answers". He's clearly not saying that. Just because you aren't equipped to solve a problem yourself doesn't mean you don't have the right to point it out. I'm not a fitness coach but I can still tell you our current injury situation isn't an acceptable long term situation. Telling me to get a sports science degree and apply to be our fitness coach isn't a logical reply to that. It's childish nonsense and it's a cheap attack on the person because you don't like the person making the statement but can't counter it.

Being a politician isn't something everyone is cut out for and you don't need to be to have the right to say "what the current system is offering isn't good enough, if you want our support you need to do better".

The areas where he is more qualified to take an active hand in the solution he is. Look at all the work he does towards drug addiction, knowing where your strengths are isn't hypocrisy or weakness.

 

[Raoul]

But Brand isn't saying "I have all the answers". He's clearly not saying that. Just because you aren't equipped to solve a problem yourself doesn't mean you don't have the right to point it out. I'm not a fitness coach but I can still tell you our current injury situation isn't an acceptable long term situation. Telling me to get a sports science degree and apply to be our fitness coach isn't a logical reply to that. It's childish nonsense and it's a cheap attack on the person because you don't like the person making the statement but can't counter it.

Being a politician isn't something everyone is cut out for and you don't need to be to have the right to say "what the current system is offering isn't good enough, if you want our support you need to do better".

The areas where he is more qualified to take an active hand in the solution he is. Look at all the work he does towards drug addiction, knowing where your strengths are isn't hypocrisy or weakness.

Don't you find that a bit underwhelming ? He doesn't have to become a politician as the man in the audience suggested, but he should think out his position with sufficient depth so that he is part of the solution, not just one of the many finger pointers in society who draws attention to themselves by pointing out problems, at which point he may has well been better off in the audience v the panel.