Russell Brand lets rip on Newsnight

[canadianbeaver]

Venturing out of my comfort zone a bit, but here goes. Up until 3/4 through I thought he was just spouting cliches and general. superficial information like kid's my daughter's age (22), that has no underlying factual information. "The planet", the repeated "no one is doing anything" and comments about "the poor" are too vague. My family had a saying, "If you don't vote, you can't complain".

In the last quarter, however, Brand seemed to rally with more facts and the vote issue seemed to become less important. I liked his comment that is was not he who was doing the work, but people more qualified than him. His continuing humorous digs also kept us interested.

[SMQQKIN]

I don't typically get caught up in such political talk in forums such as these. However, this guy just irritates the s**t out of me!

I don't subscribe to his views and it is difficult to watch/listen to him. He is an entertainer and although passionate he oozes the hollywood sentiment and delivers it like most of them do. Don't vote? If your vote wasn't important why would politicians spend millions of dollars on TV commercials and put themselves through the agony of televised debates? The most important elections are at the local levels and your vote absolutely counts. Mr. Brand may not like the outcome of the election but to boycott it by not voting is ludicrous. It is great that we have the freedom to vote and he can choose to exercise his freedom in that way. Not me. In the end the party that buses in voters and buys their votes with a carton of cigarettes will determine government policy if people don't get out and vote. That is what Mr. Brand would prefer. Also, I am not aware of any corporations/businesses that can be crippled by taxes and can sustain growth to employ others over time. No doubt policies have to be put in place to ensure corporations don't pollute the environment and those polices have to be enforced. Monopolies also have to be kept in check. He is just one more hollywood socialite that wants to redistribute my wealth and grow government. It is funny how many of these guys out there want to redistribute my money but don't want anyone to dictate what they should do with theirs as they fly around on their jets and scream global warming. Maybe instead of trying to change government ,which he knows nothing about, he should be a change agent in Hollywood. Maybe he should get them to stop forcing extreme smut and extreme violence in movies & on TV down our throats and telling us such behavior is normal. However, if he did that he wouldn't have a job. Maybe if Hollywood made more movies that attempted to improve society we would be a more compassionate society and do a better job of taking care of the poor not just financially but emotionally/mentally also. Instead they tell us to worry about today and do whatever feels good at that moment. No doubt governments all over the world need enemas but would any of you pull your pants down and bend over in front of this guy and let him administer it? Good luck with your magazine Mr. Brand. I am sure hollywood will be happy to support your efforts since your agenda aligns with theirs.

I know my views fall within the minority but I had to get that off my chest. I feel better now....

[Guest rob]

his comments about not voting are about his refusal to vote because there are no suitable candidates.... it's like being asked what do you prefer - a kick in the nuts or a poke in the eye with a hot fire poker..... while being assured by the deliverer of both fates that "relax, this is all for your own good"

We Aussies are mandated by law to vote,.... I'm still deciding if the hot poker or kick in the nuts was less painful....

[Orion21]

This talk about Democracy is not factually correct. The word is used too often by politicians to make it seem like we all have an equal say. The United States is a Republic. We elect Representatives to two houses of Congress to represent our needs and wants. Because of this roughly 535 men and women (4 seats currently vacant) make the decisions, pass the laws and spend the tax revenue for the other 317,000,000. However, they have an army of underlings that actually write the laws, give them advice and basically tell them how to act. The fact is the largest population centers and most populace states have more power and influence than the smaller less populace states. The best example of this happens every single time there is a Presidential election. Without a question the winner of the election will come down to who can take Florida, Ohio or both. California (the most populace state in the nation) always goes Democrat and Texas (the second most populace state) always goes Republican. The political system in this country is starting to breakdown because the Government is growing so large that it's influence has exceeded it's role laid out by the founding father's. It is trampling on States rights more and more often, telling people on a nationwide level that you have to own insurance, is borrowing more and money to pay for programs that are not funded with current revenue and basically creating a country that can't function without it's assistance.

As a Republic of 50 states and several territories the United States was supposed to function as a group of semi-autonomous entities that worked together for the common good of the people. Today the country works for the common good of the Federal Government and it's influence over the populace is increasing exponentially every election cycle. The agendas of the parties now trump the good of the people. The retention and expansion of political power is now the goal of those who we have elected and not the well being of the people. What we have today is a two party system that can't even get a budget passed without having to increase a debt limit further into the Trillions of Dollars. It's a disgrace.

So when I see a guy like Russell Brand, who came from poverty to become a world famous actor, trying to represent a under served class of people in a place much more leveraged than the US I feel for him. He feels completely helpless in the system he is in. He may be a millionaire, but he feels helpless in that he can't see a way to change the system without completely destroying it. And in a way he is correct. The power has been so consolidated for so long how likely is it that those who have it will be willing to give it up without force? Look at the civil wars in the Middle East. Those countries erupted into civil conflict because the populace finally said ENOUGH and burned it all down. Those in power in the US and Europe don't ever think that could ever happen to us because we are too educated and civilized. But I would disagree. Push people down too much, give them so little and combine that with the ability to see on a daily basis the excess that they can't achieve . . .

[CaptainQuintero]

The power has been so consolidated for so long how likely is it that those who have it will be willing to give it up without force? Look at the civil wars in the Middle East. Those countries erupted into civil conflict because the populace finally said ENOUGH and burned it all down. Those in power in the US and Europe don't ever think that could ever happen to us because we are too educated and civilized. But I would disagree. Push people down too much, give them so little and combine that with the ability to see on a daily basis the excess that they can't achieve . . .

Have to agree with you there, the signs are all around for everything needing to be torn down and rebuilt but I honestly don't think modern western populations have the guts to do it. A revolution needs people willing to risk all for the change and people now have (what they think) too much to loose. The balls people in the Middle East have to do what theyve done puts us to shame, the most we would ever do is write an angry worded blog but they actually put their lives on the line to make a better future for their kids.

If revolutions were going to happen I think we missed out chances, eg the draft in the US and the miners strikes in the UK etc. the nations are now so divided that a united population needed to tell thr criminals weve had enough and leave the country start again just doesn't exist.

I don't know what will happen, either people will accept the increasingly fascist and draconian governments or like you say; do what we haven't had the balls to do and out in place new systems and leaders that represent us. Of course governments are just the middlemen in terms of who really runs the world so is any population action just plastering over a crack?

[winelover]

Russell Brand is a nob and an egoist devoid of morals.

Only respect I have for him relates to him being an advocate of the total abstinence approach to kicking hard drugs.

[Jeremy Festa]

So when I see a guy like Russell Brand, who came from poverty to become a world famous actor, trying to represent a under served class of people in a place much more leveraged than the US I feel for him. He feels completely helpless in the system he is in. He may be a millionaire, but he feels helpless in that he can't see a way to change the system without completely destroying it. And in a way he is correct. The power has been so consolidated for so long how likely is it that those who have it will be willing to give it up without force? Look at the civil wars in the Middle East. Those countries erupted into civil conflict because the populace finally said ENOUGH and burned it all down. Those in power in the US and Europe don't ever think that could ever happen to us because we are too educated and civilized. But I would disagree. Push people down too much, give them so little and combine that with the ability to see on a daily basis the excess that they can't achieve . . .

Well said.

I believe what will 'eventually' happen, lies somewhere between a revolution type scenario and a, more likely, botched political succession plan. People don't live forever. In a world where every piece of information is at our fingertips, I have faith in the next generation who are on the verge of coming into power. While they may have been groomed for their roles and succession. In reality, they are much more socially connected these days, and I believe they would rather turn their back on the few groomers, than their entire social network or peers (i.e. a loose term). Everyone has too much dirt on each other for things to continue to go pear shaped.

[Jeremy Festa]

Russell Brand is a nob and an egoist devoid of morals.

Only respect I have for him relates to him being an advocate of the total abstinence approach to kicking hard drugs.

If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. I met Russell Brand quite some time ago, and he was a lovely guy.

And having worked in the field of substance and alcohol abuse and harm minimisation, your second comment is not that great.

[winelover]

If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. I met Russell Brand quite some time ago, and he was a lovely guy.

And having worked in the field of substance and alcohol abuse and harm minimisation, your second comment is not that great.

Brand is known for being a charmer and full of charisma and he has literally slept with hundreds of women attesting to that. Also ended his marriage by text. Lovely chap.

But kudos for him quitting heroin for good cold turkey.

[Jeremy Festa]

Brand is known for being a charmer and full of charisma and he has literally slept with hundreds of women attesting to that. Also ended his marriage by text. Lovely chap.

But kudos for him quitting heroin for good cold turkey.

I met him when he was on drugs, on the MTV chat show, and while full of bravado and showmanship in front the camera or a crowd, person to person he seemed nervous as hell. But, he was warm, and didn't have a bad word to say about anybody.

Not everyone is perfect. And not everyone can quit heroin cold turkey. So your kudos are misguided.

Kudos for being a lady's man.

Each to their own.

And kudos for his passion and inspiring debate on political systems.

[El Presidente]

No it's not. It's static in its practical form.

If you want an example of dynamic democracy, take a look at how Switzerland works. Wikipedia makes a reasonable effort.

*Edit* By dynamic democracy, I mean direct democracy. What we all get is representative democracy, which is what Brand is railing against - you vote in whoever for x years, and don't have any real say in what they do once in office.

Poorly worded by myself and I see your point.

Practical or Dynamic, the people have the power to enforce change. The former requires voting for and the execution of policies by the elected government. Yes...not always the case.

[Blakes]

And kudos for his passion and inspiring debate on political systems.

Exactly, Whatever his path was to get to the platform he has, at least now he's using it to some affect (which is more than can be said for most 'famous' people) in addressing a worthy issue which does resonate with people. Since this interview was aired it has got people talking all over the world, like this thread for example. Job done.. He's not running for office, like he said there's more qualified people than him and especially current POLITICIANS who could do a better job. He's just pointing a light on these issues and opening up the discussion to parts of society politicians would never reach.

[El Presidente]

Perhaps. The alternative is we discover that we don't actually live in a democracy. In a globalised world, the haves already far outnumber the have nots.

I don't think it is so much about the "have nots' but those that believe they "have not enough"

My initial point was that the tool for change is already there (democratic election).

There is serious concern in this country that two conglomerates control some 80% or groceries, petrol stations, liquor distribution. Hat's off to the two companies as they are examples of capitalistic globalization at it's finest. Unfortunately their success has destroyed competition (barriers to entry are too high...every time Costco or Aldi applies for a development application they are tied up in court for 5 years) while putting serious price stress on suppliers (farmers, wineries etc).

One party ran on this issue very hard. Picked up 8% of the vote in its first contested election. All of a sudden the new Governing party is having an inquiry as to competition in these sectors. The issue will not go away and they will have to do something by the end of their 3 year term to "appease the voters". I suspect it will be legislation with capped %'s market share for any one industry sector.

if it comes to pass (and I suspect it will) , we will have a classic case of how Democracy influences Capitalism/Globalisation.

Disenchantment with the existing political system in this country is palpable. Democracy is the blunt instrument to do the bidding of the people. It simply needs the right mix of circumstances to be wielded.

Of course it can be wielded for good and bad outcomes.

[Philski]

Poorly worded by myself and I see your point.

Practical or Dynamic, the people have the power to enforce change. The former requires voting for and the execution of policies by the elected government. Yes...not always the case.

Yup. Just not in a 'real time' way. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried from time to time." (Thank you, Mr Churchill. Always good for a quip.)

a worthy issue which does resonate with people.

THIS.

[zathan]

There is serious concern in this country that two conglomerates control some 80% or groceries, petrol stations, liquor distribution. Hat's off to the two companies as they are examples of capitalistic globalization at it's finest. Unfortunately their success has destroyed competition (barriers to entry are too high...every time Costco or Aldi applies for a development application they are tied up in court for 5 years) while putting serious price stress on suppliers (farmers, wineries etc).

In free market capitalism, such a situation would be impossible. Only through Gov't policies can monopolies be formed and created. The more power the gov't will have, the more corporations will do the impossible to influence that power in their favor. Keeping the gov't power to the minimum would be the best way to make sure the guy at the bottom as a fair chance like anybody else. Sadly with democracy, people want the gov't to regulate everything and be held responsible for any bad luck an individual might encounter in his lifetime, granting more and more power to the gov't. Counter productive since this is creating the issue the masses are against.

In a capitalist system, the guy at the bottom of the pyramid has the power. He gives his order and this order goes up in the chain of command, depending on the importance of that order until it is completed. Whereas in a socialist or communist system, even though it is guy at the bottom of the pyramid, through his hard labor that finances the whole system, it's only the guy at the top that has all the power and gives his orders, which go down the chain of command and the guy at the bottom can only submit to the orders given at the top and doesn't have a say.

M. Brand is a Brilliant communicator but he is getting things backwards when it comes to economy.

[shiva13]

Old Russell inspires plenty of debate for an 'imbecile' comedian. I'm still looking forward to seing him this Tuesday despite what I read here. viva la revoution!

[Blakes]

The capitalist system only seems to work for a short time. At the beginning company's compete on price, quality etc.. but as time goes on the company's get bigger, bring on the take overs and mergers and consolidation of power there becomes less and less of the competition until a point there is only a hand full of very powerful company's left, new start ups are now priced out of the market and have no chance in adding competition. The the few company's left instead of compete now work together or 'gang up' in ripping off the people.. where we are today.

[shiva13]

The capitalist system only seems to work for a short time. At the beginning company's compete on price, quality etc.. but as time goes on the company's get bigger, bring on the take overs and mergers and consolidation of power there becomes less and less of the competition until a point there is only a hand full of very powerful company's left, new start ups are now priced out of the market and have no chance in adding competition. The the few company's left instead of compete now work together or 'gang up' in ripping off the people.. where we are today.

Thats not where I am today. Seek out and support your local businesses

[frenchkiwi]

My initial point was that the tool for change is already there (democratic election).

I don't really know who Brand is, and he sounds more like one of my politics students at the end of their degree who has studied and retained the lessons of some very good points about the critique of global industrial capitalism, but hasn't bothered to figure out what he wants to change to.

A public figure calling for "revolution" or sitting back and waiting for it, without articulating what for, is useful provocation on the one hand but also a little bit dangerous on the other. It's good that he's popularising critique of a neoliberal system. However, Fascism in Italy and Germany was partly the result of economic strife and massive disillusion with democratic system, where people voted in reactionary parties ("we stand against the mainstream parties") appealing to emotional narratives and going against the system (sort of like Brand does). Simplistic and appealing but inherently negative (based on critique not working out alternatives) and unlikely to yield a positive result.

So I agree with the idea that shunning elections and waiting for the random riots driven by increasing inequality (like the London ones) isn't really going to help.

Having said that, there are elections and then there are Elections. Majoritarian systems like the UK's, France's, or the U.S.A (to some extent Australia as well) where the tyranny of the majority is enhanced mean that any vote for a minor party is pretty much wasted. The two party system is almost locked in by district votes where only the person getting the majority in your electorate gets voted in ... massively overrepresenting the biggest parties (e.g. 30+% of votes leads to 50+% of seats... all the other votes are wasted. So effectively you are not able to vote in alternatives unless everyone switched away from the main party at the same time (highly unlikely). And whoever is voted in can be an elected dictatorship for the length of their term.

In this situation, as Brand says, why bother voting? If you're not keen on the big parties playing musical chairs every election, and want change, your vote will be wasted.

In a proportional system you can vote for pretty much any party and know that they will be represented accordingly. A party getting 7% of votes around the country will get 7% of the seats so voting for alternatives is possible. The biggest party (typically 25-35% in most democracies) won't get the majoritarian system boost to 50%+ seats so has to work with these smaller parties to govern. It's no panacea solution to all the woes of democracy but in terms of elections it makes alternatives - and change - more likely and empowers the voter.

Of course democracy is much more than elections, it's also about what happens in between and creating avenues for people to participate and wield influence on government etc etc

But to answer Brand - fair enough that voting in the UK is a bit of a sham, but where were you when you had the opportunity to change that by joining those who called for "AV+" (a proportional system) in the 2011 referendum? Maybe worth agitating for that or some other democratising reform to your political system rather than sitting on your hands waiting for an uprising. Real change generally takes time, effort, and winning over a lot of people

[CaptainQuintero]

I don't really know who Brand is, and he sounds more like one of my politics students at the end of their degree who has studied and retained the lessons of some very good points about the critique of global industrial capitalism, but hasn't bothered to figure out what he wants to change to.

A public figure calling for "revolution" or sitting back and waiting for it, without articulating what for, is useful provocation on the one hand but also a little bit dangerous on the other. It's good that he's popularising critique of a neoliberal system. However, Fascism in Italy and Germany was partly the result of economic strife and massive disillusion with democratic system, where people voted in reactionary parties ("we stand against the mainstream parties") appealing to emotional narratives and going against the system (sort of like Brand does). Simplistic and appealing but inherently negative (based on critique not working out alternatives) and unlikely to yield a positive result.

So I agree with the idea that shunning elections and waiting for the random riots driven by increasing inequality (like the London ones) isn't really going to help.

Having said that, there are elections and then there are Elections. Majoritarian systems like the UK's, France's, or the U.S.A (to some extent Australia as well) where the tyranny of the majority is enhanced mean that any vote for a minor party is pretty much wasted. The two party system is almost locked in by district votes where only the person getting the majority in your electorate gets voted in ... massively overrepresenting the biggest parties (e.g. 30+% of votes leads to 50+% of seats... all the other votes are wasted. So effectively you are not able to vote in alternatives unless everyone switched away from the main party at the same time (highly unlikely). And whoever is voted in can be an elected dictatorship for the length of their term.

In this situation, as Brand says, why bother voting? If you're not keen on the big parties playing musical chairs every election, and want change, your vote will be wasted.

In a proportional system you can vote for pretty much any party and know that they will be represented accordingly. A party getting 7% of votes around the country will get 7% of the seats so voting for alternatives is possible. The biggest party (typically 25-35% in most democracies) won't get the majoritarian system boost to 50%+ seats so has to work with these smaller parties to govern. It's no panacea solution to all the woes of democracy but in terms of elections it makes alternatives - and change - more likely and empowers the voter.

Of course democracy is much more than elections, it's also about what happens in between and creating avenues for people to participate and wield influence on government etc etc

But to answer Brand - fair enough that voting in the UK is a bit of a sham, but where were you when you had the opportunity to change that by joining those who called for "AV+" (a proportional system) in the 2011 referendum? Maybe worth agitating for that or some other democratising reform to your political system rather than sitting on your hands waiting for an uprising. Real change generally takes time, effort, and winning over a lot of people

The AV vote was interesting in the UK, the

media killed it by making fun of the system and saying the nation would be crippled like Italy.

The majority of voters who took time out between their X Factor and Soaps voted how they were told to and the idea was killed for another 20 years or so

[sengjc]

...Having said that, there are elections and then there are Elections. Majoritarian systems like the UK's, France's, or the U.S.A (to some extent Australia as well) where the tyranny of the majority is enhanced mean that any vote for a minor party is pretty much wasted. The two party system is almost locked in by district votes where only the person getting the majority in your electorate gets voted in...

A little bit different in AUS, I think. Our independents and minor parties are a lot stronger politically than their counterparts in the other countries.

While there are still the distinct two major parties, you will find the minor parties and independents wield some amount of influence as they have candidates who hold seats in parliament and the senate.

[winelover]

Brand represents one of many disillusioned non-voters. They can tell us what they don't like in general but they can't articulate a coherent alternative that would be less tyrannical overall than the current system.

[Wil]

They can tell us what they don't like in general but they can't articulate a coherent alternative that would be less tyrannical overall than the current system.

That doesn't mean they don't have the right to critique it, which of course is fundamental to any democracy.

[winelover]

That doesn't mean they don't have the right to critique it, which of course is fundamental to any democracy.

Nobody who believes in freedom of speech would argue with that. Funny how socialist governments in practice deny the very same freedoms to their subjugated populace. Think of communist Russia, Cuba, China (particularly pre Den Xiaopeng), North Korea, Pol Pot's Cambodia, the list goes on. And Brand's "revolutionary" views involving a massive redistribution of wealth and hard left socialism has been tried and tested and failed to deliver "freedoms" whilst the population starve.

[Wil]

Nobody who believes in freedom of speech would argue with that. Funny how socialist governments in practice deny the very same freedoms to their subjugated populace. Think of communist Russia, Cuba, China (particularly pre Den Xiaopeng), North Korea, Pol Pot's Cambodia, the list goes on. And Brand's "revolutionary" views involving a massive redistribution of wealth and hard left socialism has been tried and tested and failed to deliver "freedoms" whilst the population starve.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no defender of communism! But I do believe strongly that those at the fringes help bring us to the middle.

Take the debate over asylum seekers here in Australia as an example. I don't agree with everything the often hard left advocates say, but they play an important role in raising public awareness and concern about the plight of refugees. And when you have a government like ours, that is a bloody good thing!