General Election 2015

[Smiley91]

I wouldn't vote for me cos i know me (but thanks i think)./[/url]

Aye, you'd never hear a politician say that eh. Lol.

Thanks for those links will have a wee read.

 

[felix]

I'm very fond of much of what he says and does so ppam disappointed he has bowed to criticism - especially when it is so utterly unfounded - but perhaps not surprised about it. If I were being extremely cynical I may be minded to think that his £20 tome on his supposedly "revolutionary" beliefs has since been shunted down to the "3 for £10" buckets (at best). Alternatively, it'll be out in paberback soon so he could use the publicity.... Genuinely disappointed in him is all I can say

Hmmm. You use the words "bowed to criticism".

In normal language, it's called "changing your mind".

Don't you do that about things, all the time? I certainly do. When I become more informed about a subject, I sometimes change my mind about it.

Russell Brand isn't a politician. So what if he's changed his mind?

One of the things I hate about political discussion is the concept of "flip-flopping", etc. I WANT our politicians to fucking weigh things up and think about them and change their minds, if it makes sense.

Fuck it all. Burn it down. :D

 

[Shambles]

Also dissappointed in brand - i suspect owen jones and johann hari (who he hangs with apparently) bent his ear and persuaded him into it. Be fair though - he gave the profits from that book to his collective cafe wotsit (undoubtedly got some tasty 'expenses' but nonetheless...)

I suspect so on the former, and I did not know that on the latter. As for the Indy, probably my least-disliked paper... but that really isn't saying much

 

[Shambles]

Hmmm. You use the words "bowed to criticism".

In normal language, it's called "changing your mind".

Don't you do that about things, all the time? I certainly do. When I become more informed about a subject, I sometimes change my mind about it.

Russell Brand isn't a politician. So what if he's changed his mind?

One of the things I hate about political discussion is the concept of "flip-flopping", etc. I WANT our politicians to fucking weigh things up and think about them and change their minds, if it makes sense.

Fuck it all. Burn it down. :D

I change my mind all the time. Especially when I'm wrong. In this instance I'm annoyed with him for changing his mind from "more or less right" to "much more wrong". I totally agree on the fact that I would have far more faith, trust and belief in a politician (or anybody else really) who amended their opinions based on evidence. In this case the problem I have is that he appears to have amended his opinions based on persuasion (without passing on what exactly the arguments were which changed his mind) whilst apparently forgetting what he felt so strongly that he was writing books and generally spouting endlessly about it right up until yesterday (or thereabouts) whilst giving no argument or evidence to back up this sudden change of heart. The fact that the only politician he chose to speak to was Milliband and then he suddenly comes out in favour or Labour is also deeply to be honest.

Change your mind by all means but if you wish to be taken seriously you need to be able to argue the case you are now apparently making just as passionately as the one you previously were and provide very sound reasoning as to how you got from hither to yon. I wouldn't expect that from a politician cos I don't expect any level of honesty from a politician but from a person whose entire "thing" is supposedly speaking truth to power I'd say he's taking a big risk in terms of credibility amongst those he previously tied his colours to so apparently passionately.

 

[Vurtual]

Good George Monbiot article about the election: http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...es-media-ignoring-nation-arrested-development

...Where are the furious arguments about the UK’s unreformed political funding that allows billionaires and corporations to buy the politics they want? Where is the debate about the use and abuse of royal prerogative by successive prime ministers? Where is there even a mention of the democratic black hole at the heart of Britain, into which hopes for financial and fiscal reform are sucked: the Corporation of the City of London, whose illegitimate powers pre-date the Magna Carta?

Here’s a fact with which politicians should be assailed every day: the poor in this country pay more tax than the rich. If you didn’t know this – and most people don’t – it’s because you’ve been trained not to know it through relentless efforts by the corporate media. It distracts us by fixating on income tax, one of the few sources of revenue that’s unequivocally progressive. But this accounts for just 27% of total taxation. Overall, the richest tenth pay 35% of their income in tax, while the poorest tenth pay 43%, largely because of the regressive nature of VAT and council tax. The Equality Trust found that 96% of respondents to its survey would like a more progressive system. Yet where is the major party mobilising this desire, or even explaining the current injustice?

...

After this election, we need to think again; to find new means of pushing neglected issues on to the political agenda. We might try to discover why social media has so far mostly failed to fulfil its democratising promise. We might seek new ways of building political communities, using models as diverse as Spain’s Podemos and evangelical Christianity. We might experiment with some of the Latin American techniques that have helped to transform politics from the bottom up. However we do it, we should never again permit democracy to be reduced to so narrow a choice.

 

[felix]

Don't get me wrong, Shambles, I'm still really fucking annoyed by Brand's whole "don't vote" thing, and the fact that he's left it until now - after the point people can register to vote - to suddenly come out and say.... "yeah... maybe you should vote for this lot after all".

We're on the same page. But let's not judge him as if he's a professional politician. He's a fucked-up druggie, who can say what he likes, much like we do on here. He just happens to have a lot of subscribers.

Wish he'd got a fucking grip a few weeks ago. Bah.

 

[felix]

Good George Monbiot article about the election: http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...es-media-ignoring-nation-arrested-development

Even these issues are trivial by comparison to the unacknowledged cloud that hangs over our politics: the impossibility of infinite growth on a finite planet. All major parties and media outlets are committed to never-ending economic growth, and use GDP as the primary measure of human progress. Even to question this is to place yourself outside the frame of rational political debate.

Exactly. The whole thing is so fucked... I don't even know where to begin.

George Monobot for PM.

 

[Shambles]

Don't get me wrong, Shambles, I'm still really fucking annoyed by Brand's whole "don't vote" thing, and the fact that he's left it until now - after the point people can register to vote - to suddenly come out and say.... "yeah... maybe you should vote for this lot after all".

We're on the same page. But let's not judge him as if he's a professional politician. He's a fucked-up druggie, who can say what he likes, much like we do on here. He just happens to have a lot of subscribers.

Wish he'd got a fucking grip a few weeks ago. Bah.

Nope, we're on very different pages as I believe he was ultimately totally correct in his "don't vote" thing. I'd accept that he was perhaps more idealistic than able to coherently argue a point but he was correct in his original position all the same. At least as far as far as absolute basic FACT! goes. The truly true reality is more nuanced, of course, but this sudden Twitspazz (or whatever it is) is the worst of all possible words for the reasons you state - too late to make a difference to those who he influences most, too late (in a very different way) for those of us who admired his original principled stance. I can but hope he has no PR company behind this so at least he can claim it was just his own human failings and not some massively fukked up publicity "thing" of some form

I would disagree on the "he's a fucked up druggie" thing purely because afaik he quit all drugs many years ago and to use terms like that smacks way too much of the very same 12 Step bullshit he's also guilty of whoring through public opinion - and indeed the halls of power.

As noted, I often agree with a great deal of what he says, but am starting to become mildy annoyed at the way his statements become news by default purely because he is Russel Brand. He has mostly been able to back up his views with evidence - whether subjective, experiential or objective (or as close as evidence can ever be to being truly objective) - but this sudden change of stance with nothing to back it up that, as you point out, comes too late to make any actual difference to all those people who no doubt exist who chose not to register to vote because he made perfectly good arguments as to why they shouldn't, but does come just in the nick of time for him to be able to react to the shit he's been getting for making those arguments at the time they are most relevant.

Worst of both worlds, as I said.

 

[Sammy G]

Brand may not be a fucked-up druggie, but he's certainly a mentally ill person who refuses medication.

 

[Ceres]

 

[Ceres]

Tory/Libdem coalition track record laid out here http://www.dontbeafuckingidiot.uk/

 

[felix]

Nope, we're on very different pages as I believe he was ultimately totally correct in his "don't vote" thing. I'd accept that he was perhaps more idealistic than able to coherently argue a point but he was correct in his original position all the same. At least as far as far as absolute basic FACT! goes. The truly true reality is more nuanced, of course, but this sudden Twitspazz (or whatever it is) is the worst of all possible words for the reasons you state - too late to make a difference to those who he influences most, too late (in a very different way) for those of us who admired his original principled stance. I can but hope he has no PR company behind this so at least he can claim it was just his own human failings and not some massively fukked up publicity "thing" of some form

I would disagree on the "he's a fucked up druggie" thing purely because afaik he quit all drugs many years ago and to use terms like that smacks way too much of the very same 12 Step bullshit he's also guilty of whoring through public opinion - and indeed the halls of power.

As noted, I often agree with a great deal of what he says, but am starting to become mildy annoyed at the way his statements become news by default purely because he is Russel Brand. He has mostly been able to back up his views with evidence - whether subjective, experiential or objective (or as close as evidence can ever be to being truly objective) - but this sudden change of stance with nothing to back it up that, as you point out, comes too late to make any actual difference to all those people who no doubt exist who chose not to register to vote because he made perfectly good arguments as to why they shouldn't, but does come just in the nick of time for him to be able to react to the shit he's been getting for making those arguments at the time they are most relevant.

Worst of both worlds, as I said.

OK, he's a fucked-up EX-druggie.

I take it you've watched the interview? I was pretty surprised that Milliband's vague mumblings were enough to convince him. And I'm beginning to harbour some scepticism about his motivations and the timing of it all. It can't have done his subscriber figures any harm...

 

[Vurtual]

Felix: George Omnibot would be quite good as pm, though we'd have to have words about his conversion to nuc-elar (the annoying american way many brits are now starting to say it - you don't have an atomic fucking nuc-elus do you! (winds me up as much as people who say 'sixth' as 'sick-th' (it's sick-s-th for fuck-sthsake!) (sorry bout that)

I agree with you about preferring brand's original position shambles - Felix: don't forget he never said you shouldn't vote, he said he thought it was pointless, but if you think there's someone worth voting for, go and vote (and encrouaged this in scotland). I reckon brand has got caught up in the self-serving group think knocking about in the guardian via owen jones and the like. I've got a lot of time for jones and obviously agree with him on most things, but i think he looks backward too much for socialist solutions, focussing on post war labour as the promised land - while this is a worthy thing to admire, it tends to entrap him into apologising for labour as is, maybe because he can't imagine a socialist path outside this - clem atlee's govenrment still had a lot of faults (eg empire) and wasn't socialist anyway; the people's will for socialism pushed them to be as left wing as they were (it was that or revolution). I think looking forward to new solutions is the only way, in the manner of podemos, syriza and venezuela (the most engaged political process in the world since chavez) and voting in elections is only a small part of this sort of change

 

[Ceres]

I quite liked Robert Webb putting things in plain terms here http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...kind-leader-you-put-t-shirt-he-still-needs-my

 

[Vurtual]

He makes a lot of sense (unlike when he talked previously about brand and scotland imo). I fear he puts too much hope in miliband. The massive bias against labour in the media shouldn't be seen as proof that miliband is a goodie - it should be seen as disciplining the left, setting boundaries of the debate and coralling them to be as right wing as possible (this has already worked when you hear their right wing policies about immigration and austerity).

At some point the labour party bigwigs decided to play the right wing media at their own game on their own turf - but it seems they pretty quickly went native started believing their own propaganda and bought into neoliberal doctrine (funnily enough, just as they started getting invited to hobnob with 'important' and powerful people (like john smith in the bilderberg - the rot goes back at least that far). They now seem to see this as 'grown up' politics which they need to push their 'old-fashioned' lefty base towards - just listen to chukka ummuna, rachel reeves, ed balls and tristan hunt for proof.

 

[Vurtual]

Russel brand explains his reasons for backing labour on FB. I've got sympathy for what he says - it's quite persuasive and he talks a lot of sense (as usual); it was a bit more thought out than looking in miliband's eyes: "we'd decided to back labour before we asked him round" - that 'we' (and the bold bit below) makes me think i was right about him being influenced by jones/hari (that doesn't negate the argument, as all his other views are probably just as influenced by who he knows - but i still disagree (but what do i know)):

We Can Change Whatever We Want

A mate who I trust said to me;
�You know what this election boils down to? Who do you want to be protesting against on May 8th?
Or whenever they finish counting, negotiating and posturing?

David Cameron and a Tory coalition or Ed Miliband and one led by Labour?�

I suppose, implicitly my argument has always been - the Tories - let them wrench out the organs of the nation with such ferocity and contempt that usually phlegmatic people are dragged into the war against the establishment by the dreadful, eviscerating G-force.

The conservatives are such cinematic villains, the Etonian gits with their Freudian slips; the �West Villa United� supporting, �career-defining�, Darth Vader toffs. If you�re auditioning for heads on spikes �come the great day�, there�s no competition.

Like the fierce and exciting Nicola Sturgeon, or anyone with ears, I thought the difference between the two main parties was insufficient. Ed Miliband�s campaign manager, David Axelrod � a more appropriate name for a spin-doctor it�s difficult to imagine � he may as well be called Zach Huxter, is the bloke who delivered unto us Barack Obama; a tidal wave of potent promise that became a drab damp patch of disappointment. If that doesn�t induce a sigh of impotent lassitude you�ve got more �Yes We Can optimism� than Rolf Harris�s art dealer.

In the episode of The Trews in which I interviewed Ed Miliband there is no Damascene moment. I did not tumble back in a white beam of enlightened reverie, scales falling, realising that the Westminster machine, with a different pilot will serve ordinary people. We decided to endorse Labour before we approached them for the interview.

The simple truth is I don�t have a �ready to wear� system of government to offer people on May 8th and neither does anyone else I�ve yet spoken to.

My fundamentalist abstemiousness became untenable because of mates making practical pleas of varying import;

1. �My brother has MS, if the Tories get in, his independent Living Fund will be cut and he�ll have to go in a home or move into mine��
2. �My kids can�t do a production at school because of budget cuts...�
3. �My daughter can�t go to university because we can�t afford to pay a student loan back...�
4. �Our drug treatment day care program is being shut down due to cuts�

In the grand scheme of Revolution these are small problems, I agree, small problems that can be somewhat assuaged with the small solution of getting rid of the Tories.

Ultimately what I feel, is that by not removing the Tories, through an unwillingness to participate in the �masquerade of democracy�, I was implicitly expecting the most vulnerable people in society to pay the price on my behalf while I pondered alternatives in luxury.

The reason I didn�t suggest it sooner is because, twerp that I am, I have hope. I really do believe that real, radical change is possible that the tyranny of giant, transnational corporations can be ended, that ecological melt-down in pursuit of imaginary money can be arrested and reversed, that an ideology that aspires to more than materialism, individualism and profit can be realised and practiced.

People that know a lot more about this than me, and probably you, advised me that we�ll be better off rucking with a Labour government than a Conservative one - if that strikes you as a pitiful choice, more sympathetic I could not be � but some people are facing much worse dilemmas than reneging on a puritanical political stance.

Does this country need a radical new political movement? An equivalent of Syriza in Greece or Podemos in Spain? It feels like it does and when the next administration fails to deliver because of the limitations of parliamentary politics I�ll happily participate in setting it up. With you.

Do we need an international confederation of new political alliances that are committed to real change, real democracy, a revolutionary alternative to capitalism? That can challenge the IMF, WTO, WBO and all the other global acronyms so portentous and phony they may as well be the wrestling federations they sound like? Of course we do, my schedule�s pretty clear, I�ll join in. Will you?

What Ed Miliband said on The Trews that seemed positive is that his government will be responsive to activism and campaigning. That will be pretty easy to evaluate quickly. Are media monopolies being broken up? Are the urgently needed houses being built? Is austerity continuing? Is the NHS still being privatised? Are we still blaming immigrants, the disabled and disadvantaged for massive economic problems that they can�t have created? Is domestic policy being dictated by unelected elites in the financial and corporate world?

If the answer is yes then you know that democracy in its current form is near redundant, that we are not offered reasonable alternatives and that parties that try to, like the Greens are stymied to the point irrelevance by ancient electoral architecture.

My position will not have changed on May 8th, I�ll be doing my best to amplify movements I believe in, from housing, to trade unions, football fan campaigns, social enterprises, digital activism, student occupations, organic agriculture, crypto-currencies; the same things I�m doing today, the things I�ve been learning about for the last 18 months; since I said I don�t vote on the telly.

My recommendation that people vote Labour is an optimistic punt that the degeneration of Britain will be slowed down and the lives of the most vulnerable will be a little more bearable than they�d�ve been under the Tories.

Nothing more ambitious than that.

It will take serious activism, committed action comparable to the sacrifice of those whose memories are continually evoked as a spur for us to vote. The women who died for that right, the people all over the world branded terrorists and imprisoned or executed for demanding democracy.

I fully understand that real change, real democracy is not something that can be palmed off in a booth twice a decade, a crossed box and crossed fingers. Democracy is for life, not just elections.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

A couple of quick points on Brand, one in favour, one against as it were. Firstly, to those criticising him for coming too late to the party, ie after voter registration has finished...this is not an argument. I haven't got the figures in front of me but apparently record numbers of people, particularly young people, registered to vote in the month before registration closed. To that extent he is beyond reproach for what he is now saying because it can be argued he is aiming to capitalise on those record numbers (it could also be argued that those record numbers show nobody is particularly listening to his 'voting is pointless' line too).

Secondly, against him, those points he raises as reasons for voting are nothing new, nothing he couldn't have thought about before. To that end, his wavering is unjustified. "My daughter couldn't afford to pay a student loan back". Well, Labour are only saying they will reduce the loan by 33%. That still leaves £18000+ of debt in loans alone. Is it really much different, enough to make a difference, over paying back £27000?

"My daughters school can't afford to put on a production because of cuts" Will they be able to under Miliband? He is still promising austerity. Cuts are cuts. Same applies to the MS sufferer and everyone else affected by cuts.

Vurtual put it succinctly with this post.

How long does this cycle have to go on? We give in in fear of the tories to a 'centrist' (trans:right wing/neoliberal) labour candidate who makes noises that sound sort of ok if you really try and hope, but in reality are pretty right wing (stop benefits for immigrants; make all young people go on workfare for benefits; cut spending to create growth (complete economic lunacy); sounding like business as usual over interventionist foreign policy) - then the gullible left becomes demoralised over time from having to try and justify the government not doing what we bloody well know they won't do - and then he right wing tories get back in and the cycle restarts. This might be cynical, but it's wearily earned cynicism.

Obviously i'd rather have a labour government than a tory one if i'm forced, but lesser evil-ism still results in evil (that's not hyperbole when we remember iraq) - when do we get to vote for non-evil?

 

[Vurtual]

I agree (with you and myself ), though that longer response has clawed back a teensy bit of my respect for brand (or the collective behind the trews) - i just (arrogantly) think it's naive, though hopefully he can learn this as he goes (unfortunately, if it's from owen jones' influence, it may be subject to the usual creeping self-serving unconscious naivete which people who work in the media establishment tend to succumb to over time (tame radical or not)).

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

At some point the labour party bigwigs decided to play the right wing media at their own game on their own turf - but it seems they pretty quickly went native started believing their own propaganda and bought into neoliberal doctrine (funnily enough, just as they started getting invited to hobnob with 'important' and powerful people (like john smith in the bilderberg - the rot goes back at least that far).

Ohh it goes a lot further back and a lot deeper than that believe me.

Language matters. Do you know the phrase the trappings of power?

It's an interesting one. I used to be good friends with a journalist I've sadly lost touch with. He was a good left-wing bloke, working class as they come etc etc. He told me a story about being invited to meet and interview a particularly right wing Tory bigot (I actually can't remember who but it doesn't matter). He was rubbing his hands at the chance of putting this bigot on the ropes. My mate was a good journalist and knew his stuff.

The interview was in the Tory MPs private office in the House of Commons. My mate was met, greeted, wined and dined in fine surroundings. The ornate surrounds had an effect he was appalled at. He went in there with all the left wing will in the world and came out with a tame interview and disgusted at himself for actually thinking he liked this bigoted bloke a bit.

That's the (literal) trappings of power. Set and setting in political terms. I hope you understand what I mean, however idealistic any of you think you are. Environment matters. Language matters. The trappings of power.

Burn it down.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

Perhaps some Tory right wing bigots are actually decent blokes once you get to know them? I've known plenty of working class hero's in my time, and believe me, they are just as full of bigoted shite.. To me, there is no distinction between the left and right because the more extreme they get, the more they meet in the middle. Just saying....