Russell Brand and Nigel Farage on Question Time tonight.
- This topic has 91 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Disappointed with this programme. A fairly sympathetic audience for anyone who had something to say on social inequality and the disparity of impact of austerity on rich and poor but clearly, no one had the nouse to pull the trigger.One could also have drawn a corallary with the unfair bias towards the panel, compared with the passing comments of the audience, and the farce that passes for democracy in Capitalism. "Representative Democracy", is an Oxymoron!Farage, as well as the other panellists, were lined up like ducks at a shoot and one did'nt even need sights to pick them off but no one hit the mark, Brand included!!!
We expected too much in personalties and it is a lesson we always offer but sometimes don't heed. Brand himself called it anti-climatic and comments thatFrom his Facebook page via Medialenshttp://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1418375863.html
Quote:the woman who says “Why are we talking about immigrants? It’s a side issue, this crisis was caused by financial negligence and the subsequent bail-out”. This piece of rhetoric more valuable than anything I could’ve said, including my pound-shop Enoch Powell gag. More potent than the one thing I regret not saying because time and format did not permit it. That the people have the wisdom, not politicians, that the old paradigm is broken and will not be repaired. That the future is collectivised power. Parliamentary politics is deadThe emphasised part is something we all agree….Parliament being dead is a soundbite until he actually explains collectivised power…As said and will be for a long time….the Scottish collective involvement in the referendum demonstraates that people will participate and not just passively but actively in the streets, explaining positions and challenging those held by eachother without blows being struck or bricks chucked. We failed in many respects in our referendum actibvity but the importance of our principle of political action was a victory, something we must crow about when they try to diminish the fact that we advocate electoral politics to give power to the people. I also regret we have not sufficiently highlighted this in the post-referendum days.
Farage's take on Questiontime and Brand is here, light-weight and limphttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nigel-farage-me-vs-russell-brand-on-question-time–hes-got-the-chest-hair-but-where-are-his-ideas-9919668.html
Quote:Everyone fancied that Mr Brand and I might butt heads, but actually, as we entered the studio, and his personal make-up artist straightened his chest hair for him, I kid you not, I realised that perhaps he might be a bit lighter weight than expected.I watched it and call a slim victory for Farage. It was a successful panel in terms of entertainment. One female audience member insisted on shouting 'racist scum' at Nigel Farage in an SWP type heckle. It didn't do her any favours or Brand as he tried to focus on attacking Ukip only.Labour, Tory and journalist (The Times?) tried to out-ukip ukip and preach tough on immigration. Audience weren't unreceptive to this and the Lab-Tories sensed this. I think it showed Brand is not without opponents, in particular one man in the audience asked him why he didn't stand which wasn't answered well at all. Brand wasn't used to opponents or good at dealing with them like Farage either.
I'm afraid I have chest hair to deal with, too, but I am a socialist. This is typical of the capitaalist media to work onpeople bit by bit and take away their respect. David Beckham has his balls waxed but it has nothing to do with his football.
I was a little disappointed, though I'm not entirely sure why. Brand made some good points about inequality, but failed to go far enough. But it is only an hour worth of political surface scratching.I disagree that it was a "victory" for Farage, if my memory serves me Brand did get more of a positive reaction than any of the panelists.It was already set up by the media as a Brand vs Farage fight, so I guess the pressure was on for both of them to deliver. Farage came across as a one issue politician and Brand got excited as usual.
Anyone ever noticed how Farage makes a point of criticising career politicians who leave university and move straight into the world of professional politics. Such career politicians, as Farage is fond of pointing out, have never had a real job and consequently never lived in the real world.Hold on a minute, something doesn't quite add up. Lets see…Farage went to a very prestigious public school, after his A levels he chose not to go to university, instead following in his fathers footsteps in choosing to work in the City as a commodities broker. Welcome to the real world of Farage.
JDWI think that's sarcasm isn't it?My point was, if walking straight into a City job after leaving a top public school is a real job in the real world, then so is leaving university and walking into a political job.
I've just recently been reminded of certain things that have been said on several related threads about the Brand phenomenon. Some members have made points regarding other public figures advocating revolutionary change who have come and gone.Given the fact that Brand has somewhere in the region of eight million followers on Twitter, can any of his detractors say with absolute confidence that he is a "flash in the pan"?
I am not sure if he is a flash in the pan or not. Personally I don't think he is. What is more important is will his twitter followers take on board what he is saying?I am reading his book 'Revolution' and so far it is pretty good, even though he claims to believe in God. I think he is simply using 'God' to explain 'community' or how capitalism has destroyed it.I didn't realise that consulted people like Pickety and Noam Chomsky in the process of writing his book.
Vin wrote:I am not sure if he is a flash in the pan or not. Personally I don't think he is. What is more important is will his twitter followers take on board what he is saying?I am reading his book 'Revolution' and so far it is pretty good, even though he claims to believe in God. I think he is simply using 'God' to explain 'community' or how capitalism has destroyed it.I didn't realise that consulted people like Pickety and Noam Chomsky in the process of writing his book.edit: just noticed he also consulted with George OrwellALB wrote:What's wrong with George Orwell?He's not around to consult.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.