Russell Brand.

I wish there were more people like him in politics, whether you agree with his different views at least he has them. There's way too many drones in politics who just toe the party lines and either don't have an opinion of their own or are happy to just put it aside to stay on the gravy train and not rock the boat. The fact that he gets so many peoples' backs up shows that he's far from your average 'hiding in the shadows' career politician.
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
I wish there were more people like him in politics, whether you agree with his different views at least he has them. There's way too many drones in politics who just toe the party lines and either don't have an opinion of their own or are happy to just put it aside to stay on the gravy train. The fact that he gets so many peoples' backs up shows that he's far from your average 'hiding in the shadows' politician.
Click to expand...

But he isn't really in politics and his current idea for revolution is "don't vote". How on earth would more people like that make things better?
 
LOMS said:
Brand is bringing public attention to many key issues and I salute him for that.
Click to expand...

He's not, everything he gets involved in is already in the public attention. The recent rent issue and protest had NOTHING to do with Brand. Brand saw a popular cause and decided to jump in front of it, if anything he took coverage away from the issue and all the news was about his interview rather than about the issue.

He's like many other people, Bono, Geldof, whoever else, a cause exists, it gets attention, they jump to the front of the cause pretending to be a champion of it, take away attention from said cause onto themselves. They get loads of attention, book/album/ticket sales go through the roof, the cause is pretty much ignored and become about those individuals, these people are worse than politicians. They are the worst type of people having absolutely no morals or care. It's easy to read a paper see what the latest cause of the people is then turn up and take the attention while being seen as the champion of the people when in actual fact doing nothing at all for the cause.

Brand doesn't have views, he's a populist, nothing more or less, we never hear what he is for BEFORE an issue becomes the popularly held view of the people. He always jumps on a cause as it gets big and gets lots of media attention. Media attention whores like him just follow the attention then jump in between the cause and the camera for his own personal gain.

He has a large vocab and nothing else, he has no ideas, when he talks on the subject matter he comes up empty, when asked how to fix something or how something could be made better he rambles on like a retarded idiot or simply lashes out at the person asking the question. The entire problem with politics is people like him, people with no idea who want the power, the attention but hasn't got a clue how to make things better. Politicians who have no long term plan how to make things better just jump in front of whatever is popular at the time with no coherent plan of how to improve things but act to appease the public masses even if said action makes things much worse in the long term. Brand is like that, jump on a cause, no ideas, follows the media attention, gets upset when called out on having no clue what he's talking about.
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
He's not, everything he gets involved in is already in the public attention. The recent rent issue and protest had NOTHING to do with Brand. Brand saw a popular cause and decided to jump in front of it, if anything he took coverage away from the issue and all the news was about his interview rather than about the issue.

He's like many other people, Bono, Geldof, whoever else, a cause exists, it gets attention, they jump to the front of the cause pretending to be a champion of it, take away attention from said cause onto themselves. They get loads of attention, book/album/ticket sales go through the roof, the cause is pretty much ignored and become about those individuals, these people are worse than politicians. They are the worst type of people having absolutely no morals or care. It's easy to read a paper see what the latest cause of the people is then turn up and take the attention while being seen as the champion of the people when in actual fact doing nothing at all for the cause.

Brand doesn't have views, he's a populist, nothing more or less, we never hear what he is for BEFORE an issue becomes the popularly held view of the people. He always jumps on a cause as it gets big and gets lots of media attention. Media attention whores like him just follow the attention then jump in between the cause and the camera for his own personal gain.

He has a large vocab and nothing else, he has no ideas, when he talks on the subject matter he comes up empty, when asked how to fix something or how something could be made better he rambles on like a retarded idiot or simply lashes out at the person asking the question. The entire problem with politics is people like him, people with no idea who want the power, the attention but hasn't got a clue how to make things better. Politicians who have no long term plan how to make things better just jump in front of whatever is popular at the time with no coherent plan of how to improve things but act to appease the public masses even if said action makes things much worse in the long term. Brand is like that, jump on a cause, no ideas, follows the media attention, gets upset when called out on having no clue what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

Well said! I I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
All I seem to hear is do as I say not as I do champagne socialism from him.

Any fans out there ?
Click to expand...

You can be wealthy and still campaign for the poor. You may think it is 'champagne' socialism, but it's much better than being rich and only caring about other rich people.
 
ginger_pat said:
Well he admits that what he has achieved through rubbish films is not the issue but how he is using his mass amount of media exposure to shedding light on important issues which governments and other people are failing to rise.

Such as:
Bank Bonuses,
Tax Evasions,
MP'S lack of attendance to important social issue but massive attendance to personal issue's (Pay Rise)

Ok I see he his lack of appeal to people, he speaks eloquently and dresses a certain way which not everyone agree's with.

But he is raising important issues, no harm done.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that Brand hasn't used an expensive accountant to reduce his tax liability?
 
AGD said:
You can be wealthy and still campaign for the poor. You may think it is 'champagne' socialism, but it's much better than being rich and only caring about other rich people.
Click to expand...

Is is he working for the less fortunate or sticking one up at the establishment?
 
He's a genius at creating a niche for himself that no-one wanted, needs or even cares about.

I am never quite sure if he's mocking the Mainstream Media, or they are mocking us with him, or he's mocking us with them, either way, he seems to make a decent living out of it.

But then we live in a World where there's that 'Internet Cat' who is allegedly worth £65MILLION because Mainstream Media and 'Marketing' types tell us so. Crazy.
 
I quite like him; he's passionate, and too few individuals within the political sphere show any passion - the majority of them seem too afraid to show any honesty in case they lose their station. That said, in a similar vein to Billy Bragg still singing about the working class but shunning the life in favour of living in a charming cottage in a quaint rural village, I've started to find Brand disingenuous and contrived.

There's no point barking on about the inequalities of the lower classes/financial impoverished when the voice has seemingly "bettered" himself and left those people behind in order to mingle with the rich and famous.

Personally, given his prior problems with drugs, alcohol and addiction, and the manner in which those habits can trouble all aspects of class and society, I feel he could play a significant role in championing such issues. Not enough is done to combat addiction and he could probably play a great role in bringing these problems in to the public eye and stop them from being swept under the social carpet.
 
He's brilliant. I'm a huge fan of the trews. Does having money mean you can't say anything without being a hypocrit? His rental situation was his landlord tax avoiding. He pays his rent like anyone else and doesn't know his landlord. I certainly don't know my landlord.

He gives some campaigns more publicity and that isn't a bad thing. People on the new era Estate appreciated his input so that's no bad thing.
 
I think his heart is in the right place in that he is fed up and prepared to speak about it. I just think he has been influenced by marxism and anti-capitalism like most of the people in the uk and that is why he comes across as such a hypocrite. He is for capitalism but anti-capitalist, he is for the government but against politicians and "the establishment". I did not watch the recent question time because i refuse to watch question time and the bbc. It is worse than bias, it pretends to be unbiased all while misrepresenting the opponents argument, the opponent being anyone but labour. The guests and speakers from the left are always well spoken and have ok questions and points, from the right they are barely coherent a lot of time and do not make the vital points and questions.

I also don't think he is very funny in his stand up and i think he can be offensive and rude for no reason.
 
I've listened to him, his interviews and videos. My conclusion is he's simply jumping on popular issues to keep him in employment, he doesn't really care for a cause.

Then again that could be said about a lot of people.
 
FinglisHobbit said:
He's brilliant. I'm a huge fan of the trews. Does having money mean you can't say anything without being a hypocrit? His rental situation was his landlord tax avoiding. He pays his rent like anyone else and doesn't know his landlord. I certainly don't know my landlord.

He gives some campaigns more publicity and that isn't a bad thing. People on the new era Estate appreciated his input so that's no bad thing.
Click to expand...

Almost all coverage I saw since he got involved in that campaign was about Brand, not about the people and in that particular case it was a bunch of greedy idiots who were living in subsidised housing then got overly entitled when the subsidies were effectively going to be removed.

They didn't move into cheap housing in a cheap area then found the owners wanting to triple the rent as compared to the area. They moved into an expensive area in which their rent was massively lower than the local area because it was subsidised. That is lucky, rather than treat it as living beyond their means on someone else's dime and being grateful, when the subsidies were removed they instantly moved to "we've had this subsidy and cheaper housing than everyone else till now thus we deserve to keep it" attitude.

It's in this case a rubbish cause of overly entitled idiots, there are PLENTY of cases of people being treated completely awfully, these guys have been treated massively better than everyone else till this point and are now complaining about being treated normally.

Either way, as said, since Brand's involvement the coverage is about Brand, not the cause. The "cause" was getting plenty of coverage before his involvement, Brand is taking away coverage for himself, which is likely his goal, and seems to be his goal in every campaign he gets behind.


EDIT:- think of it this way, everyone where I live pays around £1k a month rent as do I. If when I moved in someone came up and said along the lines of I don't know how long I'll do this for, but for a while at least I'm going to pay £700 of your rent, meaning you're moving into a £1k a month flat but paying £300. I'd think well that is generous, thanks matey. Then at some point 3 months, 3 years or 30 years later this person says, sorry I can't afford to subsidise you any longer, rent is going back to £1k a month.... I could A, be grateful I saved £700 a month, B, get angry and entitled and suggest that because I was only paying £300 I shouldn't ever have to pay more than £300 and it's a disgrace that I should be asked to pay £1000 a month even though it's what everyone around me has been paying the whole time I was being subsidised.

AS I said, there are plenty of people being utterly screwed, this particular group of people comes across like entitled *****.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom