It's today. The General Election. It has come, and we still have no clue about what will actually happen. Tomorrow, I can go back to writing about Formula 1 and sandwiches. But for now, having done absolutely no polling and no research into it, here is what I think – based purely on hunches and guesswork – will happen.
There will be a hung parliament. That much is pretty obvious.
The Conservatives will be the largest party, but have no overall majority. As the incumbent Prime Minister, David Cameron will attempt to form a second coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, who will spurn him. (Obviously, that will be a very stupid move – what is the point of being in politics at all, and standing for election, if you turn down the chance to govern when it's offered you? – but that is what I think will happen; the Lib Dem membership will feel that their support suffered too much from the first coalition to risk it a second time.)
Cameron will then try to 'go it alone' heading a minority administration, surviving each Commons vote as it comes, shored up by MPs from minority parties who will go along with certain issues in return for concessions in other areas – but this will soon crumble, and Cameron won't be able to survive a vote of no confidence. Within two months, there will be a second election called – and we will get to do this all over again!
I'm probably way off the mark here. But what can you do, eh?! Whatever happens, I just hope that we have a government by Saturday morning; I want all this out of the way by Saturday so that I am free to focus on the really serious stuff – Norwich City's Play-Off Semi-Final first leg against Ipswich.
On another note, I am not going to do an endorsement of any party on this Blog. That's partly because I only get about six readers anyway, so it wouldn't make any difference, and partly because I don't feel I am in any position to tell anybody else how to vote. However, I will say that however you vote, I implore you to do so for the 'right' reasons.
If you want to vote Labour because you like their policies, or you like their local candidate, that's fine; voting Labour to 'send a message' to Rupert Murdoch, or because Katie Hopkins quipped she would 'leave the country', is stupid. Similarly, if you prefer another party over the Lib Dems, that's your call; if you would've voted Lib Dem but feel 'betrayed' by Nick Clegg, I have already explained how wrong-headed that is.
Please don't choose who to vote for out of spite. Please don't vote for a party or candidate because Russell Brand told you to. You don't have to listen to anybody else; you don't have to be ashamed of how you vote; you don't have to do what your friends, or family, or shouty Facebook acquaintances who share endless pictures of politicians' faces with made-up quotes from/about them superimposed onto the image in bold text, do. You don't have to take any notice of what the press say. You don't even have to take any notice of Bloggers like me (although I strongly suggest that you do).
Vote for whoever you honestly believe to be the best candidate in your area, or the best party nationally. But vote with your head, and in good faith. Good luck.
Showing posts with label russell brand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label russell brand. Show all posts
Thursday, 7 May 2015
Friday, 12 December 2014
Nigel Farage vs. Russell Brand on Question Time
Last night, UKIP leader and MEP Nigel Farage and comedian and political activist Russell Brand both appeared on the BBC's flagship political debate programme, 'Question Time'. There were three other people on the panel too (Conservative MP Penny Mordaunt; Labour MP Mary Creagh; and Camilla Cavendish, a journalist for The Times), but no one seemed too bother about any of them – the programme was billed as a big show-down of Brand vs. Farage, left-wing populism against right-wing populism, and promised plenty of debate and (perhaps more importantly for viewing figures) controversy.
Personally, I don't like Nigel Farage or Russell Brand. They are both snake oil salesmen who offer easy 'answers' to complicated issues, playing to the gallery and telling people whatever they want to hear. In both men's simplistic world view, there are clear 'bogeymen' – scapegoats, at whose feet the blame for all the problems of the United Kingdom can be laid. For Farage, immigrants and the European Union can be blamed for all our ills, whereas Brand can't see a single issue which isn't the fault of bankers, large corporations and rich businessmen. Quick to apportion blame, and slow to proffer any meaningful alternative solutions, both men despise the 'out-of-touch' political èlite, think the mainstream media is 'out to get them', and seem themselves as the only saviour of a Britain which is going to hell in a handcart.
At this juncture, I am going to insert a disclaimer: I watched this episode of Question Time in a van late last night, on an iPhone with a rather intermittent internet connection, whilst traveling from a gig in Caerphilly, South Wales, to a hotel in Thurrock, Essex. I was very tired, cold and wet during this time so I may not have the most accurate memory of everything which happened during the programme.
I have been very critical of UKIP when I have written about them in the past. I am not going to vote for them at the next General Election, and I would implore you not to either. However, I genuinely felt that Nigel Farage came over better on Question Time last night than did Russell Brand. At one point, I even felt a rare moment of sympathy for the UKIP leader, when, quite late in the programme, he answered a question on Grammar Schools from a member of the studio audience – Brand was then asked what his views on the topic were, and he immediately launched into personal attack on Nigel Farage, barely mentioning Grammar Schools at all, choosing instead to focus on the specifics of Farage's own education and upbringing. What Farage's schooling had to do with the question I never could work out, but Brand seemed intent on making this a personal fight when the question had been on educational policy in general and its affect on social mobility.
This lack of genuine content, and fixation on attacking Farage personally rather than on points of policy (which was not confined just to the Grammar Schools question), made Brand look petty, aggressive and small-minded – an accusation which he (and many others) have levelled at politicians in the House Of Commons. More importantly, however, it showed that he had come to Question Time with 'a gameplan' – to attack Farage, knowing that the UKIP leader would be an unpopular figure, and thinking he could win praise and applause from the studio audience and viewers watching at home simply by insulting Farage rather than by making any worthwhile points of his own. This showed his complete contempt for the members of the public asking the questions, as Brand had obviously already made up his mind to take this approach no matter what issues came up during the debate – the kind of behaviour he would decry from any politician, but which he has no qualms with exhibiting himself, if he feels it suits him.
The most telling moment of the programme, however, was when Brand was challenged by a member of the audience to stand for Parliament himself – to put his money where his mouth is, and stand up for what he believes. Brand did his usual trick of retreating to an "I'm just a comedian, mate!" position of safety, having demanded to be taken seriously politically, but I thought the audience member made a strong point. Nigel Farage and UKIP have particular views – many of which I don't agree with – and a particular direction in which they want to take the United Kingdom. They are giving people the chance to vote for that, or to vote against it, by standing for election next May.
Farage believes that the majority of 'ordinary people' (whatever that means) agree, broadly speaking, with much of what UKIP has to say. If he is right, this will be reflected in their share of the vote at the next election – if (as I suspect), he is mistaken about that, this too will be shown up at the election. But he has at least had the courage to put himself up for election, and give people the chance to reject his poisonous, simplistic and divisive ideology at the ballot box. Russell Brand has no such courage – like Farage, he believes most people agree with him (and that if they don't, that is because they have been duped or misled, which is incredibly insulting and patronising), but he is not willing to put that to the test.
I think there are two reasons for this: he doesn't want to risk his ideology being rejected by the public, and he hasn't the stomach for any actual work if he were to be elected. Whatever you stand for, and whatever your views, actually trying to be a real difference in politics is hard work – but standing on the sidelines shouting and jeering is easy. Russell Brand has chosen the easy route.
Personally, I don't like Nigel Farage or Russell Brand. They are both snake oil salesmen who offer easy 'answers' to complicated issues, playing to the gallery and telling people whatever they want to hear. In both men's simplistic world view, there are clear 'bogeymen' – scapegoats, at whose feet the blame for all the problems of the United Kingdom can be laid. For Farage, immigrants and the European Union can be blamed for all our ills, whereas Brand can't see a single issue which isn't the fault of bankers, large corporations and rich businessmen. Quick to apportion blame, and slow to proffer any meaningful alternative solutions, both men despise the 'out-of-touch' political èlite, think the mainstream media is 'out to get them', and seem themselves as the only saviour of a Britain which is going to hell in a handcart.
At this juncture, I am going to insert a disclaimer: I watched this episode of Question Time in a van late last night, on an iPhone with a rather intermittent internet connection, whilst traveling from a gig in Caerphilly, South Wales, to a hotel in Thurrock, Essex. I was very tired, cold and wet during this time so I may not have the most accurate memory of everything which happened during the programme.
I have been very critical of UKIP when I have written about them in the past. I am not going to vote for them at the next General Election, and I would implore you not to either. However, I genuinely felt that Nigel Farage came over better on Question Time last night than did Russell Brand. At one point, I even felt a rare moment of sympathy for the UKIP leader, when, quite late in the programme, he answered a question on Grammar Schools from a member of the studio audience – Brand was then asked what his views on the topic were, and he immediately launched into personal attack on Nigel Farage, barely mentioning Grammar Schools at all, choosing instead to focus on the specifics of Farage's own education and upbringing. What Farage's schooling had to do with the question I never could work out, but Brand seemed intent on making this a personal fight when the question had been on educational policy in general and its affect on social mobility.
This lack of genuine content, and fixation on attacking Farage personally rather than on points of policy (which was not confined just to the Grammar Schools question), made Brand look petty, aggressive and small-minded – an accusation which he (and many others) have levelled at politicians in the House Of Commons. More importantly, however, it showed that he had come to Question Time with 'a gameplan' – to attack Farage, knowing that the UKIP leader would be an unpopular figure, and thinking he could win praise and applause from the studio audience and viewers watching at home simply by insulting Farage rather than by making any worthwhile points of his own. This showed his complete contempt for the members of the public asking the questions, as Brand had obviously already made up his mind to take this approach no matter what issues came up during the debate – the kind of behaviour he would decry from any politician, but which he has no qualms with exhibiting himself, if he feels it suits him.
The most telling moment of the programme, however, was when Brand was challenged by a member of the audience to stand for Parliament himself – to put his money where his mouth is, and stand up for what he believes. Brand did his usual trick of retreating to an "I'm just a comedian, mate!" position of safety, having demanded to be taken seriously politically, but I thought the audience member made a strong point. Nigel Farage and UKIP have particular views – many of which I don't agree with – and a particular direction in which they want to take the United Kingdom. They are giving people the chance to vote for that, or to vote against it, by standing for election next May.
Farage believes that the majority of 'ordinary people' (whatever that means) agree, broadly speaking, with much of what UKIP has to say. If he is right, this will be reflected in their share of the vote at the next election – if (as I suspect), he is mistaken about that, this too will be shown up at the election. But he has at least had the courage to put himself up for election, and give people the chance to reject his poisonous, simplistic and divisive ideology at the ballot box. Russell Brand has no such courage – like Farage, he believes most people agree with him (and that if they don't, that is because they have been duped or misled, which is incredibly insulting and patronising), but he is not willing to put that to the test.
I think there are two reasons for this: he doesn't want to risk his ideology being rejected by the public, and he hasn't the stomach for any actual work if he were to be elected. Whatever you stand for, and whatever your views, actually trying to be a real difference in politics is hard work – but standing on the sidelines shouting and jeering is easy. Russell Brand has chosen the easy route.
Wednesday, 12 November 2014
Comment on this
Do you write comments on newspaper articles online? You shouldn't.
I very rarely get comments on my Blog posts – and for that, I am very grateful. The problem with online comments is that no one is listening, and everyone is talking; it is a world where people scream their opinions into the abyss with an obstinate certainty they would never display in real life – there is no persuading anyone of an alternate point-of-view because everyone's positions are already so entrenched, and ad hominem is the default approach for making any point.
No one can ever 'win' one of these arguments (read: shouting matches). I don't think anybody is even trying to. There are plenty of comments on this critique of Russell Brand's latest book by Michael Moynihan, most of which are pretty hostile – and yet there are precious few attempts logically to refute the arguments the author makes, and instead the commenters' points are almost all "you're jealous of him!" or "you're just a stooge of 'the establishment' anyway!"
I've lost count (OK, I was never really keeping count) of the number of times I've read an excellent article, followed by a bunch of moronic comments from people with no interest at all in debating the issues raised in the piece with an open mind.
So, let's all try to restrain ourselves, and stop posting comments – the world will be a happier, nicer place for it.
I very rarely get comments on my Blog posts – and for that, I am very grateful. The problem with online comments is that no one is listening, and everyone is talking; it is a world where people scream their opinions into the abyss with an obstinate certainty they would never display in real life – there is no persuading anyone of an alternate point-of-view because everyone's positions are already so entrenched, and ad hominem is the default approach for making any point.
No one can ever 'win' one of these arguments (read: shouting matches). I don't think anybody is even trying to. There are plenty of comments on this critique of Russell Brand's latest book by Michael Moynihan, most of which are pretty hostile – and yet there are precious few attempts logically to refute the arguments the author makes, and instead the commenters' points are almost all "you're jealous of him!" or "you're just a stooge of 'the establishment' anyway!"
I've lost count (OK, I was never really keeping count) of the number of times I've read an excellent article, followed by a bunch of moronic comments from people with no interest at all in debating the issues raised in the piece with an open mind.
So, let's all try to restrain ourselves, and stop posting comments – the world will be a happier, nicer place for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)