Question Time

Grasshopper said:
Maybe you're right, Hamm. I thought I'd seen enough of Brand over the years, to make this kind of judgement on him, but - again - I didn't see QT, and perhaps he did make a rear-end of himself.

The only thing I'd say in mitigation is that it was hardly a format Brand was going to excel in. He is a polarising figure at the best of times, and I suspect had large elements of the audience, as well as the entire panel, ranged against him.

Brand's 'Revolution is Evolution' philosophical position can work well as a comedic vehicle, but when these are juxtaposed against the bland, formulaic platitudes that are the norm form the programme, I can see why he'd start to look like something of a fringe-nutter, who lacks the necessary gravitas to engage in a political discourse, and is therefore way out of his depth.

I can see how he'd come across that way, and I guess I'd be happy to accept that, if it wasn't for the fact that it's only the TH "fringe-nutter" community that appear to have a problem with him.

It takes one to know one, perhaps? :lol:

:cool:
Click to expand...

Clive, EC and me?!

You should really watch the programme … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3lgVblBG04
 
clivex said:
Yes. Her body language was that of pure hatred. She despised him.

i think the final point is that there are an awful lot of people from many walks of life who would make interesting guests despite not being celebs. These people will work hard and be relative experts in their fields. They may have something illuminating to say. Stephen king and Hamlisch McRae the economics journalists come to mind. They are too communicators. A charity leader too and so on..

the bbc should not be chasing ratings and sensationalism by using ill informed retards. Its remit should go beyond that.
Click to expand...

There are career celebrities if you like in Britain who are not particularly talented in their own supposed field who chase an appearance in media as often as possible.

Will Self is another example of this. Not stupid by any means, but he is not a great writer and not as well-informed as he makes out. He chases publicity in a funny old way.
 
Here's my position on Brand. He's a better writer than he is a stand-up, and he's a better stand-up than he is a TV/Film Star, and he's probably a better TV/Film Star than he is a politician.

He should stick to what he's good at. His political 'routine' would be better adapted to serving his writing and stand-up - the last thing he needs is to be taken seriously.
 
EC1 said:
no you don't have to stand..but you know when someone puts you on the spot like that and you give the most pathetic answer its possible to give and make yourself look a complete muppet..
Click to expand...
Whereas I think it was a crushingly honest answer.
He could have, of course, have used various excuses such as Warbler suggested -- unequipped for constituency work etc etc,-- but that would have been a cop-out. Instead he gave an immediate and truthful explanation -- he is afraid of the possibility that he might "become one of them". That is the answer of a man who has looked deep into his soul.

The issue remains, tho', of the question itself from Carver's brother. Does the question even merit reply when the question suggests that anyone who isn't standing as an MP doesn't have the right to articulate a political view? It's a case of "Stand for Parliament or else shut up". How ridiculous is that? And how many non-politicians such as journo's or political commentators get asked it? None! But when it's put to Brand it is claimed to be kosher. And whilst Brand did in fact answer it he is lambasted because his answer is not to everyone's liking. Even though it was an honest answer.
 
Hamm said:
:lol:
Click to expand...

Warbler said:
I love it when you start by denouncing something as rubbish and then ask a question that betrays your own lack of understanding and knowledge base. You've demonstrated before that you aren't read in this field, and consequently you're reduced to shooting from the hip. Indeed, a few months ago I gave you the desert island test and you ended up designing Soviet democract as your natural response only to get all arsey when you were told what you'd done. It became apparent that you didn't even know what a soviet was.

At least Icebreaker appears to be versed in anarchist models which as he recognises are much nearer to democratic purity than anything we have in this country. You i suspect problem think anarchy is a concept of the Sex Pistols

The rest of your answer is riddled with so many flaws and such a poor understanding it doesn't warrant a response until you've gone away and done some reading
Click to expand...

you were claiming that soviet representatives were able to hold their own opinions? What??


whats he point if reading uo on anarchy? No more than I should study pol pot. You don't have too know a lot about it to know that it is a ridiculous..


and your answer is a complete cop out. Every democracy in the world has gravitated quickly towards groupings and parties, for the very reasons I spelt out. If its flawed then why is it always the result? Perhaps because that is what the electorate demands?

"Independents" do stand don't they? They are not banned but the electorate are usually not interested.
 
Last edited:
icebreaker said:
Whereas I think it was a crushingly honest answer.
He could have, of course, have used various excuses such as Warbler suggested -- unequipped for constituency work etc etc,-- but that would have been a cop-out. Instead he gave an immediate and truthful explanation -- he is afraid of the possibility that he might "become one of them". That is the answer of a man who has looked deep into his soul.

The issue remains, tho', of the question itself from Carver's brother. Does the question even merit reply when the question suggests that anyone who isn't standing as an MP doesn't have the right to articulate a political view? It's a case of "Stand for Parliament or else shut up". How ridiculous is that? And how many non-politicians such as journo's or political commentators get asked it? None! But when it's put to Brand it is claimed to be kosher. And whilst Brand did in fact answer it he is lambasted because his answer is not to everyone's liking. Even though it was an honest answer.[/

the idea that all mps are "them" and all the same is ignorant, patronising and a cop out.

Jounalists and commentators are not putting them selves uo as some sort of saviours and revolutionaries are they? And some have gone on to stand for parliament. If he feels that he has a strong enough case then he should use it to win votes. That is democracy. If he feels that we can have a revolution without a mandate then he can fck off frankly. The fact if the matter is that he knows he doesn't have a coherent case and he knows that very few would back him.

farage wants to change "things" and he put up and shown it can work. That was the point the audience member nailed him on.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
you were claiming that soviet representatives were able to hold their own opinions? What??


whats he point if reading uo on anarchy? No more than I should study pol pot. You don't have too know a lot about it to know that it is a ridiculous..


and your answer is a complete cop out. Every democracy in the world has gravitated quickly towards groupings and parties, for the very reasons I spelt out. If its flawed then why is it always the result? Perhaps because that is what the electorate demands?

"Independents" do stand don't they? They are not banned but the electorate are usually not interested.
Click to expand...

I might have a go at answering aspects of it for you later Clive, but your own understading (or lack of) is really poor, I'll promise you, and it's this which deters me in much the same way as I wouldn't really seek to introduce a 12 year old to anarchist philosophy. You're at about that level I'm afraid.

In the first case, the political party as you describe it is not a natural state (as you suggest it is). It's an artificial creation and symptom of early stage corruption. It restricts both debate and choice and excludes more people from that process than it includes. In short it's a mechanism designed by accident to achieve sub optimal decisions

I'll let you dwell on a question for now

1: What do you understand by the debating body we have in the United States that is popularly known as a 'Town Hall meeting'? Do you consider this a democratic body or do youi consider it flawed because it has no party structure?
 
I am disliking your attitude . And you haven't answered the questions at all.

Town halls are governing small local issues. Councillors do not need the breadth of expertise it's takes to run a nation state. Some councils in this country have independents who are not allied to parties.

do you really think that with the range of legislation and complexity involved at a national level, 600 plus independent mps could seriously be adequately briefed on each and every issue to vote freely? Of course not. No one expects that because it would be impossible.
 
clivex said:
Councillors do not need the breadth of expertise it's takes to run a nation state. Some councils in this country have independents who are not allied to parties.
Click to expand...
You have to understand that Anarchists of every strand of Anarchism are against the notion of a Nation State. They are against all State-ist institutions and organs. This is where Brand is coming from. Thus, by definition, he also has to be against parliamentary democracy -- but not against democracy, per se.
(Plus, of course, he is afraid that he might become part of the State-ist apparatus).
:)
 
clivex said:
I am disliking your attitude . And you haven't answered the questions at all.

Town halls are governing small local issues. Councillors do not need the breadth of expertise it's takes to run a nation state. Some councils in this country have independents who are not allied to parties.

do you really think that with the range of legislation and complexity involved at a national level, 600 plus independent mps could seriously be adequately briefed on each and every issue to vote freely? Of course not. No one expects that because it would be impossible.
Click to expand...


I'm trying to work you up towards it Clive in the hope that you might be able to grasp it bit by bit instead of slamming on some anchors the moment you hear a word you don't like but critically, you don't actually have a modicum of understanding about. You are sadly an ignoramus on such issues. It's actually quite sad, as if you were versed in anarchist theory you would almost certainly find quite a lot of it that you liked. What you clearly are no where near grasping is that anarchism actually aspires to a much stronger democratic model than the UK's parliamentary system, which is a perverse corruption of it. Anarchism has its faults. I was tempted to ask you what you found so objectionable about this democratic model, but since you don't know what it involves, it would be wasted. Instead I'll suggest one of its fault lines is that its essentially a peaceful philosophy and is easily attacked therefore by outside forces of capital accumulation. It was a problem Lenin faced in his desire to roll back the state and allow autonomous soviets to develop away from centralist control. It was Britain and France that sponsored a civil war in the Soviet Union for the white cossacks was it not? Perversely you need a strong state to defend what would otherwise be destroyed by anti democratic barbarians

As a matter on interest, how would react if you received notification today that you were to receive 1 months military training from the UK government and after that you were going to be sent to the Ukraine to fight imperialist Russia because David Cameron had pledged you to do so? Would you be pleased? or would you be concerned. Bear in mind Russia has a bigger army than yours and they will use real bullets and you coukd very easily be killed. How would you react to this news?

But please permit to laugh at this in the context

Authoritarians with genuine contempt for the public opinion will always complain about parliamentary democracy

in the context of

"I am disliking your attitude"

I'm afraid yours is the position of the authoritarian oppressor that is denying and restricting choice. Mine is opening it up. The problem I face is that you don't possess knowledge to realise it and are just indulging in reflex reactions to certain words. Please try and engage with it and open your mind Clive. It's actually a fascinating subject - honestly.
 
Last edited:
icebreaker said:
You have to understand that Anarchists of every strand of Anarchism are against the notion of a Nation State. They are against all State-ist institutions and organs. This is where Brand is coming from. Thus, by definition, he also has to be against parliamentary democracy -- but not against democracy, per se.
(Plus, of course, he is afraid that he might become part of the State-ist apparatus).
:)
Click to expand...

which is of no interest because you simply cannot have a rule of law without institutions Its not worth the time of day
 
Last edited:
Great stuff!

It is a bit of bullying though. Articulate intelligent and witty up against a retard. In fairness though the retard does have millions, as he keeps telling everyone in true socialist style.
 
Jo seems a bit food-obsessive, doesn't she? How many times has she mentioned her lunch?

The article itself does not address Brand's motivation or the questions he wanted to ask of the RBS mandarins. ( We do know from elsewhere that he asked for an explanation of the salary structures at the bank and for a justification of a bonus culture where over 100 senior executives each earn an annual bonus of over £1 million). The article seems more intent on shooting the messenger rather than reading the message.

It might be said that Brand was on a publicity stunt, but let's leave that aside for a moment. Maybe as a citizen -- albeit with a bit of clout due to celebrity status -- he believed it was fair to ask these questions of a bank whose majority of shares are publicly owned by the citizens of the country.

Jo -- poor little kitten -- is unlikely to go permanently hungry or starve as result of the incident.
 
Like it or not if rbs is to get out of public ownership then it needs to perform and cannot hire second raters or cheap clueless idiots. Witness the co op

thats not difficult to understand
 
Brand's error is to accuse those who have been left to clear-up the mess, of the crimes of those who created it in the first place.

He is looking under the wrong stone - the guilty have (in the main) long since cleared-out of the industry.
 
That would be part of my explanation too, particularly so because it causes Clive's assertion some difficulty about paying the best in order to attract expertise. How much would we need to pay in order to avoid the 'best' people who busted all these banks in the first place. Are you now saying that these weren't experts after all? Can you remind us at what point you warned us against this in the past. The only person I can remember from cyberspace who was on the case regarding the garvity of the impending banking crisis was Kathy Anderson. In fairness to her, she called it spot on, even making a couple of bankers look rather stupid who had challenged and called her a few names in process

It's a perverse logic really. We have to pay to attract the best, and when that doesn't work, we have to pay even more. The simple fact is the chimpanzees at Twycross Zoo would have donbe little worse at rating debt than many of those entrustsed with trading it
 
i agree with that argument and always have...we must have had the best when it all went wrong..or thought we did because they were paid ridiculous wages/bonuses..so that means paying a lot doesn't buy you the best always

it was Labour that deregulated the banks as well wasn't it..Gordon Brown..so although they keep saying it wasn't our fault..they initiated it years ago..then again..tories would have done that also wouldn't they?
 
Brand's reply to the guy who was bitching in his open about his lunch getting cold -- an open letter, which, it should be said, Brand published on his own website.


"The locking of the doors and your tarnished lunch came about as the result of orders from 'the faceless bosses' upstairs after I wandered in on my own while we secretly filmed from across the street – then security swarmed, all the doors were locked and crowds gathered outside. I must say Jo; it felt like RBS had something terrible to hide.
Neither was I there for publicity, although you could be forgiven for thinking that; for many years I have earned my money (and paid my taxes) by showing off. If I needed negative publicity (and, believe me, that's all talking publicly about inequality can ever get you) I could get it by using the 'N word' on telly, or putting a cat in a bin, or having a romantic liaison with the lad from TOWIE.
I was there with filmmaker Michael Winterbottom making a documentary about how the economic crises caused by the banking industry (RBS were found guilty of rigging Libor and the foreign exchange) has led to an economic attack on the most vulnerable people in society.
The mob upstairs at RBS who exiled you with your rapidly deteriorating lunch have had £4bn in bonuses since the crash. Do they deserve our money more than Britain's disabled? Or Britain's students who are now charged to learn? Is that fair?
They were some of the questions I was hoping to ask your boss – but we got no joy through the 'proper channels' so we decided to just show up.
Now I'll be the first to admit your lunch has been an unwitting casualty in this well-intentioned quest but I couldn't resist the opportunity to ask new RBS boss Ross McEwan if he thinks it's right that he got a £3.2m 'golden hello' when the RBS is sellotaped together with money that comes from everyone else's taxes. I wonder what he would've said? Or whether it's right that Fred 'the shred' (he shredded evidence of impropriety) Goodwin gets to keep his £320k a year pension while disabled people have had their independent living fund scrapped.
And it's not just RBS mate. Lloyds, Barclays, Citibank and HSBC have all been found guilty of market rigging and not one banker has been jailed.
Trillions of public money lost and stolen and no one prosecuted. Remember in the riots when disaffected youth nicked the odd bottle of water or a stray pair of trainers? Criminal, I agree. 1800 years worth of sentences were meted out in special courts, to make an example. Some crime doesn't pay, but some crime definitely does. My school mate Leigh Pickett, a fireman is being told that he and his colleagues won't be able to collect their pension until five years later than agreed, five more years of backbreaking, flame engulfed labour – why? Because of austerity.Put simply Jo, the banks took the money, the people paid the price.
I was there to ask a few questions to the guilty parties, now I know that's not you, you're just a bloke trying to make a crust and evidently you like that crust warm – but again, it wasn't me who locked the RBS, I just asked a few difficult questions and the place went nuts. The people that have inconvenienced homeowners, pensioners, the disabled and ordinary working Brits are the same ones who inconvenienced you that lunchtime. They've got a lot to hide, so they locked the doors".
 
An articulate intelligent and witty response up against a retard who can't think beyond his own lunch. In fairness though the retard does earn a nice bonus, as he keeps telling everyone in true capitalist style.


Brand For PM
 
It wasnt that long ago that a tramp turned up out RBS in Edinburgh. Dropped his kegs, and laid a message on the front steps. Maybe it was that idiot Brand.
 
Back
Top