Viva Brandanista



Russell Brand in an interview with Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight last night called for “a revolultion, a socialist, egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth“.

Sounds fair.

Update: The transcript.

Jeremy Paxman: “Russell Brand, who are you to edit a political magazine?”

Russell Brand: “Well, I suppose like a person who’s been politely asked by an attractive woman. I don’t know what the typical criteria is. I don’t know many people that edit political magazines. Boris [Johnson]..he used to do one, didn’t he? So I’m a kind of, a person with crazy hair, quite a good sense of humour, don’t know much about politics, I’m ideal.”

Paxman: “But is it true you don’t even vote?”

“Yeah, no, I don’t vote.”

Paxman: “Well how do you have any authority to talk about politics then?”

Brand: “Well I don’t get my authority from this pre-existing paradigm which is quite narrow and only serves a few people. I look elsewhere, for alternatives, that might be of service to humanity. Alternate means; alternate political systems.”

Paxman: “They being?”

Brand: “Well I’ve not invented it yet, Jeremy. I had to do a magazine last week. I’ve had a lot on me plate. But I say, but here’s the thing that you shouldn’t do. Shouldn’t destroy the planet, shouldn’t create massive economic disparity, shouldn’t ignore the needs of the people. The burden of proof is on the people with the power, not people, like, doing a magazine for a novelty.”

Paxman: “How do you imagine that people get power?”

Brand: “Well I imagine there are sort of hierarchical systems that have been preserved through generations…”

Paxman: “They get power by being voted in, that’s how they get power…”

Brand: “Well you say that Jeremy…”

Paxman: “You can’t even be arsed to vote?”

Brand: “It’s quite a narrow, quite a narrow prescriptive parameter that changes within in…”

“In a democracy that’s how it works.”

Brand: “Well I don’t think it’s working very well, Jeremy. Given that the planet is being destroyed, given that there is economic disparity of a huge degree. What are you saying? There’s no alternative? There’s no alternative? Just this system?”

“No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying if you can’t be arsed to vote why should we be asked to listen to your political point of view?”

Brand: “You don’t have to listen to my political point of view. But it’s not that I’m not voting out of apathy. I’m not voting out of absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery, deceit of the political class, that has been going on for generations now. And which has now reached fever pitch where you have a disenfranchised, disillusioned, despondent underclass that are not being represented by that political system, so voting for it is tacit complicity with that system and that’s not something I’m offering up.”

Paxman: “Well why don’t you change it then?”

Brand: “I’m trying to.”

Paxman: “Well why don’t you start by voting?”

Brand: [Laughs] “I don’t think it works. People have voted already and that’s what’s created the current paradigm.”

Paxman: “When did you last vote?”


Paxman: “You’ve never, ever voted?”

“No. Do you think that’s really bad?”

Paxman: “So you struck an attitude, what, before the age of 18?”

“Well I was busy being a drug addict at that point, because I come from the kind of social conditions that are exacerbated by an indifferent system that, really, just administrates for large corporations and ignores the population that it was voted in to serve.”

“You’re blaming the political class for the fact that you had a drug problem?”

Brand: “No, no, no. I’m saying I was part of a social and economic class that is underserved by the current political system. And drug addiction is one of the problems it creates when you have huge, underserved, impoverished populations, people get drug problems. And, also, don’t feel like they want to engage with the current political system because they see that it doesn’t work for them. They see that it makes no difference. They see that they’re not served. I say that the apathy…”

Paxman: “Of course it doesn’t work for them if they didn’t bother to vote.”

Brand: “Jeremy, my darling, I’m not saying…the apathy doesn’t come from us, the people. The apathy comes from the politicians. They are apathetic to our needs, they’re only interested in servicing the needs of corporations. Look at..ain’t the Tories going to court, taking the EU to court, because they’re trying to curtail bank bonuses? Isn’t that what’s happening at the moment in our country? It is, innit?”


“So what am I gonna do, tune in for that?”

“You don’t believe in democracy. You want a revolution don’t you?”

“The planet is being destroyed, we are creating an underclass, we’re exploiting poor people all over the world and the genuine, legitimate problems of the people are not being addressed by our political class.”

Paxman: “All of those things may be true.”

Brand: “They are true.”

Paxman: “But you took…I wouldn’t argue with you about many of them.”

Brand: “Well how come I feel so cross with you? It can’t just be because of that beard, it’s gorgeous.”

Paxman: “It’s possibly because…”

Brand: “And if the Daily Mail don’t want it, I do. Because I’m against them. Grow it longer. Tangle it into your armpit hair.”

Paxman: “You are a very trivial man.”

Brand: “What you think I am, trivial?”

Paxman: “Yes.”

Brand: “A minute ago you were having a go at me because I wanted a revolution now I’m trivial, I’m bouncing about all over the place.”

Paxman: “I’m not having a go at you because you want a revolution, many people want a revolution, but I’m asking you what it would be like.”

Brand: “Well I think what it won’t be like is a huge disparity between rich and poor where 300 Americans have the same amount of wealth as the 85 million poorest Americans, where there is an exploited and underserved underclass that are being continually ignored, where welfare is slashed while Cameron and Osbourne go to court to defend the rights of bankers to continue receiving their bonuses. That’s all I’m saying.”

Paxman: “What’s the scheme, that’s all I’m asking. What’s the scheme? You talked vaguely about a revolution, what is it?”

Brand: “I think a socialist egalitarian system, based on the massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations and massive responsibility for energy companies and any companies exploiting the environment…I think the very concept of profit should be hugely reduced. David Cameron said profit isn’t a dirty word, I say profit is a filthy word. Because wherever there is profit there is also deficit. And this system currently doesn’t address these ideas. And so why would anyone vote for it? Why would anyone be interested in it?”

Paxman: “Who would levy these taxes?”

“I think there needs to be a centralised administrative system but built on…”

Paxman: “A government?”

Brand: “Yes, well, maybe call it something else. Call them like the Admin Bods so they don’t get ahead of themselves.”

Paxman: “And how would they be chosen?”

Brand: “Jeremy, don’t ask me to sit here in an interview with you, in a bloody hotel room and devise a global, utopian system. I’m merely pointing out that the current…”

Paxman: “You’re calling for revolution!”

Brand: “Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I’m calling for change. I’m calling for genuine alternatives.”

“There are many people who would agree with you..”

Brand: “Good.”

Paxman: “The current system is not engaging with all sorts of problems, yes. And they feel apathetic, really apathetic. But if they were to take you seriously, and not to vote…”

Brand: “Yeah, they shouldn’t vote, that’s what I’m thinking they should do, don’t bother voting. Because when it reaches..there’s a point…You see these little valves, these sort of cosy little valves of recycling and and you know like turns up somewhere, it starts reaching the point where you think ‘oh this is enough now. Stop voting. Stop pretending. Wake up. Be in reality now. Time to be in reality now’. Why vote? We know it’s not going to make any difference? We know that already?”

Paxman: “It does make a difference.”

Brand: “I have more impact at West Ham United, cheering them on, and they lost to City, unnecessarily, sadly.”

“Now you’re being facetious.”

“Facetiousness has as much value as seriousness, I think you’re making the mistake, of mistaking seriousness for the…”

Paxman: “You’re not going to solve world problems by facetiousness.”

Brand: “We’re not going to solve them with the current system. At least facetiousness is funny.”

Paxman: “Sometimes.”

Brand: “Yeah, sometimes, Jeremy. So listen. So let’s approach this optimistically. You’ve spent your whole career berating and haranguing politicians. And then when someone like me, a comedian, goes ‘they’re all worthless, what’s the point in engaging with any of them’, you sort of have a go at me because I’m not poor anymore.”

Paxman: “I’m not having a go at you about that. I’m just asking why we should take you seriously when you’re so unspecific…”

Brand: “You don’t have to take…Firstly, I don’t mind if you take me seriously. I’m here just to draw attention to a few ideas, I just want to have a little bit of a laugh. I’m saying there are people with alternative ideas that are far better qualified than I am, and far better qualified, more importantly, than the people that are currently doing that job. Because they’re not attempting to solve these problems. They’re not. They’re attempting to placate the population. There are measures currently being taken around climate change are indifferent, will not solve, will not solve the problem.”

Paxman: “Is it possible that, as human beings, they’re simply overwhelmed by the scale of the problem?”

Brand: “Not really, well possibly. It might be that, but that’s all just semantics really, whether they’re overwhelmed by it or tacitly maintaining it because of habitual…I mean like, mate, this is what I noticed when I was in that Houses of Parliament. It’s decorated exactly the same as Eton, is decorated exactly the same as Oxford. So a certain type of people goes in there and thinks ‘this makes me nervous’ and then another type of people go in there and go ‘this is how it should be’. And I think that’s got to change now. We can no longer have erroneous, duplicitous systems held in place unless it’s for the serve…only systems that serve the planet and serve the population of the planet can be allowed to survive. Not ones that serve elites, be they political or corporate elites and this is what’s currently happening.”

Paxman: “You don’t really believe that.”

Brand: “I completely believe it. Don’t look at me all weary, like you’re at a fireside with your pipe and your beard.”

Paxman: “I mean Ed Miliband (inaudible)…”

“Well he went to the same primary school as Boris, didn’t he?”

Paxman: “He did but he then went to a comprehensive school in north London.”

Brand: “Well that’s all well and good. But what I’m saying is, within the existing paradigm, the change is not dramatic enough, not radical enough. So you can well understand public disturbances and public dissatisfaction, when there are not genuine changes and genuine alternatives being offered. I say when there is a genuine alternative, a genuine option, then vote for that. But until then, pffft, don’t bother. Why pretend? Why be complicit in this ridiculous illusion?”

“Because by the time somebody comes along you might think it worth voting for, it may be too late.”

Brand: “I don’t think so because the time is now, this movement is already occurring, it’s happening everywhere, we’re in a time where communication is instantaneous and there are communities all over the world. The Occupy movement made a difference in even if, only in that, it introduced, to the popular public lexicon, the idea of the 1% versus the 99%. People for the first time in a generation are aware of massive, corporate and economic exploitation. These things are not nonsense. And these subjects are not being addressed. No one is doing anything about tax havens, no one is doing anything about their political affiliations and financial affiliations of the Conservative Party, so until people start addressing things that are actually real, why wouldn’t I be facetious, why would I take it seriously? Why would I encourage a constituency of young people that are absolutely indifferent to vote? Why would we? Aren’t you bored? Aren’t you more bored than anyone? Ain’t you been talking to them year after year, listening to their lies, their nonsense. Then it’s this one that gets in, then it’s that one gets in but the problem continues. Why are we going to continue to contribute to this facade?”

Paxman: “I’m surprised you can be facetious when you’re that angry about it.”

Brand: “Yeah, I am angry, I am angry. Because for me it’s real, because for me it’s not just some peripheral thing that I just turn up to once in a while to a church féte for. For me, this is what I come from. This is what I care about.”

Paxman: “Do you see any hope?”

Brand: “Remember that…yeah, totally, there’s gonna be a revolution. It’s totally going to happen. I ain’t got a flicker of doubt, this is the end. This is time to wake up.
I remember I seen you in that programme, where you look at your ancestors, and you saw the way your grandmother were out to brass herself or got fucked over by the aristocrats who ran her gaff. You cried because you knew that it was unfair and unjust. And that was what? A century ago? That’s happening to people now. I just come from a woman who’s been treated like that. I’ve just been talking to a woman today who’s being treated like that. So if we can engage that feeling, instead of some moment of lachrymose sentimentality trotted out on the TV for people to pore over emotional porn. If we can engage that feeling and change things, why wouldn’t we? Why is that naive? Why is that not my right because I’m an actor? I mean I’ve taken the right. I don’t need the right from you. I don’t need the right from anybody. I’m taking it.”

Thanks Rob (for corrections)

88 thoughts on “Viva Brandanista

  1. Andrew

    Loved his Thatcher obit, but this is (mostly) nonsense. Progressive taxation, homosexual decriminalisation, hunting bans etc we’re all achieved through electing better TDs/MPs. I think he just casually dismisses all of that because he finds politics to be a hard and confusing.

    1. Pidgeon

      I think he has a point for the UK. So much crap is going on but people unsure how to engage in a political system they see as being for the elite.

      1. jungleman

        You don’t think that’s a problem in Ireland also? Russell Brand is an insincere, attention-seeking moron. He didn’t have a single solid alternative to the current system.. A load of noise.

        1. Dave eile

          Don’t see politics as being for the elite in Ireland. ANYBODY can be a TD if they put in the graft and march to peoples front doors and attend enough meetings.

          It’s harder to get there than most people would credit but I think it’s accessible, sure most TDs here are fellas/women you could meet in your local.

          I had four beside me in the Palace one night

          1. jungleman

            Well maybe the problem is not elitism. But there is definitely more crap going on in politics in Ireland. Absolutely no transparency or accountability. I think people are just as disillusioned here, if not more.

            Russell Brand may believe he is well-meaning but in reality he is just a narcissist. He doesn’t have the answer.

        2. Pidgeon

          Well, it’s a UK TV show for a predominately UK audience. So I think the UK focus is fine. But hey, you run with whatever.

          1. jungleman

            Sorry Pidgeon, I read your post as saying that his point was relevant to the UK situation and that we should not look at it from our perspective on Irish politics.

          2. Pidgeon

            Of course its relevant to a wider audience. I dont live in Ireland anymore but I sense that the feelings of the public are the same – that politicians do what they want for their mates and not what is right for everyone else. And that people don’t know how to try and chance things.

            The UK does need a revolution in politics – they are all upper-middle class, I think there is one working class MP? I suspect Ireland is the same, though more focused on family dynasty than class.

  2. IDB

    I’m not Brand’s biggest fan, but he makes good points.
    I wish he could make them in a less manic “look at me I’m crazy!” kind of way.

  3. Mikeyfex

    The thing with Brand is he’ll always have an answer for everything, even if it’s not an answer, he’ll twist it. Takes from whatever credibility a comedian can have in this area.

  4. Blobster

    Brand means well. He just needs to focus.

    I have an idea (copyrighted) for a TV show around the time of the next UK general election – we follow Russell Brand and 12 other first time voters as they prepare to cast (or maybe not!!) their first ever vote.

  5. Halcyon Days

    Was wishing Paxman would have a damascene moment at the end, throw a water cooler throw the window and run out into the wilderness outside. Now THAT would have been great television

    1. CK

      starkers brandishing a raging hard-on and howling the lyrics of “I wanna dance with somebody”. Sorry wrong thread.

  6. Am I still on this Island

    I really like Brand, and he is very intelligent and looks at things from some interesting perspectives, I don’t always agree with what he has to say but enjoy listening to him .Basically what he is promoting here is Marx socialism “”from each according to their ability; to each according to their need” Karl Marx.

    I don’t think it socialism works, just a personal view, I don’t believe human nature allows it to be a possible form of economics as there is always people who will want more. On the voting thing, If he is not engaging in the political system how does he expect to change it? Even if you turn up and spoil your vote it is making a statement, and showing dissatisfaction.

    1. Sgt. Bilko

      I take issue with you on vote-spoiling in that fashion, you just get chucked in with those who are too thick to operate pencil and paper properly.

      1. Am I still on this Island

        Perhaps every vote should have YES, NO, SPOIL options. It is better than not showing up.

        He is proposing, economic egalitarianism Karl Marx is considered by many to be a supporter of the philosophy which promotes and emphasized equality in ownership and control of the means of production, as emphasized in the quote above from the man himself.

        1. droid

          Fascinating analysis of marxism there. What’s your opinion of criticism of the labour theory of value based on marginal theory and Pareto optimality?

          1. Am I still on this Island

            Pareto optimality, not a fan as it has limited applications outside of economic academia, and engineering, and the issue with it is of course , that most efficiency benchmarks overstate the gains to the winners and understate the losses to the other side of the equation. I am more a proponent of Neo classic economics myself or the work of John Maynard Keynes even with the flaws their theory’s have it is still better than the socialist alternatives tried and the flaws exposed for the same.
            But dont worry droid, I am sure you can provide countless examples of successfull states that implement socialist economic models.

          2. droid

            You dont know what the LTV is do you?

            Please take note of the fact that I wasn’t advocating or condemning socialist economic policies, simple mocking the fact that your knowledge of left wing politics seems to have come from the back of a cereal box.

          3. Am I still on this Island

            Sorry I just couldn’t be bothered to fully address your question as with most things Droid your ideology obscures reality, and as for my knowledge of left wing politics it comes from things called books, I know you rely on Mr Kellogs and the coco pops monkey for your education but that does not mean everyone else does.

          4. droid

            Sorry fella, but no one with even the slightest inkling of knowledge about the left would ever describe anything as ‘marx socialism’. Wikipedia is handy for faking it when challenged though Im sure you’ll agree.

            I am interested in your extensive insights into my ‘ideology’? Could you let me know what it is when you get a chance?

    2. droid

      ‘Marx socialism’? I take it you’re not really familiar with left wing politics? Do you mean Marxism? State socialism? Communism?

      I don’t know how brand describes himself, and he’s not articulating a particular ideology here. Vaguely socialist, probably more anarchist than anything else, maybe something like participatory economics, definitely not marxist.

  7. Drogg

    Brand is a sexist wa**er, what gives his over payed ass the right to call for social revolution, cause he is obviously so well educated on political structures. He is a scumbag and this is all just another part of his new age bull**it show.

    1. JK

      I thought he explained quite well – he doesn’t need to be given the right, it’s every single person’s right to call for revolution should they see the need for it. It’s not the exclusive right of those already blessed with the power to do so.
      And I agree with him – there is currently a need for it, but the majority don’t understand the imbalance, are too comfortable, warm and rish, or too busy recording four programmes while watching a fifth. It’s the people who have none of these things he is defending.

      Whether he’s sexist OR masturbates has very little to do with the topic, “cause” it’s nothing to do with it.

      1. Drogg

        Well it kind of does because if you have someone calling for social revolution who is also famous for manipulating people, being a sexist pr**k and spreading new age sh**e you probably don’t want to see the future they are hoping for. But then again a fanboy like you might be into that.

        And the reason I said what gives him the right is how much does he actually do to help people himself with all the millions he has in the bank why doesn’t he start with his own life before calling for a revolution which he has no real understanding of living it up in his ivory tower. This is all part of keeping his new age bohemian image intact while asking the average joe to pay 80quid to go see his s**t stand up.

        1. JK

          “But then again a fanboy like you might be into that.”

          Logical fallacy. Childish.

          And “new age sh*te”? Is it “sh*te” because you don’t like who’s saying it, or because you think everything is rosy as it is and shouldn’t change?

          I’m focusing on his arguments, not his style or history or personality, which I agree can be a little off-putting and pretentious at times. That doesn’t mean I can’t agree with his opinion.
          You seem to think it does.

          1. Drogg

            This is a PR stunt, cause if there was a social revolution do you not think self obsessed overpaid w**kers like him would be the first to be effected. His arguments are spurious ether he is calling for people to arm themselves and over throw the crown and the parliament or he is spouting crap that will get him more talk time on tv. He didn’t come up with the idea of a revolution, so really this is all about him and nothing about his argument.

          2. isallimsaying

            ‘over payed’
            ‘spurious ether’

            Back to the grammar school for you laddie. You can’t criticise Brand’s sometimes verbose loquacity from there.

          3. Drogg

            So all your saying is you don’t like my bad grammar, so my argument is then illegitimate. F**k off back to whatever s**thole you crawled out of, cause i was criticizing the fact that he is part of the 1% that he is calling for a revolution against, nothing to do with his pretentious over use of long words to bring legitimacy to his argument.

          4. JK

            being rich, famous and successful doesn’t automatically make you part of the 1% in this context.
            being part of, and contributing to the system that exists to perpetuate its own power – that’s how it is defined. footballers would be a great example of rich people who definitely aren’t part of the social or political elite.

            I don’t care about your grammar, but you do seem an angry young man who doesn’t like when others don’t agree. chill out a bit. it’s not the end of the world.

            OR IS IT??!?!

          5. Drogg

            I am angry cause change is needed but this is not the way to go about it and people listening to this attention seeker who doesn’t even vote infuriates me.

            Oh and brand is part of the 1% he uses his influence and power to use the ordinary joes around him for his own benefit. He is a leech on society but has found a new way to bring people into his new age lifestyle.

            I think i am mostly angry at Paxman though, i cant believe he let him away with that and let him away with his joking around, the Paxman i know would have ripped him a new a-hole

          6. JK

            Who should we listen to?

            I agree in part – there’s no doubt Brand is a showman, and will use an opportunity to get his face on TV. Paxman isn’t going to give you or me airtime though, and it’s rare that anyone with an alternate opinion on the current political set up gets that much attention on prime time. Brand is, as a result of his fame (whatever your view on that is), currently the only person who has pushed that agenda, certainly on the BBC, which I’ve lost a lot of respect for in recent months. They’ve gone 100% mainstream, and it’s a shame because I used to really respect them.

            Anyway, I disagree that Brand not voting voids his opinion. Although, I don’t agree with it – I’d vote independent, or ask the questions I wanted addressed by my representatives. It can be frustrating, but yeah – not voting isn’t going to create any sort of change.

            We disagree on a lot – but that’s cool.
            Guten Abend!!

  8. munkifisht

    No time for Brand’s brand of comedy. I’m no fan of his foppish, overly verbose, mock intellectual rants where the only thing that comes across is the love he has for his own voice, but politically, he does seem to be adamant to make a stand about something, and to make a stand about anything today is something to admire. Further, he does deliver a point that he is genuinely passionate about quite well. It’s rare to see Paxo on the ropes like that, he took a pummelling.

  9. Sile

    That was well said, don’t know him from Adam, he’s talking from the point of view of someone who is awake, I know cause I’m woke up too a while ago.

  10. Anne

    If Mr. Brand would like to start the redistribution of his wealth by paying my leccy bills, Broadsheet have my contact details.

    Otherwise, his pontificating is all hot air and as much use as a politician’s promise.

  11. Mickage

    What people who spoil votes seem to forget is that party faithful always vote. So that’s why the same old faces always get in.

    And it takes very few votes to get into government. All it takes is more or less the majority of votes cast, even if that is only a 30% turnout.

    So essentially, you can get into government on the votes of less than 10% of the population if you are in a coalition.

  12. C Sharp

    It’s easy to say something is wrong.
    It is not so easy to know how to make it right.

    He is quite right in the problems he is pointing out and should be applauded for that much.
    His attitude toward solving those problems is that of a 16 year old who is only just beginning to read below the headlines.

    Improving things takes intelligence, hard work and a strong will.

    There is no Utopia only a long road toward it.
    Whinging is not activism.
    Not voting is a cop out.

  13. eamonn moran

    One thing for certain is that the UK is much less Democratic in the way it elects people to parliment than we are in Ireland.
    You can become a td in Ireland with about 10% of fist preference votes. Even less if you have a very strong running mate. In the UK you need at least 35%. The Greens, The PD’s or any other new party don’t have a snowballs in the UK. They do in Ireland. In Ireland democracy is lost through undemocratic rules within parliament. Both countries have one thing in Common though. The politicians are not the ones who are actually in charge. And the systems are run mainly for the benefit of the 1%. Not voting because you think the whole system is completely undemocratic is a legitimate point of view in the UK. Some democracies are more democratic than others.

  14. Imagineer

    “I think a socialist egalitarian system, based on the massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations and massive responsibility for energy companies and any companies exploiting the environment…I think the very concept of profit should be hugely reduced”… where every single corporation moves east to a lower cost basis and unemployment reaches epidemic proportion.

    Its a rosy idea in theory but much like the UN a defunct idea unless every single nation signed up and abides by very specific criteria. But for the most, people are greedy by their very nature and in a situation like this, all it would take is one person in power to see that he/she has a huge opportunity to line his pockets. So what do you do, take power from individuals?

    I would never like to have the kind of society that Brand describes. People need incentives and what happens is you disincentives Its bad enough that a huge chunk of the country’s tax contribution goes to a share of people who do not want to work, not the same as those who cannot work). Why should they get a equal share for zero contribution.

    He’s describing a utopia that’s dysfunctional and doomed to fail and as usual doing so through his hole.

  15. goodstart

    Aul Russel has some good points, all he is simply asking for is an open conversation on alternatives to the 1% v’s the 99% schematic.

    Nutiin’ wrong wit’ ‘dat, en I gots time for dat 2.

  16. Paul Wilkinson

    Whatever his sexual orientation, financial status, background or motivation there is one point we cannot deny.

    Brand got up on national TV and said things we all know to be true. And he managed to get Paxman to agree to many of his points, sit back and listen – along with thousands of Youtube/TV viewers worldwide.

    Can Camdom get the same response? No – because he never makes any point of any major benefit to the 99%.

    The major points raised are:

    *That the current system serves the 1% far better than the rest.
    *That voting for a better system has been largely a waste of time over the years. No real ground breaking policy changes have been introduced, just lots of backtracks, taxes and lies to perpetuate top end pay packets.
    *That a huge percentage of the potential voters are disenchanted with the current political system and its ineffectiveness and lack of direct benefit.
    *That historically, whoever gets voted in – you won’t be much better off than the last bunch. It depends how much they raped from the public purse in their last office.
    *That a major change in the system is required to effect any worthwhile benefit for the 99%
    *That nationwide there are terrible injustices and inequalities that are just not being addressed.

    Brand is not the messiah. He will not be elected.

    He is simply able to stretch his vocal chords where the 99% can’t. I don’t care whose voice is making the noise. If someone is telling the truth in our self serving media / political nightmare and being heard – that is a great thing.

    I can watch BBC/CNN/Sky/Fox all day on repeat and not hear anything beneficial/truthful/infatous.

    The fact I just heard it from an eloquent masturbator matters not.

    YOU heard it.

    Therefore it’s a result :-)

      1. Jeremy Kyle

        The comments are moronic. Broadsheet comments used to be mostly good natured, now it’s just who can stick the first lazy boot in. “Wow he doesn’t even vote – it’s all a PR stunt – let’s not even listen”. Jesus Christ. You can’t even make valid points anymore because people are so apathetic that any suggestion that doesn’t actually scratch and claw to maintain things as they are is derided as unrealistic. “

  17. BiBi Basketball

    A ten minute rundown of every simplistic, right-on, populist, half-theory about ‘the man’ and ‘the system’ the internet ever farted out, delivered with the manic self-importance of a coked up undergraduate in a Che Guevara t-shirt after an Occupy protest.

    Brand really can balance all sorts of beach ball on his nose if the attention quotient is high enough.

  18. Buzz

    “I remember I seen you in that programme, where you look at your ancestors. . .”

    I find it difficult to respect the intelligence of anyone who can’t get a handle on basic grammar.

    1. Mikeyfex

      I suggest that that’s more of a colloquialism in this case. He’s far more articulate than I and even I know ‘I seen’ is wrong.

      He hasn’t gone full Redknapp but I’d say saying it like that is just habit.

  19. john77

    A majority of UK adults voted in the last score of general elections; Russell Brand did not bother to vote and wants to over-rule them because he was too busy being a drug addict to vote and his drug-addled opinions are worth more than those of twenty million voters. Unlike me he claims expert knowledge on the decoration of Eton College: I thought that they expelled drug addicts like Brand so how does he know?

  20. Bellend

    Paxman is a prick, always has been and always will be. The voting system is rigged….look at the US….The UK was destroyed by Thatcher, Blair (bLIAR) and Brown (the w*nker signed the rights of every Englishman over to Brussells…ie the Lisbon Treaty…WITHOUT a referendum) and the majority of MP’s are greedy corrupt bastards. No-one is worth voting for as no-one is capable of telling the truth……And yes, I defected from the UK just before it became the prison state it is now and yes it is also me who puts Blair, Brown and Bush’s autobiographies in the criminal section in libraries, airports and bookshops.

Comments are closed.