-:Undertaker:-
11-12-2014, 07:00 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11287104/Russell-Brand-should-be-more-like-Nigel-Farage-and-stand-for-election.html
Russell Brand should be more like Nigel Farage - and stand for election
The Ukip leader and the celebrity revolutionary have a lot in common, but James Kirkup says there's still one big difference that needs to end
http://images.radiotimes.com/namedimage/It_s_Nigel_Farage_v_Russell_Brand_on_Question_Time .jpg?quality=85&mode=crop&width=620&height=374&404=tv&url=/uploads/images/original/63836.jpg
It’s probably a statement of the obvious to say that Russell Brand and Nigel Farage have a lot in common, but the similarities go well beyond superficial populism. It’s not just the rage against the Establishment, the Westminster parties, the mainstream media conspiring to twist their words and ask impertinent questions about their personal lives and finances. It’s not just the idea that big companies and big power are colluding against the little guy.
There’s also the often-overlooked issue of age. Each is a spokesman for a generation. Mr Brand channels angry 20-somethings who feel left out of a system that isn’t working for them economically. Mr Farage does the same for angry 60-somethings who feel left behind by the same system, which isn’t working for them culturally.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03135/RBVenn_3135091c.jpg
Still, there’s one big and vital difference between the two. Whatever you think of Mr Farage, he puts his money where his mouth is. He stands for election. He’s been a parliamentary candidate several times, and will be so again. He’s a member of the European Parliament because his name was on the ballot paper in the last European elections. And when his term ends, should he stand again, his electorate will again have the chance to pass judgement on his performance.
None of this can be said about Mr Brand. Yes, he’s got 9 million followers on Twitter, a zillion Facebook friends and any number of viewers on YouTube. But popularity isn’t quite the same thing as political legitimacy. And it’s certainly not the same thing as accountability. If Mr Farage does or says things that a majority of his electorate find to be hateful or stupid, he gets sacked. If he doesn't convince people, he painfully and publicly fails to get elected. If Mr Brand does or says things most people consider moronic or silly, what consequence does he face?
Obviously, there’s a difference between being a political commentator and a political participant, and the world needs both. But Mr Brand appears to have pretensions towards being the latter. He’s certainly adopted many of the trappings of a politician. It''s not just going on Question Time. He even published a “manifesto” last year. Yet so far, he’s not subjected himself and that “manifesto” to the rigours of election. He’s trying to have his cake and eat it.
That can’t go on. There’s a general election coming, and Mr Brand should be a candidate in it. If he wants to go head-to-head with Mr Farage and the rest, to be treated as their equal, he should show the same courage they do in submitting themselves to the people for judgement. Russell Brand should stand for Parliament.
I don’t say this as some sort of rhetorical point-scoring exercise. I actually wish Mr Brand would get involved in representative politics. As someone who cares about politics, I’d love to see some of the energy and enthusiasm his fans have for him brought into a system often lacking both. Would he be found out, exposed as a glib half-wit playing at politics to stave off the boredom of empty celebrity? Maybe. Or would he be gloriously vindicated, swept into office by an electorate listening to his call for change? Maybe.
Either way, Mr Brand should stop playing at politics and try actually doing it for real. It's time to be more like Nigel, Russell. Man up, and put your name on the ballot paper.
Should be a mildly interesting one this, enough to get me to tune in anyway... I no longer really watch Question Time anymore because the audiences are usually packed with members of the 'public' who just happen to be PR people for the political parties. :P
Still, both have views that appeal to huge numbers of the population but which aren't represented by the mainstream parties.
Thoughts? It's on BBC One or Two from 10:30pm tonight.
Russell Brand should be more like Nigel Farage - and stand for election
The Ukip leader and the celebrity revolutionary have a lot in common, but James Kirkup says there's still one big difference that needs to end
http://images.radiotimes.com/namedimage/It_s_Nigel_Farage_v_Russell_Brand_on_Question_Time .jpg?quality=85&mode=crop&width=620&height=374&404=tv&url=/uploads/images/original/63836.jpg
It’s probably a statement of the obvious to say that Russell Brand and Nigel Farage have a lot in common, but the similarities go well beyond superficial populism. It’s not just the rage against the Establishment, the Westminster parties, the mainstream media conspiring to twist their words and ask impertinent questions about their personal lives and finances. It’s not just the idea that big companies and big power are colluding against the little guy.
There’s also the often-overlooked issue of age. Each is a spokesman for a generation. Mr Brand channels angry 20-somethings who feel left out of a system that isn’t working for them economically. Mr Farage does the same for angry 60-somethings who feel left behind by the same system, which isn’t working for them culturally.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03135/RBVenn_3135091c.jpg
Still, there’s one big and vital difference between the two. Whatever you think of Mr Farage, he puts his money where his mouth is. He stands for election. He’s been a parliamentary candidate several times, and will be so again. He’s a member of the European Parliament because his name was on the ballot paper in the last European elections. And when his term ends, should he stand again, his electorate will again have the chance to pass judgement on his performance.
None of this can be said about Mr Brand. Yes, he’s got 9 million followers on Twitter, a zillion Facebook friends and any number of viewers on YouTube. But popularity isn’t quite the same thing as political legitimacy. And it’s certainly not the same thing as accountability. If Mr Farage does or says things that a majority of his electorate find to be hateful or stupid, he gets sacked. If he doesn't convince people, he painfully and publicly fails to get elected. If Mr Brand does or says things most people consider moronic or silly, what consequence does he face?
Obviously, there’s a difference between being a political commentator and a political participant, and the world needs both. But Mr Brand appears to have pretensions towards being the latter. He’s certainly adopted many of the trappings of a politician. It''s not just going on Question Time. He even published a “manifesto” last year. Yet so far, he’s not subjected himself and that “manifesto” to the rigours of election. He’s trying to have his cake and eat it.
That can’t go on. There’s a general election coming, and Mr Brand should be a candidate in it. If he wants to go head-to-head with Mr Farage and the rest, to be treated as their equal, he should show the same courage they do in submitting themselves to the people for judgement. Russell Brand should stand for Parliament.
I don’t say this as some sort of rhetorical point-scoring exercise. I actually wish Mr Brand would get involved in representative politics. As someone who cares about politics, I’d love to see some of the energy and enthusiasm his fans have for him brought into a system often lacking both. Would he be found out, exposed as a glib half-wit playing at politics to stave off the boredom of empty celebrity? Maybe. Or would he be gloriously vindicated, swept into office by an electorate listening to his call for change? Maybe.
Either way, Mr Brand should stop playing at politics and try actually doing it for real. It's time to be more like Nigel, Russell. Man up, and put your name on the ballot paper.
Should be a mildly interesting one this, enough to get me to tune in anyway... I no longer really watch Question Time anymore because the audiences are usually packed with members of the 'public' who just happen to be PR people for the political parties. :P
Still, both have views that appeal to huge numbers of the population but which aren't represented by the mainstream parties.
Thoughts? It's on BBC One or Two from 10:30pm tonight.