Skip to main content

Brand shows a new brand of politics

I am no great fan of Russell Brand. His brand (no pun intended) of humour doesn't appeal to me. But his appearance on BBC Question Time last night demonstrated one salient lesson. There is everything to be gained by confronting UKIP directly rather then pandering to the fears they stoke up about migration.  The Tory, Labour and Liberal Democrat strategy of trying to outpace UKIP on this key issue simply tells voters that UKIP have got it right. Russell Brand demonstrated how to challenge UKIP on their own turf.  The audience responded. Yes, it was a divided audience but I had the impression of a sense of release that UKIP had finally been challenged and found wanting.

Brand's style cuts through the usual heavily nuanced political debate around a centre ground that is the size of a pin head.  One of the reasons why voters are turned off politics is that there are few people out there who now make a bold statement that might represent their views, and there are precious few who will try to lead and persuade.  They argue instead about small detail. It runs on the lines of 'yea there is this problem, and yes the Tory party propose the following, but we will do more'. The policies are essentially the same but differ in degree rather than substance. Or so it seems. And if it seems so, then politicians have an up hill battle.

How many time do we hear, as we did last night the arguments over a tiny detail?  Under Labour 5% of NHS services were 'contracted out', now we were told by the Tory minister 6% is. So is the real difference between Labour and Tory simply 1%? The answer to that is no, but the debate last night didn't reveal that. The truth is the substance, nature and motive behind that 6% contracted out is substantially different which is why the BMA this week warned about 'creeping privatisation'.  But why does it matter? It matters because it shifts funds away from NHS departments and if NHS department budgets fall then the ability of the NHS to provide the services expected will diminish. The need for more contracted services will increase, and this is why the BMA warned it was a 'creeping privatisation'

On the program last night we were told of a considerable number of Tory MPs who will gain from such contracting out. This needs further investigation and exposure. The whole process is ethically compromised.

Nigel Farage's trick of damning every other politician was exposed last night. He looked increasingly like an emperor without clothes. It was not a pretty sight.  He expects to go on these programs and have all other politicians pandering to his issues. Last night was different. Brand showed the way. Dare I say it was a new brand of politics - and that pun was intended.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha