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 balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …