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

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

A time for every purpose

All life moves. Or, more precisely, all life moves purposefully.  This is true even for trees and plants.  Movement is essential for maintaining life.  Animals migrate; plants disperse.  Some form of migration is an ingredient of all life.  For many organisms, it is a key function of reproduction.  We don't reproduce merely to create a new organism, but also to disperse the population - finding new fertile ground, or resources. Reproduction is a form of migration. Reproduction isn't merely to replicate. Reproduction produces change and diversity.  While we may have strong resemblences in families, we also have differences.  Creating a difference is how evolution works.  In this sense, nature is a continuous exploratory process, finding what works best.  Nature senses change and responds.  Some of this is immediate and physiological or behavioural; some of it is over generations.  If we look at a forest over long periods of time, we would see that it shifts. There is a movement