In this weeks New Statesman Russell Brand edits and rights a lengthy piece. Yes, that Russell Brand. He says he did it because a beautiful woman asked him (That would be Jemima Khan, his rumoured girlfriend). For his theme he chose revolution ‘because the New Statesman is a political magazine and imagining the overthrow of the current political system is the only way I can be enthused about politics.’ He goes on to say;
When people talk about politics within the existing Westminster framework I feel a dull thud in my stomach and my eyes involuntarily glaze. Like when I’m conversing and the subject changes from me and moves on to another topic. I try to remain engaged but behind my eyes I am adrift in immediate nostalgia; “How happy I was earlier in this chat,” I instantly think.
I have never voted. Like most people I am utterly disenchanted by politics. Like most people I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites. Billy Connolly said: “Don’t vote, it encourages them,” and, “The desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever being one.”
I don’t vote because to me it seems like a tacit act of compliance;
To be fair he does have a point. It is not possible to look at politics and not find something to be upset about. But his piece is hard to read and long winded. More about Russell Brand than the state of politics and what should be done. One feels he chose the theme of revolution because he could not make a logical and informed argument about any other aspect of politics. Just tear it down instead, eh, Russell?
Should Brand stick to the entertainment industry?
Brand goes on to say “We have succumbed to an ideology that is 100 per cent corrupt and must be overthrown”. Really? What country does he think this is? Italy?
He even mentions that the London riots were political. They may have started that way briefly but they were more about the need for a new TV in the end.
Being a politician is a hard job. To try and make this world a better place (and plenty of politicians do try) is much harder than being a comedian/actor/whatever. Russel Brands stream of consciousness in The New Statesman reminds me of a teenager who just became angry with the world. What, I think we should ask, did Russell Brand ever do for us? Because I know what politicians do; they get up everyday and they work a proper job. Some of them do it for the right reasons, some of them do it for the wrong ones, some start off good and become corrupt, but so far so the same as every other industry/establishment. I guess what really riled me about Brand’s essay of nothing is this: I have worked in politics. I interned for Zac Goldsmith, I campaigned for Tamsin Omond (her own party, The Commons) and Suzanne Moore (Independent). Both Tamsin and Suzanne would have been great and made a difference. Zac got elected and is doing well in Parliament. (On a separate note, Zac is the brother of Jemima Khan. Small world)
I campaigned for pretty much everyone at the last election apart from the Liberal Democrats, who in my opinion are dirty campaigners, and Labour, who did a lot of damage to the country but never seem to be brought up on it by the press or anyone else, while the Tories still pay for crimes done in the 70s/80s.
I don’t promise to be loyal to a political party as they can all go wrong and lose their way, caring more about being reelected and individual careers than the people they represent. Russel Brand seems to be pro-riot and anarchy. More about tearing things down instead of building them up. He doesn’t offer a solution and if his ‘eyes glaze’ when people talk about politics then how informed can he actually be? Has he done his research?, does he read the newspapers? I am not so sure. I have nothing against Brand. Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him To The Greek were both great, but if you don’t know anything about a subject, best to keep quiet.
It may be that there is no one to vote for, only fools to vote against. But to vote against a fool is better than to not vote at all. And if you are still thinking of siding with Brand and not voting then just remember that he was the guy who dressed up as Osama Bin Laden the day after 9/11 and went to work at MTV, who rightly fired him. That is not exactly sound judgement, is it?
