Russell Brand

[DodgyAgent]

In his case he is probably correct. But what does he think will? Writing a blog? It is not exactly hard to point out the inefficiencies and inequalities in any political setup. However in a democracy you only get to effect change if you get the support of significant number of voters, for which you need a mature, realistic, well-thought-out platform and policies. Otherwise you're just another dilletante mouthing off....

I cannot watch the interview right now, anyone care to summarise his position?

Bending down?

Russell Brand says he had gay sex in a toilet as it was filmed for a TV documentary series exploring social taboos | News.com.au

[DodgyAgent]

My point was that CMD, Cable and the rest of them don't "perform on the global stage" in the sense that although they are on it, they fail to perform.

I would suggest that if you are born with a talent to make people laugh then it is a darn site easier to perform than running a country that is answerable to all kinds of subjective opinions as to whether someone is performing or not.

[amcdonald]

But at least he has earned it by performing on the global stage. More than you can say about most of our ruling elite.

I thought that was the main income stream for Gordon Brown and Tony Blair

[doodab]

There is a nice quote from a guy called Ken Binmore that rather sums up why government ought to consist of "admin bods" rather than rhetoric spouting idealogues.

I hope very much that the scientific study of how societies really work will eventally make the world a better place for our children’s children to live in, by clarifying what kind of reforms are compatible with human nature, and which are doomed to fail because they aren’t.

I do agree with Brand that the adversarial political system we have in this country is inappropriate in the modern world, and I think we should move towards evidence based policy, which of course requires evidence, which of course means that simply "writing a manifesto" without all the facts is a somewhat pointless exercise. I'd also change the relationship between the electorate and those responsible for formulating policy. The policy formulators ought to be experts in their field, appointed primarily on merit, with the elected body functioning as an oversight committee rather than generating a new set of hair-brained schemes every couple of years, because the current system discourages long term strategic thinking and only encourages "evidence of what is most likely to get us elected" based policy.

[doodab]

I would suggest that if you are born with a talent to make people laugh then it is a darn site easier to perform than running a country that is answerable to all kinds of subjective opinions as to whether someone is performing or not.

Yes, one does have to question the wisdom of having a bunch of comedians running the country.

[russell]

One thing he said which was along the lines of,

"Look at the house of commons inside it looks like the inside of Eton or Oxford, so some politicians feel comfortable (elite) and others are intimidated (ex poly MPs).

[DodgyAgent]

Yes, one does have to question the wisdom of having a bunch of comedians running the country.

[Mich the Tester]

The world economy was damaged just as much by feckless governments as by bankers.

+1

Governments grew fat on a mountain of debt, and now we're going to be paying for that decadence for a very long time.

[vetran]

There is a nice quote from a guy called Ken Binmore that rather sums up why government ought to consist of "admin bods" rather than rhetoric spouting idealogues.

The police force (Plebgate, Guildford Four etc) and NHS (Alder Hey & Bristol) are a perfect reason why we shouldn't have such a system. People have to be accountable, this results in spokespeople that the public like and hopefully get things done.

Have you never seen the film Brazil?

What we do have to do is shorten the chain between the public, experts and the Politicians.

[doodab]

The police force (Plebgate, Guildford Four etc) and NHS (Alder Hey & Bristol) are a perfect reason why we shouldn't have such a system.

Given that the cases you mention are all the result of such a system, I don't really see how you can use them as evidence for it's continued existence.

Accountability is the problem. Clearly having the decision makers accountable to the voters, and the same decision makers controlling all aspects of policy, encourages short term populist stupidity in some areas which has knock on effects in others. The NHS is ****ed precisely because of the constant tinkering of politicians. When was the last time someone who actually knew something about healthcare was secretary of state for health? The current incumbent apparently believes in homeopathy FFS.