Russell, choosing to vote is the most British kind of revolution there is

[n2doc]

Robert Webb tells Russell Brand: your New Statesman essay has made me rejoin the Labour party.

Dear Russell,

Hi. We’ve met about twice, so I should probably reintroduce myself: I’m the other one from Peep Show. I read your thing on revolution in these pages with great interest and some concern. My first reaction was to rejoin the Labour Party. The Jiffy bag containing the plastic membership card and the Tristram Hunt action figure is, I am assured, in the post. I just wanted to tell you why I did that because I thought you might want to hear from someone who a) really likes your work, b) takes you seriously as a thoughtful person and c) thinks you’re wilfully talking through your arse about something very important.

It’s about influence and engagement. You have a theoretical 7.1 million (mostly young) followers on Twitter. They will have their own opinions about everything and I have no intention of patronising them. But what I will say is that when I was 15, if Stephen Fry had advised me to trim my eyebrows with a Flymo, I would have given it serious consideration. I don’t think it’s your job to tell young people that they should engage with the political process. But I do think that when you end a piece about politics with the injunction “I will never vote and I don’t think you should either”, then you’re actively telling a lot of people that engagement with our democracy is a bad idea. That just gives politicians the green light to neglect the concerns of young people because they’ve been relieved of the responsibility of courting their vote.

Why do pensioners (many of whom are not poor old grannies huddled round a kerosene lamp for warmth but bloated ex-hippie baby boomers who did very well out of the Thatcher/Lawson years) get so much attention from politicians? Because they vote.

more

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-choosing-vote-most-british-kind-revolution-there

[Le Taz Hot]

1. The point Mr. Brand was making

went over the letter-writer's head. All too many people heard Brand saying was "don't vote." I disagree with him of course but he was trying to say what MANY of us here at DU, including me, have been saying for so long and that is, the game is rigged. It's rigged because voting in the primaries consists of a choice between Corporate Whore A and Corporate Whore B and THE VAST MAJORITY in the country don't even get a say-so as to who our nominee will be -- that's up to Iowa and New Hampshire, not exactly bastions of ethnic diversity though I'm sure they're nice places. The solution, of course, would be to have same-day primaries. Of course, we're told that that can't POSSIBLY be because candidates would have to campaign in all 50 states. That would actually be a GOOD thing though I don't want to get off topic here. The real reason is that it's easy to manipulate the process when dealing with only 2 (possibly 3) states than it is to manipulate the process in 50.

George Carlin said it years ago when he said, "We don't have a choice, we have the ILLUSION of choice. We don't have Democracy we have the ILLUSION of Democracy" and he was right and so is Mr. Brand. The system DESPERATELY needs changing but achieving that would be going against the PTB and that would be a monumental uphill battle. Having said that, it's a battle that I've been itching to get at for years.

[sibelian]

2. I don't think the point went over Webb's head. Or anyone else's.

It's more that the whole rigged system view is, while entirely true, entirely banal in comparison with the disastrous proposition that the one tiny bit of influence that we all DO have should be thrown away.

It's like being presented with a choice of being punched in the face or shot, and refusing to choose, thus being shot.

[Le Taz Hot]

4. My interpretation is that Mr. Brand was saying

that participating in the current system is engaging in the illusion of choice and that's what he was urging young people not to engage in -- basically, the status quo which just perpetuates the problem. The longer it goes on the more entrenched it becomes and the harder I is to dislodge it. I agree that Brand didn't make a strong enough case for getting involved in activism and that's where I agree with this author.

I thought the inference that Baby Boomers "cashed in" (or whatever the terminology was) during better economic times doesn't match the stats for that group. I think stats will point out that many of us are stretched to the max taking in elderly parents AND children/grandchildren who can't find decent-paying jobs. We were the first to be let go during the downturn and we're the last ones being hired -- often at a 75% reduction in wages.

[sibelian]

5. There isn't an illusion of choice. There IS a choice.

The illusion is what the choices ARE. But there is a choice.

Democracy isn't replaceable. All the alternatives fail dismally. Even if the democratic process is poisoned, there's no way of ripping it out and transplanting something else without extremists getting in and fucking everything up. The only way is to cure the system.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. There is no choice

when faced with voting for Corporate Whore A and Corporate Whore B. We the People are still going to get fucked over it's just that one will do it more slowly than the other.

I'm not suggesting we REPLACE Democracy but you have to admit it DESPERATELY needs tweaking and one of the places we need to start is in the way the primaries are set up. Another is to get the League of Women Voters to host REAL debates again and let ALL candidates in and yes, that includes Greens and Libertarians. Another is to ensure that the major political parties STAY OUT of the primary process until the People choose the candidates instead of having candidates pre-ordained for us. Those are three off the top of my head. The point is that the status quo is not working for the 99% and it's up to the 99% to fix that.

You write, "The only way is to cure the system." I think you and I are in agreement here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. I think your viewpoint is American; remember both Brand and Webb are British

and are talking about the British system. So primaries don't really exist (they're having a few experiments with what are effectively primatires in a few constituencies, but it's up to each party to organise). And the role of money in elections is different too (there is, for instance, a ban on political TV ads).

My reaction to Brand was that he seems to have dismissed the Green Party in the UK without thought. Their policies are roughly what he thinks; they get enough votes in the European elections for an MEP in both the London and South East England regions; and they now control the local council in Brighton, where one of the 2 MPs is Caroline Lucas of the party. So they are a party that is on the verge of getting national significance; but that is not helped by potential supporters saying "no-one I feel could represent me will ever get elected, so I'll never bother voting". And Brand's failure to say what he thinks the alternative is does make his message look more like apathy than revolution.

[Fumesucker]

3. I disagree that politicians listen to the wealthy and influential because they vote

Politicians listen to the wealthy and influential because that's who they hang with, that's who they know and that's who they spend several hours a day fundraising from.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. He's talking not about the wealth and influential, but about comfortable middle class pensioners

and their bigger influence on politics is indeed largely about the way they are far more likely to vote.

[Fumesucker]

11. But the middle class is getting the shaft too

The 1% are using a minimal amount of lubricant with the middle class so far, eventually they'll get the same treatment as the poor.

In retrospect it's become obvious to me that the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the worst things ever to happen to the 99% in America.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Perhaps, but voting does help that 'lubrication'

which is part of Webb's point - don't vote, or say "Labour is just the same as the Conservatives", and you get really shafted.

[geek tragedy]

6. Anyone dumb enough to refrain from voting because a C-list celebrity like Brand

ranted words to that effect is probably dumb enough that their absence at the polls won't be missed.

[CJCRANE]

10. Brand started an interesting debate

(or at least reignited an old one), now other people are having their say.

It's all good.