Thanks for the insulting triple post, but I've already answered this. Cameron fails to represent vast swathes of his own voters, which is why many of them won't be voting for him next election.

And then you're slipping into your "A or B" mode again akin to "Brand doesn't represent a political party, so therefore he shouldn't have a voice". That's just a subjective opinion mate. If you don't like what Brand is saying, either wait until he goes away, or put down your copy of The Sun. You're contributing to the coverage he apparently doesn't deserve by your inability to stop talking about the man.

The coverage of him and his opinions is very negative anyway, which of course unbeknownst to you, is part of the reason you have steam coming out of your ears about him. A core element of the 'voice' being given to him is from influential billionaires like Murdoch who want to tear him apart on a front page because they don't like being put under the spotlight. Froth at the mouth about that instead of doing their dirty work for them.

Edited by sanitycheck (05 Dec 2014 9.23am)

Sigh.

You haven't "answered" this. Indeed, your failure to grasp the point suggests that either you really are rather dim or that I am arguing it increidbly badly.

Let me try one more time.

In my opinion, for someone's political view to deserve media coverage they must either:

1. have a legitimate platform

or

2. have something particularly valuable to say

otherwise they belong on 'Any Answers' (or, indeed, an internet message board) with the rest of the plebs.

The first is patently true of Cameron. He has a platform. So does Nigel Farage. It is irrelevant that voters are deserting the former for the latter. The point is that lots of people voting for them gives them a legitimate platform. This is how things work in a parliamentary democracy.

If nobody votes for the Conservatives, then Cameron loses his platform. Which is why people who do not hold such a platform must be scrutinised more on the value of what they say. If Cameron were not leader of the Conservatives, his views would hold a lot less weight. And if he was getting as much coverage as Russell Brand I'd be questioning that too.

It is not only leaders of political parties who have a platform. This is why you see union leaders, business leaders, religious leaders and so on on radio and tv discussion shows.

I fail to see what platform Brand has. Who does he represent? What organisation does he lead? If his book sells a few million copies, then that is arguably a platform. But as far as I can tell, his platform is that he is in well known and in the public eye. This simply doesn't qualify him in my opinion.

Or do you accept that he does not have such a platform?

Do you think he has something valuable to say?

I do not. And not because I don't like him as a person. I have listened to several interviews with him and a 45 minute radio programme where he described his book in great detail. I think his views lacks substance. I think they are a hotch-potch of superficial stuff, which is vaguely collectivist and vaguely anarchic in nature, but which folds when put under any scrutiny. His views on rejecting democracy were challenged on the radio programme. His answers failed to convince me. His proposals seemed immature and impractical, certainly compared to the positions advocated by the other people on the show. Finally, I think his view is nihilistic and could actually be dangerous if it were taken to the extreme.

Incidentally, you can listen to the show here:

[Link]

Please explain either

1. What platform does Russell Brand have that make his views more legitimate than those of your average punter?

2. What makes his position so valuable that people ought to listen to what he has to say?

Misleading. Please don't put into quotation marks something I have not said. This is a false paraphrasing of my position. I said he needs a legitimate platform, not that he has to represent a political party. Again I ask you to explain what platform he has.

Is that how you think debate should work? Don't like what someone says? Wait until they go away.

Or: challenge what they say and the legitimacy of the platform from which they say it.

Your characterisation of me as a reader of 'The Sun' and of "doing the dirty work" for "influential billionaires like Murdoch" is desperate, ad hominem stuff which doesn't deserve a response.

This is of course a very good point. And I shall therefore be concluding my contribution to this thread today.

Edited by Johnny Eagles (05 Dec 2014 10.10am)

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

Exactly this. The fact of the matter is, within systems like ours, if you have enough money and power you can influence the entire political spectrum. Of course people get distracted by what's put front of shop, so they end up getting angry about the wrong things. An illusion of choice is held in place, while the issues that impact the lives of us all remain.

I'm with you on Brand too to a point. He's pushed to the fore to suggest that those holding alternative outlooks are madcap. People don't seem to understand that the coverage is very negative for a reason other than who Russell Brand is. Essentially this is the only way non establishment views are allowed to be presented to us on a mass scale. Still, if we shoot down people who are placed in the cross hair for that very reason, I don't think that's a useful way to react. People getting angry at Russell Brand are missing the point entirely.

But I'm not talking about influence over government. I'm talking about influence over public opinion. For which the biggest single factor is coverage in the media.

Pressure groups deserve media coverage depending, I would say, on the two criteria I mentioned.

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

Again, often the coverage of Brand is negative. He's being pushed to the fore to discredit people with those ideas, not to say "aren't these ideas valuable". Do you think when he appears on the front page of Murdoch owned papers it's to "help" Brand spread his word? Brand has very little influence over public opinion compared to people with actual power and serious money.

Where people ever dare to take him seriously, or anything he's affiliated with it's despite this, not because of it.

I don't agree entirely.

I think the Daily Mail has got it in for him. I disapprove of this. I disapproved of the way the Channel 4 reporter went in for a cheap shot.

But the BBC kind of fawns over him. Giving him a place on 'Start the Week' is far from hostile coverage. They have also made him their unofficial spokesperson on the debate about legalisation of drugs based on... er, based on what again? Has he done lots of secret research into the subject that we don't know about?

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...