Just watched QT. Tried hard to be objective.

I thought:

Russell Brand played the man not the ball in swiping at Nigel Farage. He didn't engage with the questions much and got found out by the bloke who asked him why he wouldn't stand for parliament (but given the state of the shouty idiots in the audience you have to wonder what sane person would want to listen to them moan at you for a living).

He made his populist lefty points well enough. They were simplistic but no more simplistic than any one else's except maybe the journalist.

He's actually gone (very slightly) up in my estimation. I think he does care and he does actually bother. If only the world were as simple as he'd like it to be but as it isn't it probably does need people like him.

I'd still vote for Nige over him any day though.

You've got to hand it to him. I mean, he's masterfully constructed this image of himself as a champion of the people. Whilst the majority of adults see him for what he is, he has a strong base of popularity among many naive, young people and he's exploiting it to great effect. Regardless of the whole 'Champagne Socialist' tag that's rightly been pinned onto him, he continues to build his profile through promoting some tenuous connection he has with the working man and disillusioned youth. Anyone watching QT last night can't have missed his syrupy use of the term 'mate', not to mention the clasping of hands together as if in prayer which surely communicates his sincerity.

He addresses ills in the Westminster establishment recklessly but sensationally (because that sells books), advises all young people to boycott elections (which would lead to minority parties he purports to detest gaining the ascendancy), then laments the lack of a clear choice between the parties (yet, in the next breath, he's slating the one party promoting an obvious deviation from the political norm in UKIP).

But his cleverness lies in his ability to critique the establishment and then, when picked up on his suggestions or challenged on matters of substance, he stands back and protests that he's 'not a politician'. Or at least I'd like to think he's clever, because the only other conclusion is that some people are incredibly thick.

Even his appearance on Question Time appeared to improve your perception of him, which I was surprised about really because I thought it was a complete disaster .

The trouble with many posts on here, like the guy you responded to is that it offers little other than a carbon copy of what you could see on any of the other 30 odd pages. At least an element of balance enters into your critique of Brand. Even his appearance on Question Time appeared to improve your perception of him, which I was surprised about really because I thought it was a complete disaster .

Concerning the 'tired anti elite rhetoric', if we go back to the days of the bail out and bankers bonuses people were all for this. People didn't want huge reckless loses to be socialised and profits privatised. They didn't want more avenues of influence for the few and none for the common man. They realised for a second that we'd been royally f***ed over. That's all forgotten about now because so many are hanging their hat and hopes on UKIP, but little has actually changed. Both of these aspects of society still need addressing and just because the narrative has been solely pushed to immigration, these other problems don't go away.

The irony is, the most likely scenario due to the voting system is that mass support for UKIP will come to very little. When that hope is gone, will it be okay to start talking about the structure of government itself and who they really work for again? Of how your vote 'doesn't count' and hence there is no real choice? Will that be back in vogue then, and suddenly not simplistic and for 'students' and 'idiots' as several others have pointed in this thread. I suspect that it will.

Edited by sanitycheck (13 Dec 2014 12.52pm)

You really think that the revenue he creams off the whole issue is just a side issue? You don't see his book entitled 'Revolution' as exploiting the situation. I respect your views and I don't wish to be a cynic but I find the idea that he's genuinely concerned and right to express his far-fetched suggestions hard to swallow.

Edited by SwalecliffeEagle (13 Dec 2014 3.18pm)

All profits are going to social causes. But of course that won't be good enough, because like the peeling back of layers of an onion it'll be 'prove it', then 'causes for druggies though', then 'well he has enough money anyway so what does it matter' and 'but it still boosts his profile, that's the only reason he's really doing it'. If your mind is made up about someone, it doesn't matter what they do even when it helps others. Just because you dislike someone it doesn't mean they perpetually operate via pure self interest.

Edited by sanitycheck (13 Dec 2014 4.27pm)