Left Foot Forward has joined the political class in slating the name of Russell Brand by publishing an article full of irrelevant points and historical events which have no place in the discussion of voting and the 21st century.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/11/five-times-that-voting-has-made-a-difference/
As a voter, and indeed a centre-right activist, I will not break apart their arguments and contradictions contained within their article:
"It kept the far-right out"
"In 2004, the British National Party narrowly missed out on a seat in the London Assembly, losing by just a handful of votes. In 2008, the party also came close to winning council seats in Amber Valley where the party lost by just a single vote."
The contradiction in this clear: if they were a hand-full of votes away from a BNP elected official then this is a clear indication that the battle for the electorate could have narrowly swung in either direction.
Democracy by vote ALLOWS right-winged and government oppression into the mainstream.
Look at the current coalition - while we may all agree that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were not elected directly to Parliament, it is clear that both parties had won enough seats to form a two-tier government.
Look at the impact of the Conservative polices to the working man; voting can just as much be a source of destruction as it is a power for good.
While I neglect the efficient use of historical instance in my opener, I would also remind the reader that Hitler and the Nazi party were elected to power in a democratic system.
"It made possible the creation of the National Health Service"
Actually, no, it did not.
The will of the people made it possible to form a National Health Service - to label any political party as having created the very core of British health is lackluster; as previously stated on my blog, it is not a political party which is every responsible for change in a nation; political parties merely hop on to causes in the hopes of securing votes, and clearly for such a large movement there were many political influences from both left and right in unity over the need for healthcare reforms.
"There was plenty of ‘revolution’ in Russia... where millions of people were being murdered by Stalin and the Bolsheviks; but the welfare state was created ... by voting."
To deny the revolutionary frequency of the common man in Britain is idiocy; the Labour Party was formed from striking forces and revolutionary desires. The welfare state was formed in fears of such revolution as was being seen across many nations at the time; the best course of action to maintain control of a population is to present citizens with their wishes, more so when much of the male population is trained in combat and on the fly demolition.
In relating to my earlier comments, comparing the early 20th century to the early 21st century is a false comparison in terms of political progression - there are very few philosophies from that period which have not been tainted or removed.
"It kept Labour in power between 1997 and 2010"
Two illegal wars; two nations entirely destroyed. A Prime Minister who was more Thatcherite than Thatcher. The creation of the police state; The establishment of political correctness. The biggest wealth gap deepening since the last Labour government. Education standards plummeting, and generally a nation sinking deeper into a lack of prosperity.
Oh, and the null re-establishment of national services.
"To put it bluntly, Russell Brand has a $2 million dollar mansion ...it therefore makes very little difference to him whether there is a minimum wage or not or whether there are free prescriptions for people undergoing treatment for cancer.
This is not to say that wealthy people don’t often care about such things; but ultimately they do have the option of not caring, whereas poor people don’t. This is why celebrity cynicism should be taken with a pinch of white powder."
The left complain when the wealthy use their influence to fight for the working man, and yet when the famous use their power for progression there is a cause for complaint - please make up your mind in what you want: A complacent wealthy, or a man who is passionate about defending the working background in which he came from but just happens to have been successful in gaining a career?
The very notion that Russell Brand's wealth somehow alleviated him from political discussion is counter to democratic values where every single citizen should have a voice.
The drug reference is in bad taste, especially considering Russell Brand is a recovered addict and spends much time promoting drug awareness and rehabilitation
"Young people get a raw deal from politics precisely because they don’t vote"
Those who vote have a raw deal along with those who do not - all those who voted during the last general election, who were unemployed, disabled, or unfit for work, have been getting the brunt end of a very revolting stick for quite some time now.
To say that the lack of political understanding or compassion for the opinion of the youth is due to not having a vote is absolutely terrible as an example.
" If you don’t believe in voting, what do you believe in?"
Humans are philosophical creatures and have a belief system, even without voting.
If someone does not vote then they are not voided of belief and, to a certain extent, I actually feel that those who are politically active but do not vote are perhaps on a higher thought system than those who do; the majority of votes in each general election are from those who are protesting the actions of the last government, and not those with a deep rooted belief system.
Voting is a archaic system of establishing a ruling order.
"While it may be enough on the celebrity circuit to rally against ‘the regime’ and lazily call for ‘revolution’, if you appear on programmes like Newsnight and in the pages of theGuardian you should expect to have to expand on what it is that you want."
During the interview Russell Brand clearly stated that minds greater than his would be responsible for this -- stop creating a point where there is none.
No comments:
Post a Comment