Now that the "debate" has abated regarding the rant of Russell Brand, I would like to inject some badly needed logic to proceedings. Like many others, I first saw the headlines regarding his discourse with Jeremy Paxman. I subsequently listened to a transcript and struggled to suppress my laughter. He sounded like an angst ridden teenager angry at the world with none of the answers except revolution.
I've never regarded him as anything beyond a clever publicity seeker and saw no difference here so let's consider his argument. In the world according to Brand, nobody would vote because nobody is worth voting for. This is not a new concept because we have had a word to describe such an eventuality for a long time now. We call it anarchy because it results in a state of no government. As such, people do what they want, how they want, when they want and the country quickly descends in to a state of chaos. I don't deny this is an option but history alone warns us to first consider the alternatives. Even without the lessons of history, logic should tell us to vote if only to avoid such an eventuality.
What Brand didn't do was to suggest an alternative to the problems he identified in the politicians of today. To do so might have been more constructive. In 1981, four prominent politicians broke away from the Labour party to form the Social Democratic Party. For a time, they became a real force in British politics and threatened the two party status quo. The point here though is that Jenkins, Williams, Owen and Rodgers were fed up with the Labour party and so decided to offer an alternative. They did so very effectively and achieved great success in changing the perception that there were only two parties in British political life.
In 1993, UKIP was formed by Conservatives fed up with their party refusing to offer a referendum to leave the EU. Disillusioned, they did something about it. They now have a decent chance of holding the balance of power come the next election.
So my point to Brand is this; if you're so fed up with the status quo, do something about it and offer a viable alternative. Anarchy was ok for the punks to sell a few records in the 1970s but doesn't serve people very well.
The vote is worth the same today as ever. It only has a worth if it is used though. That is the point. I don't doubt that most people are fed up with the constant bickering at Prime Minister's questions but disengagement won't do anything about that.
After three and a half years Coalition, I would argue there has been an improvement in that the Tories have been prevented from having it all their own way. The Liberals have held them to account reasonably well and it shows us all a different more mature approach. It can be improved though. The Liberals have long argued for proportional representation and until that happens, we will continue to have our politics dominated by the Tory/Labour Punch and Judy show. I repeat, we will be stuck with this if we don't vote. We might just effect change though if we do vote. So, Mr Brand, what would you rather? More of the same, anarchy or fairness? He has talked the talk but now needs to walk the walk but I don't see him walking...
Compared to Russell Brand, even Nick Griffin assumes a degree of plausibility on the basis that he actually fights for what he believes in. We obviously don't agree with his views but must respect him for the fact that he is willing to stand up and offer them. That is real democracy. We get to see all sections of the political rainbow and cast our vote accordingly. I would point Mr Brand to countries such as Zimbabwe, Egypt, Syria and Pakistan. I could go on but the point is simple. We don't know how lucky we are. It's easy to see the fault in our political elite but not so easy to consider how much worse it could be.
No comments:
Post a Comment