Ship of Fools: Russell Brand: Mayor of London

Thread: Russell Brand: Mayor of London Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028789

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

Linky-dink.

So, Russell Brand might or might not have said he wants to run for Boris Johnson's job. It's not even a story, just rumour and gossip, but it did set me thinking...

... Would it be so ridiculous for Brand, or someone like him, to stand for Mayor? Would he have a chance of getting voted in?
Might the fact that his scandals and foibles, and his previous history of substance abuse problems make him more scandal-proof in the sense that nobody would be very surprised, or would he be a time-bomb ready to go off, humiliating London in a global context?

Has celebrity been a factor in the past in electing and choosing politicians? Could someone, who does seem like an intelligent person, who's said he "can't get my head around economics", once said voting was a waste of time be a decent choice, or would it be a triumph of celebrity over proper consideration of candidates' policies and likelyhood of fulfilling their promises? Would having Brand, or someone similar, in the Mayoral race in 2016 make a positive or negative difference to the campaigns of all the candidates, and how?
He's said in the past that "voting is a waste of time", and it's said he'd run on an "anti-politics" ticket. Given the increased willingness of the UK public to vote even for the lunatic racists that are UKIP as a protest vote, that could be a cunning plan.

In Scotland, a large segment of the population showed during the Referendum campaign that it is possible for 'ordinary people' (whoever they are) to engage meaningfully with politics. Would London ever engage like this over its Mayoral election, does it really need to anyway, and would having a celebrity from the telly running up its profile in people's eyes or just turn more of them to apathy?

I wasn't thinking of this thread as being solely about whether Russell Brand himself could or should be Mayor of London, but more about the questions that having him run (or elected) might pose - some of which I've wondered about in this post.

(and as an aside bonus question just for fun, which celebrity-type would you vote for as your town's Mayor? [Biased]

)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I fear it would be perfectly possible for someone like Russell Brand to stand for mayor of London, and perhaps to get elected.

Fear? Well, the man is an egotistical, self-publicising oaf. At nearly 40 years of age he still hasn't learned to self-censor: while this can be appealing in a young (under 10) child for a man this is not good or attractive.

His behaviour over the Andrew Sachs affair was disgraceful - moreover he seems to have learned nothing from the experience.

He can't write, can't act and can't sing.

Mayor of London - he'd be disastrous.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I agree with L'Organist. Sad though this man's childhood was, and one can feel sympathetic and all that, as an adult, he shows no signs of having developed any worthwhile qualities or even any aspiration to do so. Even as a comedian, he doesn't manage to be funny.

Back in former times, there was a fad for Scottish university students to elect joke candidates as rectors, but the London Mayor post isn't like that. The London Mayor has real power and is elected so as to exercise it.

On mayors generally, we have an elected mayor here. I voted against the introduction of one in the referendum to decide whether we all wanted one. My internal mental jury is still out on whether it has been an improvement or not.

The one we've got isn't a celebrity. He did though beat all the candidates produced by the party machines, which is a point in his favour.

One of the three major parties, being piqued not to have won, refused for about a year to accept his offer of seats in his cabinet, which is a point to go on holding against them.

I can't see that being a celebrity is in any way a suitable life experience for being a mayor. One might as well have a Barbie.

[ 26. October 2014, 12:52: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I like Russell a lot, and I love listening to him wittering on about something in his rather weird way, but mayor? No way.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

But at least he's not a professional politician, and that counts for a lot. Useless is not great, but mendacious is worse.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But at least he's not a professional politician, and that counts for a lot. Useless is not great, but mendacious is worse.

Now that is a telling point. There are probably no authentic candidates then, except anti-candidates.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I expect Brand has taken his lead from the two previous Mayors, Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson. Both were and remain celebrity politicians to whom party discipline does not come easily.

Russell Brand would be better than his sidekick in the Andrew Sachs affair, the bloody awful Jonathan Ross. The Sachs family hold him to blame more than Brand, principally because he has a family.

I'd have loved to have seen Linda Smith as Mayor. She hated vanity and could demolish Livingstone, Johnson and Brand in 30 seconds each, possibly 30 seconds the lot. Truly the good die young.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Fear? Well, the man is an egotistical, self-publicising oaf.

I think Brand would be a terrible mayor. The above could also be said of the current incumbent though.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

For a brief moment, on reading this thread, I felt a faint liking for Boris Johnson.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Fear? Well, the man is an egotistical, self-publicising oaf.

I was under the impression that these were must-have characteristics for the Mayor of London, or at least the last couple we've had.

(Oops, Chris has already made this point)

[ 26. October 2014, 17:46: Message edited by: Heavenly Anarchist ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The problem is, Boris has proved that a comedian with no political skill can do the job, so Brand is sufficiently qualified.

Unfortunately, Boris makes London politics a joke. Brand would do so, but even more. If the role is to be anything more than a personality role, they need someone with some political clout in the job.

If Brand were to get it, the job would then be a joke, pure and simple.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

There have been more ridiculous things... with the proviso that the chap inside the costume turned out to be rather good at the job!

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

One day, this benighted country might just take politics seriously....

...or maybe not (given that we now have UKIP).

I'll get me coat.

Ian J.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
One day, this benighted country might just take politics seriously....

Yes. Probably a few days after politicians become a byword for honesty and trustworthiness.

Let's be fair. If they aren't going to take anything they say seriously, why the hell should we?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Let's be fair. If they aren't going to take anything they say seriously, why the hell should we?

The problem is that this can then become a kind of counsel of a particular British type of despair consisting of sullen silence.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
One day, this benighted country might just take politics seriously....
Yes. Probably a few days after politicians become a byword for honesty and trustworthiness.

Let's be fair. If they aren't going to take anything they say seriously, why the hell should we?

I'm not sure honesty is such a big issue. Lloyd George was as devious a prime minister as the country has ever had, and the scandals surrounding his honours list should have been enough to persuade Britain to abolish the entire system.

The problem has long been that we vote on the basis of personalities, rather than politics. I suppose Wilson, Thatcher and Blair exemplified this but the party machines now promote people rather than policies.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

He's a West Ham fan so he can't be that bad.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Voting for personalities is a problem, but much less if there are multiple personalities to vote for. We did have Wilson and Heath - and Thorpe, IIRC. They were all personalities in their own way.

The problem we had was that under Thatcher, Labour produced non-personalities as leaders. They may have made excellent leaders, but they were not going to distract from the Tory glamour. Currently, the two leaders in power have the glamour, but Milliband does not. And Labour do not seem to have another personality to bring in.

While people like Cameron the person, and Farage the person, they can spout any crap they like (as they are demonstrating), and people will still support them. That is extremely bad politics.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

Didn't Russell Brand say people shouldn't vote?

Does he know how elections work?

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But at least he's not a professional politician, and that counts for a lot. Useless is not great, but mendacious is worse.

If he's elected, he will be.

Actually, to my mind professional politicians are preferable, on the mendaciousness stakes, to their opposites. A professional politician knows that "these are your options, they are all a bit crap, let me know which one you prefer". Naturally, they don't put it in quite these terms hence "the thick of it" stuff they dress it up with. Anti-politicians, on the other hand, will offer you the moon on a stick and blame mysterious dark forces when they fail to deliver.

Basically, anyone who says, "oo politicians are a bit rubbish" and runs for elected office ought to be taken out and electrocuted. As should the people who vote for them. I can't think of any other aspect of life where blaming an unpopular minority for all our problems has conspicuously succeeded in curing them.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But at least he's not a professional politician, and that counts for a lot. Useless is not great, but mendacious is worse.
Now that is a telling point. There are probably no authentic candidates then, except anti-candidates.

This is interesting - are career politicians less trustworthy than people who've taken up politics? Maybe they're drawn into a political career partly by playing the game, but there must be some good people who went into politics because they genuinely believe that their party's policies are good and will be good for people and the country. Is it impossible for them to maintain this? (It doesn't on the face of it look promising on that front, does it?)

I wonder if being an anti-candidate makes one more authentic. Possibly, as you're not then running on a basis of what you're planning to do, but genuinely on a basis of "vote for me to beat the other people", albeit as a process of protesting against the other people. Once they're voted in do they then cease to be an anti-candidate I wonder, especially in the next election if they stand in that.

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I expect Brand has taken his lead from the two previous Mayors, Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson. Both were and remain celebrity politicians to whom party discipline does not come easily.

...

I'd have loved to have seen Linda Smith as Mayor. She hated vanity and could demolish Livingstone, Johnson and Brand in 30 seconds each, possibly 30 seconds the lot. Truly the good die young.

I think in some ways Red Ken & BoJo's lack of line-toeing has benefited their abilities as Mayor. They've both had the gumption to disagree with their party leaders when they've thought that something other than what The Party decreed was better for London. Personal ambition or evidence of political integrity? Without their celebrity status (even that gained from Celebrity Big Brother or Have I Got News For You or whatever), would they have had the personal currency to do that? Maybe a bit of celebrity can add mass & momentum to a Mayor's ability to get stuff done?

(Linda Smith - yes, she'd have been good. I'd've voted for her in a shot)

Most people posting on this thread aren't enamoured with Russell Brand - so if London's electorate were a mirror of Ship of Fools he's got no chance. I'm trying to conjure an image of him at a big international trade meeting - not sure he'd give quite the impression London might want to make. At least BoJo's Eton training means he's probably at least aware of how to circulate, how to work a room and what expectations at certain types of event are. Maybe elected officials in high positions from the public school old boys' network has some positives?

What if the story were about a different celebrity, one seen to be a nicer person, or less prone to scandal, or funnier or more talented or whatever?
What if Stephen Fry threw his hat into the ring? Ian Hislop? Anton Du Bec? Mary Berry? Pippa Middleton? Richard Osman? Jo Brand?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But at least he's not a professional politician, and that counts for a lot. Useless is not great, but mendacious is worse.
If he's elected, he will be.

Actually, to my mind professional politicians are preferable, on the mendaciousness stakes, to their opposites. A professional politician knows that "these are your options, they are all a bit crap, let me know which one you prefer". Naturally, they don't put it in quite these terms hence "the thick of it" stuff they dress it up with. Anti-politicians, on the other hand, will offer you the moon on a stick and blame mysterious dark forces when they fail to deliver.

Basically, anyone who says, "oo politicians are a bit rubbish" and runs for elected office ought to be taken out and electrocuted. As should the people who vote for them. I can't think of any other aspect of life where blaming an unpopular minority for all our problems has conspicuously succeeded in curing them.

You're right, of course. I believe that the majority of politicians go into politics out of a sense of concern for society - goodwill and idealism, if you like. The cynicism they are shown does us all no favours.

But a couple of days ago I heard a politician being interviewed, quite politely, on the radio, and he just ducked the interviewer's question over and over again. We hear it all the time. 17 times a night Paxman and Howard, or the mythical 'Prime Minister, would you like to answer my first question?' from Thatcher's era are just notable tips of a mighty berg.

And I know that journalists like to find questions that expose and therefore cannot be answered well, and politicians are trapped in a horrible game with them, but something in me rebelled at hearing a politician brazenly ducking and diving.

Who do they take us for? Why are they prepared to show such massive disrespect for us all?

And I increasingly think the answer is that politics has become an irrelevance. The two biggest issues we face are firstly, climate change, and secondly, runaway capitalism expressed in astonishing inequality, uncontrollable global companies and interests, and economic forces no one understands.

Politics as we know it doesn't have the power to deal with either of these - it can't even dream of actions that could make a difference.

So I think that politics is no longer a serious business. It cannot engage with the most important issues, so instead it flaps about at the margins, and people who understand what is going on find other things to do with their lives.

That's why we're talking about Brand.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Some politicians are very good, hard working, committed people, who do a lot of good, quietly, for the people they represent. They tend not to be the ones to get attention, either in the media or their party - too busy doing useful stuff to get appointed to high office. Sadly.

One of the problems with the current problems and crises - climate and global economics - is that no politician can actually do anything about them, especially not within a single term, which is all they think about. This is why I wonder whether democracy can work in this situation. We need people who can take a long-term view to make a difference eventually. Most of the senior politicians are in it for what they can get out of it, for them, now. And screw the future.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
A professional politician knows that "these are your options, they are all a bit crap, let me know which one you prefer".

If a politician actually came out and said that, I'd vote for them.

I'm just trying to imagine what working for Brand would be like. Tricky.

[code]

[ 28. October 2014, 21:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

hatless:

quote:
But at least he's not a professional politician, and that counts for a lot. Useless is not great, but mendacious is worse.

Hypocritical is not much of an improvement, although I grant you that it would help him fit in with the professional politicians. And I can't think of a better adjective to describe someone who says 'don't vote' and then says 'vote for me'.

I'm not saying I wouldn't consider voting for him if I lived in London, but I'd want to see some cast-iron evidence that he's grown up first. Part of the job involves representing London overseas, and he'd go down like a lead balloon in China.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

One time BBC political editor John Cole once said whilst being interviewed that he'd trust the average Westminster MP more than he'd trust the average man in the street. That was quite some years ago though, so maybe he would have revised his opinion by now.

Politicians are salesmen. I was once doing some contract work for a firm who were interested in getting me to join them on a permanent basis. One of the salesman was talking to me about it informally. He was a very good salesman, and was very good at swerving seamlessly around points I made against joining them and staying on message in order to secure the sale. That's all the professional politicians do at every opportunity - stay on message.

As for the choice of

What if Stephen Fry threw his hat into the ring? Ian Hislop? Anton Du Bec? Mary Berry? Pippa Middleton? Richard Osman? Jo Brand?

Ian Hislop - all day long. Not that I live in London...

[ 29. October 2014, 10:06: Message edited by: lowlands_boy ]

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

So back in October I started this thread while thinking about celebrity political involvement. Russell Brand seemed like a flash in the gossip pan.

Since then, he's popped up in lots of protests and so on ( for example, lending support & profile to the E15 Mums, a group whose efforts are worth supporting ). He's even popped up on BBC's "Question Time". (FWIW, the phrase "Pound Shop Enoch Powell" to describe Nigel Farage is really rather good).

Is Mr Brand moving into being politically active, and might he inspire others to get out and man the barricades?
More and more of the watermelon-hued groups I follow on FB seem to be finding shared articles and so on about him, and people of that political persuasion seem to be starting to soften towards him, despite still mutterings about things like his rather ironic choice of publisher (he called for a Topshop boycott over Philip Green’s tax avoidance, but hasn't mentioned the arrangements of Random House) for his "Revolution" book (has anyone here read it? Is it any good? Worth a look or walk on by?).

Some have said that Question Time featuring Brand and the odious Farage has removed the last pretence at it being a serious political programme. Maybe, or maybe it's inevitable in our celebrityophile culture.

Is the man actually making the OP's imagining him running for some sort of actual political office something that isn't just pie-in-the-sky?

FWIW (and that's not much), I reckon he'll carry on for a bit with the activist role - he seems to be enjoying playing it, and adding his profile to things means they get more media attention, which is good in a way.
I feel like I should be more active in protesting stuff I disagree with. I engage in quite a bit of clicktivism, signing petitions, writing emails to my MP sometimes, bits of campaigns Amnesty do, that sort of thing - but I don't ever go out onto the streets or actually do anything. Partly because I don't know anyone else who does, and I'm a bit pathetic and awkward like that, partly because I'm lazy and useless, and partly because there're so many things... how do you decide what to get involved in? Maybe I should be more like Russell Brand and just leap in with both feet anyway.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Nothing has happened since to change what I said on the 26th of October.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

When I look into Russell Brand's eyes in this interview I can't help but see a rather unpleasant man.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

I haven't seen the Question Time show yet as I was out last night, but I'll probably watch it on catch up.

I find Brand to be a bit too wild sometimes, as if he need to calm down a bit. Perhaps he comes across better in writing than in person. His reflection on the QT show here is actually quite good

Russell Brand on Facebook (no need to be an FB member)

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

There must be some parallel with Beppe Grillo in Italy. He's a foul-mouthed comedian who sees an opportunity to further his interests by being an "anti-politician", which more or less means not having a clue.

But he got quite a following. Still has.

Sadly, these folks undermine the case for democracy by making it depressingly clear that lots of voters are muppets. It'll survive, though.

At least Screaming Lord Sutch was sort of likeable.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I haven't seen the Question Time show yet as I was out last night, but I'll probably watch it on catch up.

I find Brand to be a bit too wild sometimes, as if he need to calm down a bit. Perhaps he comes across better in writing than in person. His reflection on the QT show here is actually quite good

Russell Brand on Facebook (no need to be an FB member)

I enjoyed that piece of writing - 'the jeers and the cheers cancel each other out like Bose headphones' is fun. Also the idea of Farage as a tribute act is quite neat.

His actual political statements are not particularly coherent - for example, 'the future is collectivized power' sounds like third-grade Stalinism.

But I'm not sure if anybody's political statements are particularly coherent today - the main parties have nailed their colours to the mast of neo-liberalism, and otherwise, you have to look to the fringe elements.

But I like Russell, even his wildness. Most politicians to me look like the living dead.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Russell Brand has not changed since I last expressed an opinion on him in October.

I'm still mystified as to why he is invited onto Question Time: frankly they'd do better with Mrs Goggins, the well-respected postmistress of Greendale.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

If he becomes elected mayor, they deserve what they get.

The whole idea of an elected mayor is undemocratic because you get an elected dictator, like here in Bristol. He rides roughshod over elected councilors.

Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on :

<tangent> I miss Ken*. He would have been brilliant on this thread. </end tangent>

*the shipmate, not the mayor

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

L'organist:

quote:
I'm still mystified as to why he is invited onto Question Time: frankly they'd do better with Mrs Goggins, the well-respected postmistress of Greendale.

You are making the mistake of thinking that Question Time is serious political commentary, when the aim is merely to mock the actions of the government (to be fair, they often deserve to be mocked) and produce as many soundbites as possible in the time allowed. Once you realise this, the reason for including Russell Brand is obvious.

I miss ken too. [Votive]

[ 16. December 2014, 08:08: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I fear it would be perfectly possible for someone like Russell Brand to stand for mayor of London, and perhaps to get elected.

Fear? Well, the man is an egotistical, self-publicising oaf. At nearly 40 years of age he still hasn't learned to self-censor: while this can be appealing in a young (under 10) child for a man this is not good or attractive.

His behaviour over the Andrew Sachs affair was disgraceful - moreover he seems to have learned nothing from the experience.

He can't write, can't act and can't sing.

Mayor of London - he'd be disastrous.

I agree with all of the above, plus anyone who says that voting is not worth it, goes down in my estimation big time.

He is juvenile and hasn't stood for any elected political office. I remember once someone saying an addict, mentally and psychologically freezes at the age their addiction started and normal service or development is resumed once their addiction stops.

On a more serious note Brand's form of pseudo socialism is actually quite dangerous. Sweeping away all we have is like a child throwing all their toys out of the pram. Bolshevism was tried and failed in 1917 to 1990 in the former USSR.

Saul

[ 22. December 2014, 16:52: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :

I wonder if Russell will look as much of an idiot to the chattering classes as he does now when a Greek style default hits this country.

Rising asset prices fueled by borrowing and falling wages only has one outcome.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Dunno; he's a bit of a twat sometimes but he makes more sense than a lot of politicians, especially the crew of bastards fucking many of my friends over from Westminster at the moment.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

We've heard the mouth and seen the trousers.

That's all folks!

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

As a Yankee, I am not sure I should weigh in, but then when has that ever stopped me.

I couldn't stand Russell Brand for the longest time. I judged him for dumping Katie Perry the way he did, judged him for some bat crazy anarchist blathers I have seen in the news.

Then he interviewed a couple of men from the Westboro Church. He had an huge amount of patience. He actually treated them respectfully, as much as you can somebody who is bats--- crazy and a rageaholic (I am talking about the Westboro peeps here being crazy...)

He also came out answering a question with much tenderness on if the NHS should pay for treating overweight people.

So my take on him is if he can channel that patience and that amount of love he can have for others who are different from him, he might do good on some issues.

I'll get me coat now and show myself out.

[edited to try to make a tiny bit more clear...]

[ 24. January 2015, 17:39: Message edited by: duchess ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Well, if you want a comedian who became an elected mayor, you could do a lot worse than Jon Gnarr , who set up a spoof party called, for obvious reasons, the Best Party, and won the largest block of votes for Mayor of Reykjavik.

His childhood was marred by diagnoses of intellectual disability, and, once cleared of that, showed that one could function adequately despite dyslexia and ADHD. He actively works with people dealing with ADHD.

He celebrated Mayordom by appearing as a drag queen in the Gay Pride March of that year (looking rather like a younger sister of Mrs. Brown!)

And he is a friend of Bjork.

It must be difficult to be a comic when you are provably related to just about everyone in your country.

But he has, by most accounts, been an adequate mayor. I don't know his stance on the Elf Domain that was threatened by the building of a highway a year or so ago. Apparently, there is serious debate about the existence of elves in that country.

Keeps things in perspective.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

It isn't the fact that Brand is a comedian that's a problem. Plenty of people have gone from the stage to politics, including the actor who was upstaged by Bonzo the Ape. No, the issues I have with Brand are his character, his immaturity and the triviality of his analysis. He's a public bar politician, the radical shadow of Nigel Farage.

If he wasn't some sort of celebrity, nobody would care what he thought. Being a celebrity gives you as much title to be listened to on anything else as playing a surgeon in a hospital soap gives you the skills to do a heart transplant.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It isn't the fact that Brand is a comedian that's a problem. Plenty of people have gone from the stage to politics, including the actor who was upstaged by Bonzo the Ape. No, the issues I have with Brand are his character, his immaturity and the triviality of his analysis. He's a public bar politician, the radical shadow of Nigel Farage.

If he wasn't some sort of celebrity, nobody would care what he thought. Being a celebrity gives you as much title to be listened to on anything else as playing a surgeon in a hospital soap gives you the skills to do a heart transplant.

This is probably an extension of my contributions to the 'Class War' thread, but I'd say that Russell Brand is a lounge bar politician.

OTOH Al Murray (who intends to stand against Nigel Farage in the General election in May) does portray a public bar character.

[ 25. January 2015, 15:08: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
This is probably an extension of my contributions to the 'Class War' thread, but I'd say that Russell Brand is a lounge bar politician.

OTOH Al Murray (who intends to stand against Nigel Farage in the General election in May) does portray a public bar character.

I debated this internally before posting and rather agree with you. But as a fainéant man of the people, I suspect he would like to present himself as a public bar man.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0