I was recently directed towards a YouTube video in which Nigel Farage and Russell Brand went ‘head to head’ on the Question Time TV Programme.
Mr Farage has a political perspective I personally have issues with and would not consider myself in any way shape or form a supporter.
Mr Brand, well I’m not overly enamoured with him either. I do appreciate that his comedic faces and campaigner role are somewhat different and would, in likelihood, side more with many of his political and social ideals.
However, this video does bring into focus one of the key issues to be considered in any debate – the ability to stay with the question and lead into the presentation of more considered information. We frequently accuse our politicians of galloping around issues and never addressing the questions we ask. We also accuse them of subverting important discussions by finding the opportunities to attack their opponents.
I would like to think that the “moral high ground” belongs those who can formulate arguments; counter false or misquoted information and avoid personal attacks.
Question Time 11/12/14
Here we see two agendas clashing over one question.
Whilst I may agree with Brand’s opinions on ‘corruption’, I think there may well have been other ways to deal with Farage’s comments on ‘immigration’ and ‘this crowded country’ rhetoric.
The real ignorance behind the immigration question was potentially scuppered by Brand’s agenda for discussion. Moreover, his attack on Farage and not the issue set a precedent for how this debate could develop.
Brand’s own economic position, not necessarily because of privilege but because of effort, makes his well-meaning statements of ‘coming from the same streets’ seem more disingenuous than they are.
Other commentators have noted …
In the wake of the Question Time episode, one journalist concluded that neither Brand nor Farage emerged victorious, with the former accused of “preaching”, while a supporter of Brand wrote that the comedian was out of his element: “I’m not saying he didn’t make an impact. I agree with most of what he has to say, and I’m glad he was on Question Time—in the heart of the establishment—saying it. But in terms of his performance or identity, he looks caught between two stools.
Now, why am I using such an ‘old piece of news’?
Well, we can learn from the past can’t we?
More importantly, some of the issues raised back then are and will continue to be issues into 2018 and beyond. If we want to challenge a political regime then we need to unpick their arguments and expose rhetoric for what it is. This means to use information in a focused way rather than preach our facts at every opportunity no matter what the topic of debate.
As I write the media have just called May, our erstwhile PM, ‘Teflon Theresa’ and she is not the first or last politician who has a non-stick coating.
Revolution, Political and Social change is happening and the interesting question is HOW we can effectively promote global humanitarian revolution wherein the ‘leaders’ are personally congruent with their ‘preaching’ and can thus lead by example.
Nuff Said for now ….