Log in

So the big rebuttal to Russell Brand is... "vote New Labour"?… - Steve's random and often belligerent Journal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Uncle Steve

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Links:| [Unconsidered Trifles] [Post a Secret] [The Independent] [BBC News] [Guardian] [BBC photos page] [Cat Town] [Get Human] [The Slant] [The Onion] ]
[Best:| [The Greatest Fantasy Novel Ever Written, etext] [CD: 'Has Been'] [Patricia McKillip] ]
[Food:| [RealGoodTaste Blog] [cocoa-loco] [Artisanduchocolat] ]
[Charity:| [The UK Wolf Conservation Trust] [London Wildlife Trust] [sweet-charity.net] ]
[Misc:| [The only link to 'Celtic' history/myth you need] [Chambers' Book of Days] [Awesome online board games shop from Canada] [EchoBazaar browser game] ]
[My Pages:| [MY PHOTOGRAPHY] [Facebook] [We Heart It] ]
[Wishlist:| [MY WISHLIST!] ]

[Oct. 30th, 2013|07:03 pm]
Uncle Steve
[Tags|, ]

So the big rebuttal to Russell Brand is... "vote New Labour"?

Really, that's it, that's all they've got. "Stay within the system, pretend your vote means anything, these other guys are different enough that they make it a democracy, honest."?

Pathetic. New labour ARE the status quo. A vote for New Labour is a vote for No Change. Sure, the Tories are actively trying to kill us and the public will choose Labour next time to get them out, so we'll have the same as the 15 years before the 'Coalition' for the next 5. But none of that addresses a single thing Russell Brand said.

"Revolutions are scary!" - sure, so let's hand power back to the party who oversaw the biggest erosion of civil liberties in the name of "security" in living memory, because feeling safe is more important than change. The party who generated all the Orwell references in the first place with CCTV and terror laws and ID cards and ignoring public protest over war. Orwell was someone who had a lot to say about rigged systems too, and the illusion of choice, and those in authority creating systems where any possible outcome was safe for them. Brand calling attention to the fact that your vote is so compromised as to be worthless is hardly showing an ignorance of that. Let's be clear here: Labour are the fucking enemy, they are the establishment, and they are not a group that any Unions should be paying money to. If either they or the Tories get in, the banks win.

Voting simply legitimises the two allowed parties and the whole system. Are politicians scared of your vote? Sure, but only in very big numbers in the right places in the country, where anything counts. But that's only politicians, and they're irrelevant. They don't change anything - oh, a billion here or there on different projects, but it's surface detail. You think Labour will "heavily tax the rich and reduce wealth inequality"? They can't. The people the UK owes money to, and the international finance system, wouldn't allow it - we bet everything on our financial sector instead of production, and now we're here. Us arguing over which politician sits on which bench in the room is just deciding which hood ornament to use, and yes, okay - the tiny sums of money the Tories are having to raid because they can't touch pensions etc are hitting the disabled and poor at critical levels, and that needs to be stopped. But none of it is anywhere near 5% of the change that Brand is talking about.

Revolution isn't safe, but luckily what was mooted was a revolution of values which leading to egalitarian socialism. Will this be allowed to come about peacefully? Maybe. How would we do it? He doesn't claim to be the right person to decide. But what he's absolutely right about is not pretending that your vote gives you power, or that joining a centre-right party in order to defeat the Tories is a meaningful democratic choice.

Voting should MATTER, goddammit, and right now your (UK) vote cannot bring about change. It's symbolically important, the struggle to get it was important, but if you're a liberal in this country then your vote has been reduced to an extent that should make you seethingly angry. I voted. I will vote again. I would much prefer people to see the reality and march for actual representation as a result of Brand's words though, not spend all the energy on the one thing everyone knew would derail it.

[User Picture]From: bronchitikat
2013-10-31 10:21 am (UTC)
Time was when Labour was a real Alternative. Trouble was that time was back in 1947, or the 60s. The party has gotten all 'respectable' and full of professional types since. Quite possibly because there are so few industries in Britain these days - well done Maggie, so very few Trades Unionists.

These days going into politics seems to be a short cut to the gravy train, though I hope some still do so on principle.
(Reply) (Thread)