Brand Marketing

Russell Brand's appearance on Newsnight seems to have caused quite a stir and gained a lot of whatever is the internet equivalent of column inches.

Admittedly a lot of it is people saying that they always thought he was a tosser and this only confirms their opinion. What is more interesting is that so many people seem to agree with him that there is little point in voting, that all the main parties are the same, that there seems to be a lot acceptance that it is all Indian Bicycle Marketing, even if most people are unfamiliar with this term, for instance:

"The reason these coalitions are so easily achieved is that the distinctions between the parties are insignificant. My friend went to a posh "do" in the country where David Cameron, a man whose face resembles a little painted egg, was in attendance. Also present were members of the opposition and former prime minister Tony Blair. Whatever party they claim to represent in the day, at night they show their true colours and all go to the same party."

With even the minority parties, like UKIP, the Greens and the BNP steering a narrow centrist, statist course, avoiding both the Scylla of upsetting the banks and big business and the Charybdis of upsetting the homeowners and landowners, how could it be otherwise?

Some say that the reaction to Russell shows there is a huge untapped area of political support represented by those disillusioned by the present system which is not being exploited, because there is no-one who the refuseniks can feel they can vote for, no-one that anyone's heard of to head up such an anti-status-quo party. But is there?

When people are suggesting that a tosser like Brand should be a new political force, it shows how desperate things are. Problem is, Brand refuses to take part in the system, he even refuses to vote and he is encouraging others not to vote or take part either:

… my friend's 15-year-old son wrote an essay for his politics class… he prefers the idea of spoiling ballots to not voting "to show we do care" maybe he's right, I don't know. The reason not voting could be effective is that if we starve them of our consent we could force them to acknowledge that they operate on behalf of The City and Wall Street; that the financing of political parties and lobbying is where the true influence lies; not in the ballot box.

so he's unlikely to put himself up for election, which is the ultimate triumph of Indian Bicycle Marketing. Nor is he likely to be right about forcing the politicians to acknowlege anything - "If you want to send a message, use Western Union", as Sam Goldwyn rightly said - politicians don't care how many people vote for them, so long as they win.

The most depressing thing which independent or small party candidates hear when canvassing is: "Well, I like what you are saying, but I still won't bother voting for you. All politicians are the same once they get into power, and you'd be no different." Something amply confirmed by the behaviour of the Lib Dems, for years the "alternative party" of choice.

Intentionally or otherwise, Big Politics has got the UK just where it wants it, in a system that favours incumbents whilst making life very difficult for competition start-ups. Sounds familiar?
-----------------------
Brand gets a bonus point for this one, an ad hominem attack familiar to land value taxers:

"When I was poor [a tenant] and I complained about inequality [supported LVT] people said I was bitter, now I'm rich [a homeowner] and I complain about inequality [support LVT] they say I'm a hypocrite."