It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Deputy PM Nick Clegg rows with Jeremy Paxman over Russell Brand

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   
So, those of you who are already familiar with Jeremy Paxman will know that he has been quite involved with politics and politicians for number of years now. His hard nosed interviewing style has seen many established politicians crumble under his questioning.

More recently Paxman was seen to become unusually overwhelmed by comedian/actor Russell Brand when arguing points made about the UK voting system and the political parties it represents.

Find the ATS thread here.

The argument put forward by Brand was strong enough to withstand Paxman's scrutiny and, I feel, ultimately affected Paxmans views.


The presenter, 63, revealed he once did not vote because the choices were so "unappetising" and said politicians' burning desire to order people about was "one of the many reasons they are so odd".

Link

Since the Brand interview Paxman has now come under fire from UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.


Nick Clegg criticised Jeremy Paxman on Thursday for being "sneering about politics", while at the same time making a good living from Westminster. The Newsnight presenter treated all politicians as "rogues and charlatans", Clegg said.

Link

I felt this defensive reaction from a high ranking politician was real interpretation of the current fear that exists internationally within political regimes. We all know a number of countries over the past few years have started revolutions through realisation of repetitive regimes that provide no real change. Brand speaks of revolution in his discussion with Paxman, and the media attention the whole interview has received will have no doubt encouraged some of its recipients to agree to the message Brand was promoting.

This must have the current government a little concerned. I think it's interesting that they attack Paxman. I wonder if it's because of the fact he was swayed by Brand's arguments which puts the spotlight on a topic to a whole new public demographic. I feel the defensive response is an attempt to taint Paxmans view by almost suggesting he's only in it for the money and the popularity of his TV show.


Clegg was scathing when asked about Paxman's comments, telling listeners: "Here is a guy who gets paid a million pounds, thereabouts, paid for by taxpayers. He lives off politics and he spends all his time sneering at politics."

Link

I personally found Brands interview a breath of fresh air. I'm not 100% sure about his opinions in regards to revolution, but I do think he has to be seen as 'extreme' in his views in order to catch the public's attention. I think he's emphasising the fact that, ultimately, there is another option to choose from.

I think the fact that Paxman was overcome by Brands well constructed and honest argument showed that even the older and experienced generation are beginning to lose faith in the system. To add to that, the overall media attention received by the combined followers of both Brand and Paxman, brought this to the screens of millions of people who have probably never considered any alternatives to their current political systems. Something, I'm sure, the government and its parties aren't too happy about.




posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I find it desperately disappointing that our political classes just continue to refuse to listen to what the people are trying to tell them about how disillusioned we all are with the political process. Brand laid it out very clearly to them, in this post expenses-scandal world. Yet they just don't get it.

And I think it's quite dangerous for them to not get it, and not to do something about it. Because that I think is a large part of how this country is merrily marching it's way towards fascism.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Painterz
 


Its like the politicians are clinging on to their familiar systems and ideologies for dear life. People the world over have started realising there's always another option. I think change is inevitable, I'm just not sure when or how.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by heliopolis
 


if you have the time you will know what brand meant about the word revolution in this 90 min interview

A Brand new politics: Russell Brand interview with Mehdi Hasan



its an interesting interview

or this one which is shorter


edit on 10-12-2013 by Dr UAE because: adding a vid



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I just remember question time the other week when they were discussing putting pension age at 70 and one of the panellists a classical professor asked them if they new what happened when emperor Augustus did the same thing in Rome and they just looked clueless at here, when she told them he was killed by his own guard the politicians looked shocked.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by heliopolis
 


I have always liked Jeremy Paxman as an interviewer, because quite simply he could not give a fig about who a person is, or what they do. When he is asking questions, he expects answers, and not just the sort which require one to read between the lines using arcane knowledge.

Definition of arcane.
www.thefreedictionary.com...

He tries where he can, to extract from the guests on his show, an honest accounting of their actions, words, and thoughts on the topics at hand, and is not afraid to ask the tough questions in order to do so. He is not easily distracted, nor placated by double speak. He usually only drops a subject or line of questioning, if it is clear that the person being asked the question is going to stone wall the entire interview in order to retain the data (or more realistically, the truth) for themselves.

I find it quite amusing that Mr Clegg however, who is perhaps one of the biggest turncoats since the end of the War of the Roses, sat there and lambasted Mr Paxman for sneering at politics while earning money from it, because he rather proves the argument for Mr Paxman in so doing. Mr Paxman knows full well that his lifestyle is effected by the fact that he is a well paid and long standing figure both in journalistic circles, broadcasting and the like, and a well respected commentator on political matters. It is true to say that his lucrative career is intrinsically linked to the ebb and flow of activities in Westminster.

And despite being well paid, despite having all the admiration of his fellow journalists, broadcasters, and commentators, despite having all the trappings of what most of us in Britain would call luxury in his life, he has spoken his mind on the many things he has seen in his career, which incidentally is longer by some margin, than that of Mr Cleggs political existence. That he has seen fit to do so, speaks to the severity of the problem in this country at the moment, since make no mistake, Paxman is not bullet proof. He could get fired, although one could be forgiven for assuming that doing so would be a hard choice on the part of his bosses, the possibility remains.

In his time as a broadcaster, Mr Paxman has seen faces come and go, and parties wax and wane, and has every right to comment on the state of our democracy, as he has been exposed to it, warts and all, for longer than quite a few of the front bench lot have as it happens. George "Im allowed out on my own now" Osborne is a damned good example. He looks about ten years old under strong light, especially if hes had a good nights sleep and a decent breakfast (Farley's Rusks I would have thought, dipped in warmed milk.

Paxman simply has more experience of the issues, than Clegg, and people KNOW this, which is probably why Clegg has turned around and been so carelessly foolish as to attempt to counter Paxman in the way that he has. He is desperate to remind people of Paxmans short comings as a commentator, to distract them away from his own as a representative of the people. Paxman may be loaded, but he is not ignorant, nor covetous. He has gained popularity and pride of place in political commentary, because people gave him trust, the viewers, the readers, the people on whose behalf he asks his relentless questions. He became what he is today, because he did exactly what the people wanted of him, by treating every guest the same way, and asking the probing questions, refusing to be fobbed off without making it plain exactly what he thought of it all.

Clegg, I think, is more than aware that he himself is one of the least trusted men in British politics today, is a traitor to his party for allying with the Conservatives, is a traitor to the people for the same reason, and when compared with Paxman, is about as consistent as the ravings of a schizophrenic.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I think it's fair to say Paxman has been casting assertions longer than Nick Clegg has been in a position to answer them.

I really enjoyed the Brand/Paxman exchange and I was rooting for "friend of the people" Russell Brand but then I got to thinking.....what's suddenly caused this onsalught of media activity by Mr Brand, and , what ultimately does he hope to achieve whilst encouraging people not to vote???

Initially I thought it was a stint of bachelor-dom with some self reflection but then I saw the pics of him out with Jemima Khan on his arm.

Jemima Khan (nee Jemima Goldsmith) daughter of Thatcherite, "modern day privateer" and 1975 UK coup d'etat (GB75) co -conspirator James Goldsmith.


Hmmm the Goldsmiths seemingly have a new ally that speaks vehemently against corporate rule and political corruption.... Oxymoron much??...sounds like there's a plan brewing.


edit on 10-12-2013 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2013 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Voting only gives credence to the fraud that is politics, where are all the good people in politics?

They cant exist, because they have to tow the party line or they cant afford to be independent as all the money backers have their "own guys" or you will get the "wrong kind" of people supporting you and be labelled far right or some other derogative by the corporate owned press.

The whole machine is corrupt.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Jukiodone
I think it's fair to say Paxman has been casting assertions longer than Nick Clegg has been in a position to answer them.

I really enjoyed the Brand/Paxman exchange and I was rooting for "friend of the people" Russell Brand but then I got to thinking.....what's suddenly caused this onsalught of media activity by Mr Brand, and , what ultimately does he hope to achieve whilst encouraging people not to vote???

Initially I thought it was a stint of bachelor-dom with some self reflection but then I saw the pics of him out with Jemima Khan on his arm.

Jemima Khan (nee Jemima Goldsmith) daughter of Thatcherite, "modern day privateer" and 1975 UK coup d'etat (GB75) co -conspirator James Goldsmith.


Hmmm the Goldsmiths seemingly have a new ally that speaks vehemently against corporate rule and political corruption.... Oxymoron much??...sounds like there's a plan brewing.


edit on 10-12-2013 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2013 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



Yes I feel exactley the same way. Who to trust is the question because they are all liars , gos with the job Once a politician opens his mouth you can be sure of only one thing hes going to tell lies. As to Russel hes saying the right things. Is he trustworthy? That I dont know. But to be honest a real live joker and a clown in power? Couldnt be any worse than the clowns we have in govt now, could it?



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   

TrueBrit
reply to post by heliopolis
 


Paxman simply has more experience of the issues, than Clegg, and people KNOW this, which is probably why Clegg has turned around and been so carelessly foolish as to attempt to counter Paxman in the way that he has. He is desperate to remind people of Paxmans short comings as a commentator, to distract them away from his own as a representative of the people. Paxman may be loaded, but he is not ignorant, nor covetous. He has gained popularity and pride of place in political commentary, because people gave him trust, the viewers, the readers, the people on whose behalf he asks his relentless questions. He became what he is today, because he did exactly what the people wanted of him, by treating every guest the same way, and asking the probing questions, refusing to be fobbed off without making it plain exactly what he thought of it all.


I totally agree with this.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join