DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era

is C#m c sharp major's younger brother?

If so, it's a key change...

probably less than 10% of their business is in the UK

What proportion of their manufacturing jobs are in the UK?

Probably less, at a guess. As noted in the comments after that article there are only about 200,000 defence-related jobs in the UK at the moment - a quick bit of googling suggests BAE Systems total have about 100,000 employees and around half of them belong to BAE Systems Inc (the biggest American subsidiary) alone. BAE SYstems Australia has 5000, BAE Systems Sweden 2000. So less than half total jobs in the UK and I'd guess around a third of those at most are in manufacturing.

this is fascinating, Aldo, thanks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_IAI5THd-E

so is russell our leader now then?

"our"

russell brand is a spokesperson, not a leader. paxman loathsome

somone said on twitter that own jones and russell should team up to form a new left-wing cosncious young folk, both said they were up for it. i like both guys but they're both a bit, i dunno, childy. esp like what OJ says but RB can come out with some real hokey tosh (don't vote! i'm calling for a revolution!). only thing not voting will do is usher in a brave new 5 yrs more of brutalising the weak

that "meet the ancestors" body slam on paxman is incredible.

this. seems to be sucking up to him a little then drops the piano on his head

NI you seem very confident that Labour will reconfigure society

Until they cut out the anti-immigration xenophobia there’s no way Labour will be getting my vote next or any time.

Owen Jones is an attack dog really and critisicing him is a bit "fight the real enemy". What he's trying to do is influence the Labour Party but he doesn't seem to have a clue how to get to where he wants to get to from where he is.

Russell Brand is naive as hell but his understanding of the problem is pretty on point.

I mean the question for anyone on the left is always how they intend to get from where we are to the society you want to create, taking into account ferocious vested interests and the danger of destablising everything in the meantime. Until we have a politician with the vision to answer that then the current woeful Labour Party is all we're going to get.

Going the other way, Thatcher crashed the economy in the early 80s and may well have been voted out had it not been for North Sea Oil + Falklands so it's not like completely reconfiguring a society is easy even for rightists.

that "meet the ancestors" body slam on paxman is incredible.

― caek, Thursday, 24 October 2013 03:44 (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this. seems to be sucking up to him a little then drops the piano on his head

NI you seem very confident that Labour will reconfigure society

― HAVE YOU SEEN ME? Please don't hesitate (imago), Thursday, 24 October 2013 08:32 (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"How can you be so flippant......?"

Well, watch what you ask for: Ouch!

I don't really expect Russell Brand to have a solution to the fundamental political problems of our era but something something revolution isn't it. Still it's nice that he's out there even if he does sometimes sound like someone in the chillout room of Brixton Megadog in 1993.

*chortles*

That said, this is a good takedown:

http://lustigletter.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/russell-brand-not-only-daft-but.html?spref=tw

no it's the pompous windbaggery of a cunt

& is in fact far more dangerous than anything Brand's said as it apologises for prolonging the voter-voted dichotomy

i'm by no means a brand cheerleader (can't bring myself to watch the 10min interview or read the zillion-word unedited screed tbh) but that lustig blog is pure distilled establishment reactionary that makes me want to shout NO, YOU HAVE FOBBED US OFF WITH THIS BULLSHIT ENOUGH, YOUR TIME IS DONE

^

it's also snobbish & dismissive

ya. comparing our current electoral situation to one in which black south africans could vote for the anc is ermmm a little bit disingenuous at least. i'm really not sure what him or paxman are looking for from brand. why isn't a call to organise a valid starting point?

The question is: organise what? When pressed by Paxman on what exactly he would do, RB fell back on our old friend Communism, which has repeatedly proven so successful over the last century.

In other words, he has a great grasp of the problem but I'm not convinced that he has a feasible solution.

I don't really expect Russell Brand to have a solution to the fundamental political problems of our era

^ this

http://www.channel4.com/news/russell-brand-jeremy-paxman-anti-capitalist-revolution-bbc

^^^ This is better.

this is quite a serious discussion about a new statesman piece that talks about nothing in particular

"To genuinely make a difference, we must become different; make the tiny, longitudinal shift. Meditate, direct our love indiscriminately and our condemnation exclusively at those with power. Revolt in whatever way we want, with the spontaneity of the London rioters, with the certainty and willingness to die of religious fundamentalists or with the twinkling mischief of the trickster. We should include everyone, judging no one, without harming anyone."

So how does RB propose people make like rioters or 9/11 bombers "without harming anyone"?

xps i don't disagree marcello, but neither paxman or lustig seem particularly interested in the problem that he's grasped and that he's providing a v rare mainstream voice for. lots of people are thinking hard about the question of what kinds of organisation would be suitable and adequate for this kind of far left project - e.g. http://novaramedia.com/2013/07/turn-out-dont-burn-out-four-suggested-projects/ - and if brand can be someone who helps people see that this kind of thing is happening, then, gr8.

It's all a bit Let's Levitate the Pentagon

NI you seem very confident that Labour will reconfigure society

― HAVE YOU SEEN ME? Please don't hesitate (imago), Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:32 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you read too much into it, i'm at least confident labour won't continue hammering the poor & weak in favour of their rich mates in londontown, or at least to the same degree. this really need to spelled out?

Yvette Cooper said this week that a Labour government wouldn't repeal the coalition's Immigration Act. So she and they can go fuck themselves. I think this isn't being spelt out enough.

what should i do to get the immigration act repealed?

my options currently appears to be:
- vote for someone
- don't vote
- shag russell brand

or moan about russell brand's audacity to write a shit article on new statesman

It's a bamboozlement, for sure.

i'm at least confident labour won't continue hammering the poor & weak in favour of their rich mates in londontown

I thought they were promising to be tougher on Welfare?

with the certainty and willingness to die of religious fundamentalists

This is a thoroughly bizarre line.

we should also judge no one which should really include politicians

The whole paragraph is a shocker really. After saying several things that are true but were widely discussed during Occupy and similar post-2008 movements, he kind of craps out at the end. I'm surprised he's had such a glowing reception for this.

i'm at least confident labour won't continue hammering the poor & weak in favour of their rich mates in londontown, or at least to the same degree.

THEY'VE GOT MY VOTE

"A New Britain In Which Government Doesn't Continue to Hammer the Poor and Weak to the Same Degree"

the main political action that anybody can take thru our electoral system today is to deny the existing parties credibility by not supporting them

the main political action that anybody can take thru our electoral system today is to deny the existing parties credibility by not supporting them

this hasn't stopped them acting as if they have credibility for the past decade-plus

(i completely agree)

neither paxman or lustig seem particularly interested in the problem that he's grasped and that he's providing a v rare mainstream voice for

^^this is the crux of the matter really - i don't even consider paxman a particularly awful example of the establishment but it's telling that even he can't seem to understand the problem

brand himself is a hugely flawed figure of course (MISOGYNY ALERT x a milli, for starters) but christ knows having these ideas injected into the mainstream can't be a bad thing, as eye-rolly as the presentation might be

paxman is a particularly awful example of the establishment

i more or less hate Brand but i respect him to a degree for at least attempting to use his public presence to talk about this

‘Labour will be tougher than the Tories when it comes to slashing the benefits bill, Rachel Reeves, the new shadow work and pensions secretary, has insisted in her first interview since winning promotion in Ed Miliband’s frontbench reshuffle.

The 34-year-old Reeves, who is seen by many as a possible future party leader, said that under Labour the long-term unemployed would not be able to “linger on benefits” for long periods but would have to take up a guaranteed job offer or lose their state support.

what are "these ideas" though really aside from "fight the war fuck the norm" which we already got from zach de la rocha in the 90s