"That" Interview

What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Post Reply
Tarrel
Posts: 2466
Joined: 29 Nov 2011, 22:32
Location: Ross-shire, Scotland
Contact:

"That" Interview

Post by Tarrel »

Has anyone seen the interview between Russell Brand and Ed Milliband? If so, what did you think?

If you want to see it, it's on Youtube. Search "The Trews". Lasts about 15 mins.

Personally, Ive been in two minds about Russell Brand. I don't agree with his "no vote" policy and I've sometimes thought his political outlook is a bit "sixth form". However, he runs a good interview, with an energy level and in-your-face approach that really leaves no hiding place.

Some of the press have ridiculed Ed Miliband for agreeing to do it, but I think it was a smart move.

Comments?

(ETA: some of the other "The Trews" videos are worth a watch.)
Engage in geo-engineering. Plant a tree today.
User avatar
nexus
Posts: 1305
Joined: 16 May 2009, 22:57

Post by nexus »

.....or much better this great interview with a very hoarse Natalie Bennett and the fab Caroline Lucas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OISY8hFVPVI
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Frederick Douglass
Little John

Post by Little John »

Seen all his videos including these two. Outstanding.

I agree with 99% of what he has to say.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13497
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

Brand missed a crucial point at 6:50

Miliband said "We had to bail out the banks. It was the right thing to do. It wasn't about the banks. This was ordinary people's savings."

Miliband does not understand. Either that or he is lying. Neither does Brand, or he's have said this:

Most of the £850bn used on bank bailouts was not to preserve "ordinary people's savings". It was to preserve the value of the shares. Had the banks been allowed to go bust and the government merely stump up to cover lost savings, the figure would have been nowhere near £850bn, and much more of the losses would have been borne by the rich.

The banks were bailed out to preserve shareholders, not savers. The government couldn't give a **** about savers, or interest rates wouldn't have been pinned to zero since 2008.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Russell Brand drops his anti-voting stance and says people should vote for Caroline Lucas of the Green Party
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 16475.html
Post Reply