A response to Russell Brand: Five ways that voting does make a difference

Good Society

Democracy is irrelevant and the impact of voting is negligible, according to Russell Brand.

Democracy is irrelevant and the impact of voting is negligible, according to Russell Brand. Much more important, he writes, is that there are ‘Men and women strong enough to defy the system and live according to higher laws.’

If this is all a bit Mussolini for you, then I have some good news: voting can and does change things and there is no need to rely on the power of ‘strong men and women’ and ‘higher laws’.

Here are just five reasons why voting is so important. I’m sure you can think of more.

1. It kept the far-right out

In 2004, the British National Party narrowly missed out on a seat in the London Assembly, losing by just a handful of votes. In 2008, the party also came close to winning council seats in Amber Valley where the party lost by just a single vote.

Considering the fact that Russell Brand has spent some time around the BNP for his documentary Nazi Boy, it’s strange that he doesn’t recognise how crucial voting has been in keeping the fascists out.

2. It made possible the creation of the National Health Service

Believe it or not, the Attlee government of 1945 to 1951 had to win an election in order to carry out its sweeping social reforms such as the creation of the NHS. At the risk of stating the obvious, Labour secured a 393 seats majority in the House of Commons because people actually went out and bothered to vote.

There was plenty of ‘revolution’ in Russia at the time of course if that was your thing, where millions of people were being murdered by Stalin and the Bolsheviks; but the welfare state was created by compromise and lots of boring meetings. Oh, and by voting.

3. It kept Labour in power between 1997 and 2010

It has become incredibly fashionable in recent years to sneer at the last Labour government. Like most forms of cynicism, however, this depends on a certain amount of detachment from the consequences of apathy. To put it bluntly, Russell Brand has a $2 million dollar mansion in the Hollywood Hills; it therefore makes very little difference to him whether there is a minimum wage or not or whether there are free prescriptions for people undergoing treatment for cancer.

This is not to say that wealthy people don’t often care about such things; but ultimately they do have the option of not caring, whereas poor people don’t. This is why celebrity cynicism should be taken with a pinch of white powder.

4. Young people get a raw deal from politics precisely because they don’t vote

Russell Brand has been commended by many for connecting with young people who get a raw deal from the political establishment. And I would agree, today’s young people do seem to have a hard time of it compared to older relatives. There is no longer any such thing as a job for life, a university education incurs massive debts, and for most young people buying a home is a pipe dream.

You can be sure, however, that the government and the opposition will court the so-called grey vote far more assiduously than young people as we approach the 2015 General Election. And the rational for doing so is simple: older people are far more likely to turn out to vote than younger people. Getting young people engaged in politics and voting would do far more to change this than encouraging them to become even more apathetic than they already are.

5. If you don’t believe in voting, what do you believe in?

While it may be enough on the celebrity circuit to rally against ‘the regime’ and lazily call for ‘revolution’, if you appear on programmes like Newsnight and in the pages of the Guardian you should expect to have to expand on what it is that you want.

Brand puts his faith in ‘Men and women strong enough to defy the system and live according to higher laws.’ But what ‘higher laws’? and who makes such ‘laws’? When he calls for ‘socialist equality’ what does he mean? Absolute equality secured by extreme force, or a reduction in inequality? If it’s the latter, then that is a view I share, which is why I will vote for a candidate at the next election who proposes that. If it’s the former, North Korea is supposed to be very nice at this time of year.

No related posts.

88 Responses to “A response to Russell Brand: Five ways that voting does make a difference”

  1. subtleknife666

    Realistically, you have the choice between a right-wing party (NuLabour) and an increasingly far-right party. Very unappetising.
    If I were, for some tactical reason, to vote for a NuLabour MP I’d have to take an airline sick-bag with me.

  2. Richard Polhill

    People are concentrating on the pros and cons of voting rather than his main thrust which is that the political system we have to vote within does simply not serve us.

    He says he doesn’t vote because he can’t choose between several nearly identical Westminster clones. He has a point although not voting just means that the government is chosen by a smaller pool of voters.

    I think we should vote and I do, but rather than making me feel empowered I’m simply left feeling entirely at the whim of what politicians do to please big business. Totally disenfranchised by an election system which does not recognize all votes.

    Where I live, Surrey heath, the Conservative party is always, always, victorious. Where does my vote go?

  3. Sparky

    You create your own future in life. Waiting for some faceless body of people to help you is a complete waste of time. They never do.

  4. Mr Spock

    And Brand was wrong in saying voting doesnt do much for us, because he doesnt see the difference – partly because its hidden from him and lied about by a cynical and biased media and partly because the very things that help those who need it most dont effect him. Such as the minimum wage tax credits for working families? The allowances for young people to stay on in further education (which the Tories took away). help for pensioners with their heating bills, the VAT reduction made after the bank crash and many other things that the last Labour government gave us that do and did make a real and positive impact on the lives of the lower paid and a few things that we wouldnt have had to put up with if the people who didnt vote or who voted liberal because they were fooled by the (Tory) media telling them there was no difference such as the bedroom tax, the cuts to Labours investment programme in schools and hospitals (and elsewhere), massive public spending and job cuts, less police on the beat, less nurses in our hospitals, social security cuts, the attack on disability benefits, the VAT hike and more. As for democratically elected Governments not doing what they said they would, I think this lot are doing exactly what they said they would do, If you thought otherwise you werent listening, the Liberals went along with it when they said they wouldnt but then what choice did they have once they got into bed with the Tories? And Labour never gets to do everything it says it wants to because too many of the people of this country are tricked by the media into being hostile to its programmes and even the most moderate of Labours policies are fought against and lied about and blocked every inch of the way, just as we have seen happen to ‘Obama care’ in the states, so they have to make compromises. Better to get some of what you want done than to let the Tories in. There is a huge difference but those same interests of big finance and big business will always work very hard to blind us to it because they want to make sure that we never get a 1945 style Government ever again. If you want to end the culture of compromise then you need to get involved with and vote for Labour, not make it more difficult for them by giving the Tories an easy ride and letting their supporters have all the say

  5. S.r. Williams

    This government does everything for Brand – endless tax cuts for the rich after all!

Comments are closed.