Thursday's Question Time didn't seem to play off as much of a 'clash' as it was expected to become, based on media coverage (which shockingly isn't always quite as accurate as it would like to claim to be). Even so, there were a couple of points I felt compelled to comment on.
The star of the show, according to social media, was surprisingly not Farage nor Brand; in fact, not any of the panel members. A certain member of the audience distinguished by her blue hair and passionate interjection has harboured a great deal of attention after labelling Farage 'a racist scumbag trying to blame immigrants for the cutbacks because of his rich banker friends'. Now don't get me wrong; I am by no means a supporter of UKIP nor am I a supporter of Nigel Farage in the slightest, believe me. But, I do understand UKIP supporters' frustrations at being labelled racist for discussing immigration. It is very easy to play the racist card at first sight or sound of the word immigration and use it as an emotive point, and so I try not draw a link between UKIP supporters and racism. Having said that, with Nigel's comments on being concerned about Romanians and Kerry Smith's use of a slur, if UKIP wish to rid themselves of 'racist' allegations and have their views on immigration taken seriously, something must be done about it's representatives making such comments. I've gone off on a tangent here but my initial point is this; many have begun arguing about the 'blue haired lady' labelling Farage as a racist and whether that was or wasn't fair, her point is what should stand out. I myself do not deny the fact that immigration does have an effect on our resources, places in schools and some of the other factors Nigel mentioned. But the reality is, these effects are minute when you compare them against the way our economic situation is affected by the richest among us; like Russell and the 'blue-haired woman' rightly pointed out, for the most part, our resources are being drained by the very economic elite that funds major parties and the sensible thing to do would be to address the greater issue rather than pinpointing something like immigration.
I admit I am an avid follower of Russell Brand. I agree with the basis of his points and I really do see where he's coming from; realistically, he is currently the only figure that provides someone like myself with a voice. At the same time, I try not to blindly follow anyone and remain impartial and open to arguments regardless of which side they come from and so when a man in the audience asked Russell to stand, I cannot deny that I was slightly disappointed with the answer of 'I'd be scared that I'd become one of them'. To me, Russell Brand provides a beacon of hope and courage in the sea of a forced agenda under which we've lived under for a long time. And so his reply almost broke the air of courage and determination I've seen, learnt and gained from. However, Russell never signed up to be Prime Minister of England nor should he feel like he should have to stand and comply by a system that he doesn't agree with, and without putting words in his mouth, I do think that is the answer that would have made more of a point. One who gives critique does not always not have to be the one who provides an alternate solution (although that would be the ideal and most constructive way to go about things). Think about it this way. When one makes a product and puts it out into the market for testing, the market, the people, give their criticism or praise. They, being the ones that will have to use and live with the object in question, therefore have the best insight into whether or not the object provides the correct function. Based on that feedback, the creator of the product takes into account criticism, as well as praise, and adapts in a way that to better the product so that it suits the needs of those that will be most affected by it rather than going by what his/her personal preferences may be. Sometimes, a user may provide a solution to redesign that would solve all the issues but at other times, they may not. Moving on from my long-winded metaphor (please accept my apologies) we cannot merely assume that because Russell criticises the nature in which politics operates that he has some unknown secret recipe to perfected politics. He might well do, and it would be much appreciated if he did offer an alternative, but if he doesn't, that isn't something that should decrease the value or significance of the points that he argues.
Finally, I had to comment on the Russell-Mary-Penny-David squabble. Firstly, Penny Mordaunt began commenting on the fact that Malala Yousafzai's 'Malala Fund' twitter account had 117,000 Twitter followers whereas Russell has 9 million and that she wishes he would use that 'huge opportunity to get a positive message across'. Firstly, Russell having been an actor, comedian, and having had a relationship with a high profile figure in his past is bound to have such a following and this shouldn't at all dictate whether or not he should encourage young people to vote as part of a 'positive message'. And yet again, I stress that Brand's personal decisions do not in the slightest decrease the significance of all that he says. Furthermore the question regarded the 'petty adversarial nature of politics' and as David Dimbleby and Russell rightly so pointed out, Penny herself is known for her infamous speech in which she dropped in the words 'cock', 'lay' and 'laid' several times 'for a laugh with the Navy' and it deeply concerns me that that same woman can comment on spreading a positive message about politics, when she quite clearly isn't doing a very good job of it herself. It genuinely concerns me that some people in power really don't take their positions seriously despite they effect that their choices have on the way that we live. I, as a 16 year old student, find it so disheartening, embarrassing and fundamentally frustrating to see a 41-year old who has had a very successful history (previously leading the largest patient organisation in Europe and currently serving a huge role in our government) represent an issue in such an immature way.
Sadly, none of the real issues or sentiment raised will really be discussed. The nature of media nowadays means that the focus is on the whole 'Nigel Farage vs. Russell Brand' spectacle as well as the other little squabbles held. But I do urge people to listen to what is actually being said. Understand the people on the panel and what they stand for (or should I say who they stand for) but more importantly focus on the substance of their argument. Farage's post for the Independent after the show made several digs at Brand's 'straightened chest hair' and other insignificant points stupidly placed in, obviously to attempt to portray Russell in a certain light and draw attention away from the fact that Brand is raising key issues that actually matter. All of these narratives are complete distractions from the fundamental points actually highlighted and I urge you to see beyond them.
