blonde poker forum

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGxFJ5nL9gg.

I guess I am the only one who thinks Brand sounds like a 15 year old who just discovered punk.

Very naive from Paxman thinking just because you don't vote (due to thinking the system sucks) it means you simply cannot have valid opinions.  Full force Brand proper owned him.

The most cringeworthy thing shared on the internet.


Sums it up nicely.

I can't remember seeing paxman on the back foot so much.  He seemed to dwell on the voting point & brand closed that door early on.  I enjoyed it just because it was nice to see paxman struggle.

It shows that Brand is good at rhetoric - but there's not much actual content in what he says; he should definitely consider politics.

I dont mind about that, I just found it entertaining.

Don't really agree.  I am no fan of his delivery style and think it sometimes detracts from what he is saying but he is extremely intelligent and he generally is very solid particularly on areas, such as the effects and externalities of drugs use, where he has a depth of knowledge.  In this interview he freely admits to not having all of the answers which is perfectly fair.   We already have enough politicians that are never willing to admit when they don't know.

There's no doubt he is a very intelligent man, just like there's no doubt if he hadn't have run good most people would've ended up passing him in the street looking down at him like he's worthless.

#weareallfailingprettyhard

I think that's what resonated with me and what I liked about it the most.

Big words, fast delivery no substance.

Personally I thought he was talking absolute tripe.

Spot on, that's just what he does though.

Did you really listen? I went in fairly against Mr.Brand, I always thought he was a bit of an arse, didn't see the humour. He had an article published somewhere in the last few months which was similar to this, but even more obscure in terms of language. He has several valid points about our political system, the health of the planet. It gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see someone talk about the wealth disparity in the world today. Unfortunately, our democratic system is extremely flawed. 4 years is simply nothing. Elections and pleasing people take up far too much time in comparison to other important issues. Whilst I do vote, I can see the flaws, the nature of party politics creates a point scoring system that favours sound bites and headlines  when it should encourage strong debate about important topics. Democracy and capitalism are unfair and create inequality in an economic sense (while possibly increasing social and humanitarian rights). In the UK the top 20th percentile have over 60% of "wealth". This is more than 100x the amount the bottom 20% has. This doesn't seem like a fair situation to me, and we can pretend everything is fair, and the world is ok, but until we  get angry about the situation, nothing will be done.

stats from: http://www.positivemoney.org/2013/10/wealth-inequality-in-the-uk-video/

I mean something like this should have attracted much more public anger but the public is apathetic and uncaring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebgate

lol

"The affair was revisited again in October 2013, after a report from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) concluded three officers had given a false account of a meeting they had with Mitchell at his constituency office in October 2012, and that the findings of a subsequent investigation had been changed at the eleventh hour to recommend no disciplinary action be taken against them. The report prompted both Home Secretary Theresa May and Prime Minister David Cameron to criticise the conduct of the officers involved, with Cameron calling for Mitchell to receive an apology over the incident. The officers subsequently issued a statement in which they apologised for misleading the public."
"In mid-December 2012, CCTV footage of the incident was released, which Mitchell insisted backed up his version of events. The footage shows a brief interaction between Mitchell and the police and there is no crowd of tourists outside the gates.[3]
On 18 December 2012, journalist Michael Crick and former Cook Report producer Philip Braund identified the author of the 20 September email as a police officer and challenged his account. The officer admitted that he was not present and that the email was false.[20] Police logs and the supporting email had both claimed that "several members of the public" were present, that they had heard the exchange and were "visibly shocked". The email alleged that "Other people/tourists standing with us were also shocked and some were even, inadvertently, filming the incident". However, the CCTV footage shows only a single member of the public stopping to look on from an otherwise empty section of street immediately outside the gates.[21]
It further transpired that Police Federation officers from around the West Midlands who met with Mitchell had claimed he refused to give his side of events; a claim thrown into question by a recording of that meeting.[22] Mitchell—the MP for Sutton Coldfield in the West Midlands—had met with three representatives from the West Midlands, Warwickshire and West Mercia forces at his constituency office on 12 October to discuss the incident, after which the officers gave interviews about what had been discussed at the meeting. They claimed Mitchell had not given a full account of the disagreement, but a transcript of the recording he made indicated he had spoken at length about the incident."

I don't really see what is to laugh about. We're supposed to be democratic. Does it not worry you the police can essentially make up there own version of the events, causing a media storm which forces a politician to resign? You pretty much prove my point about people being apathetic by reacting like this.

Democracy, a system that involves people who know nothing choosing who should lead them.

Going on about the health of the planet when his carbon footprint from flights per year is probably equal to most peoples for 20.

Claiming that political system will be overthrown yet when asked about taxation all he could say was something like an 'administrative body'.

Then he was clutching at straws saying that Eton and the Houses of Parliament were basically the same buildings designed to make posh people feel at home.  Without recognising that the reason they are the same is simply because they are OLD buildings and if the Houses fell down tomorrow and were to be replaced we would probably have something like the GLA.

The fact is that the average person in this country has an INCREDIBLE life.  Stuff like running water, free healthcare, sewage, roads, infrastructure etc.  I mean how amazing is it that something like the internet exists and probably HUNDREDS of companies supply equipment or services to make sure that it runs pretty much trouble free 24/7.

These things are only possible because of our political system and companies working together.  You just need to look at countries in Africa as to how complex getting everything in place so that this all works seamlessly.

Is the UK perfect?  No.  

Can it get better?  Yes.

Are there people out there who are let down by the govt/NHS/schools?  Sadly every single day.

Would I want the alternative that Mr Brand is suggesting?  Never in a million years.

I really have no idea why you are getting angry about the plebgate incident.  It is just an isolated incident, to find bad people in the police is no more shocking than finding them anywhere else.   People do bad things, innocent people suffer, it is just reality.

Mr Brand is just another ranting fool, who doesn't really get real world economics.

I think there is a million more important things to worry about that's why I'm lol'ing.

This

Brand is intelligent but a lot of what he says is no more sophisticated than what you'd get from the average 6th former; it's argument based on looking at the flaws of a system and using big words to use them to denounce the system.

What it misses out are the positive aspects of the same system, any intelligently feasible alternative or way to 'fix' the current flaws - and if alternatives are suggested, the equally good/bad positive and negative aspects of such alternatives.

The reason why people were so excited by Brand's interview is exactly because he suggest looking for solutions beyond the current economic and political paradigm. An entire generation has grown up believing that there is no alternative to 'real world economics' despite that the current economic system mainly serves to uphold a very small minority of the worlds population. He's not the most sophisticated theoretician but if he inspires people to consider that an alternative world is possible then i applaud him.

I've been wondering how to articulate what I felt about that interview and this does it really well. Served to jog me into re recognising how cynically complicit I am in 'upholding the small minority'.

ahould read 'uphold the privilege of a very small minority of the worlds population.' Glad you got my meaning though.

Whilst most of the above is true it is doesn't make it fair or just.  The idea that we should be happy to let an economic elite plunder our resources and enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else because we have running water, free healthcare, sewage and roads is patronising at best.  The recent Post Office flotation is a perfect example.  It was a national asset (in the economic sense) so every taxpayer effectively owned it.  They decided to privatise it and sell it off but instead of doing that at a fair value they did it at a value which was below its real worth and effectively redistributed wealth to a group of people that could afford to buy the shares.  The decision of Osbourne to go to the European Court of Justice to protect bankers bonuses is the same thing.  They are using taxpayers money to go to court to protect something that an elite that also happens to contribute huge amounts of money to their party.  That isn't democracy it is corporatism.  they are acting in the interests of their paymasters rather than their constituents or the population as a whole.  Less than 25k already very rich people will benefit from their action and it isn't an isolated case.  It happens on a daily basis.

Sod it lets all go to communism and keep shit equal  :)up

Red Ed!! :)

Why do some celebrities who are effing loaded love to spout off about equality? (http://i409.photobucket.com/albums/pp177/scrappinkym/Smiley%20Emoticons/thgruebelgirl.gif) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/scrappinkym/media/Smiley%20Emoticons/thgruebelgirl.gif.html)

Isn't the whole point of Brands comments that any solutions don't have to fit into the current paradigm and, indeed, it would be better if it didn't.  The fact that the corporatist capitalist system we currently have doesn't work doesn't mean we have to turn to communism (which has also failed).  Intelligent people understand there are more than one option.

Set up a party with a totally new philosophy then mate, your onto a winner by the sounds of it.  8)

There is more to equality than money. I think it's great that those with wealth or influence should care about those less fortunate. Calling someone's opinion "Spouting off" doesn't diminish it.

The real inequalities in this world are caused not by wealth, by discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or culture.

Equal rights and opportunities would be a great start.

I get the impression he is doing it for his own profile rather than the greater good so I do this he his spouting off, I can't take him seriousy anyway as he is a clown. If he feels so passionately about what he is talking about he should set up a party with his perceived ideas of how we should be governed.

I think the wealthy do mostly in fact do a lot for the economies around the world and the greater good, they create jobs for tons of people and increase wealth as a result of it. Think about how many jobs Bill gates has created not only in the US and around the world for example, fair play to him, he deserves everything he gets.

That's a much better argument than your original one.

You can debate quite well when your not spouting off.  :)

Am I missing something?  Wouldn't setting up a party that operates under the current system be exactly the opposite of what he's suggesting?

Ok maybe, its was a couple of days ago I watched it. I honestly don't see how they would change anything unless they would come in via the current method and go from there.

I actually find Brand very funny when he is improvising and doing interviews. However his body of work is basically shit films, drug addiction, knobbing birds, ruining the Olympics closing ceremony and harassing an elderly Manuel. Really irritates me that he is getting so much good press for this when he has contributed very little to society.

Not that other celebs do either, but he is down there with the Geordie Shore lot.

As limited as my understanding is, I think what he's suggesting is people reject the current system and we have a some kind of a revolution.  The whole thing seems incredibly far fetched and unlikely to me, but I think that's the plan.


Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him to the Greek tho....
Agree that drug addiction doesn't contribute much to society
Commendable

I assume you know what he does for charity? or we basing his contribution to society based on the press you read? Not having a pop, just curious on how we can pigeon hole someone's worth to society based on what you read in the press, the commercial work they have done etc..

History is littered with characters who make you think more about the world we live in based on their incoherent rants. Why is something set in stone (the way we govern ourselves), I would have thought based on threads like this all across the internet he has contributed more then you ever could to society and free thinking.

His submission to the home affairs select committee on drug addiction alone was a greater contribution to improving society than most of us make in a lifetime.  We can mock his style but ultimately he is trying to make a difference which is more than the apathetic majority ever try.  It is so easy to sit on the sidelines and poke fun but it is a much tougher, and more admirable, thing to put your head above the parapet and try to make a difference.

Yeah guilty, I knew nothing of his charity work or the drug select committee.

I'll get me coat.

This is the Russell Brand who has uprooted to a lower tax country with more inequality.  In fact he is very much part of the Elite he talks about.  You think Paxman or Cameron will answer my calls?  

And all this bs about how the Government is creating an underclass just ticks me off too.  There has always been an underclass, but there lot has got a lot better over the last 100 years.  Cameron hasn't just created them in the last few years.

Anybody who really thinks that the people in power really wouldn't like to raise more taxes from Amazon and Russell Brand just doesn't get reality.  They would take every penny they realistic could at the minute, but unfortunately those big corporations and rich individuals find ways of moving their income around the World to places that they don't get taxed as much, or if at all.

This doesn't happen because the Government wants it to happen, that just makes no sense.  They have a big deficit and horrendous long term debts and big promised future liabilities to an ageing population. Russell sits there and thinks they haven't thought about trying to get more money from the likes of him and Google.  

We put someone else in they face the same problems we have now.  How do we get money from corporations that operate globally, and how we get money from people who will always be welcome to pay lower taxes somewhere else.  

In fact I'd say your future revolution is going to have a struggle to keep us where we are now.  It really is inevitable that the NHS and the ageing population are not going to become less of a burden on the State.  If Governments are struggling to raise enough tax now, our future revolutionaries are going to need a bit more about them than this..  

Brand part of the elite? interesting..

The government could do alot to stop tax loopholes and the rich getting away with murder, but then again that would be like turkeys voting for Xmas every week. Won't happen as long as most of the crones stay on as non-exec and execs in most of those firms it would effect.

If all MP's were not allowed other jobs outside government we might actually see independent no biased decision making. Barely a week goes by where some legislation or contract is not given out by the MPs where one of them does not benefit from the deal. The NHS is the worst, look at all the MPs who work for companies affiliated to contracts with the NHS, it is amazing.

The bed we lie in now was formed under Thatcher, left to fester under Labour and come home to roost under the Coalition.

Those in power are going to do jack shit to change things as they don't fear the people. We're all too doped up on iPhones and X-Factor.

I think you are taking individual points and using them discredit the overall argument when on a macro level he is largely right.  Firstly, As Tom pointed out equality isn't all about wealth it is about other things too.  Equality of opportunity is at least as important and so much that is being done by government for the last twenty years or so has served to undermine that.  For example, it is very likely if you come from a background like mine then in the future you will have to choose between a higher education and buying a house and starting a family before your late 30's because doing both are no longer affordable and both are due to government policies.  That isn't to say that you aren't right that politically we face huge challenges ahead.  An aging population and globalisation mean that we are going to have to be very creative in coming up with solutions but that doesn't mean that we can't make better decisions now on how to spend the tax revenues we have or more efficient in collecting those that are owed to us in the shorter term.  For example in 2010 HMRC effectively let Vodafone off £4.8bn in tax in negotiating a settlement.  Only this year the same company did a deal that would have seen them face a £12bn tax bill if it wasn't for a legislation change by labour in 2009 so whilst I agree that we face challenges in collecting taxes from global businesses we can at least collect those that are owed and, whilst we remain a major market and player globally we can use regulation to ensure that if they want to operate in our marketplace then they must pay the taxes which they are owed instead of changing legislation and doing backroom deals to reduce their liability.  These companies have to be sent a very firm message that if they want to benefit from the British marketplace then there are responsibilities that come with those benefits and they have to be responsible corporate citizens.

The demographics of MPs is so acute is beyond thin. Libs are worst, how many black/Asian/gay/working class MPs do they have?

Libs are going to be victims of small sample size.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-choosing-vote-most-british-kind-revolution-there

I think we should ask luke schwartz what he thinks. Feels like paxman get so pwned its a joke. Pigeon.

So lets stop messing around and pay MP's properly, they should be on 250+ a year its a joke what they are paid.

You can't pay them more than the prime minister   ;whistle;

I think I love Robert Webb.

Ofc Robert Webb is much more coherent than Russell Brand.   Limiting bonuses to 50% of pay in a piece of legislation designed to reduce risks in the banking sector is an interesting discussion.  I don't think the answer is particularly obvious, and the knee jerk reaction may not show the greatest understanding of the topic.

Absolutely ridiculous that many of the civil servants who pretty much work for MPs/ministers are paid more than their bosses.

If you ban all outside interests all we'd get would be a continuum of career politicians with no experience of anything outside of their 2:1 in PPE from some ex-polytechnic in rural somewhere.
Doesn't matter much though since it's unworkable.
Far better is to actually have a higher level of scrutiny to identify areas where influence is being used inappropriately. Sadly the press and other media seems more interested in Britain's Strictly Factored Out of Here so stories of abuse of power and massive errors of judgement like the so-called Green Taxes which are pushing energy costs up.

The civil servants may get higher wages but a) they have to be attracted to their job whilst MPs make a choice to run and b) Civil Servants don't get the same expenses package which is exceptional even under the current regime.

Politicians choose to run for office.
We, the British public, choose our councillors and MPs (sadly we don't actually choose our MEPs).
Maybe we need to choose more wisely.

+1

He might as well have sat there with a T shirt on saying "There is a problem, but I don't have a clue how to fix it" because that's all he said. Give the guy a medal..

He says essentially nothing very well, and is undeniably quick witted. The problem of course is that he doesn't really have any content that justifies his verbosity.

He actually said outright that he didn't know how to fix it, he just wanted to draw attention to the fact that there are people out with different ideas who are far more qualified to address the situation than he is.

You are assuming that prospective MP's are fresh out of Uni, I would have thought a more reasonable assumption is they have formed a career and see politics as there next career, generally new MPs are in their mid 30's and have already experienced real jobs in the real world. Making them only be MP's would not change this.

People shouting that MPs are low paid, R O F L, I have NEVER know any other job where everything from a second home, to someone cutting their grass, heating bills, all travel expenses are paid for them. Free food at work and virtually everything they needed is given to them. What other job literally means they have all their income to spend on themselves apart from MPs? I noticed one MP claimed 3p for a 100 yard car ride.....you know people actually saying they need to be paid more? do me a favor.

If they want to be an MP let them take a break from all other interests that may conflict with running the country. It's ridiculous they can have 3-4 other jobs and still claim they are underpaid as MP's and have the peoples interest at heart.

Education or a 2:1 from an old Poly means shit to me, as long as the MP is good at what they do, looks after the consistuancy interests and puts their heart and soul into it then you can have left school at 15 for all that is matters. The problem is coming from a 'certain' elite Uni seems important for a route into politics, welcome to the boys club. I would have thought much more worrying than your "dooms day mps only have one job scenerio attracting the wrong type of people" is the current regime only coming from millionaire backgrounds where a heating bill makes up 0000.00000002% of their income and they somehow have to relate to us normal peoples problems.

I am well aware of that. So are you saying that there are people out there who were either not aware that there is a problem or they were not aware that there are people more qualified to address these problems, so they needed him to point out; "hey guys, there is a problem but i've not got a clue what to do about it, but just to reiterate I am saying there is defo a problem and there are smarter people out there who can probably come up with a solution"? If this is in fact the case then I am obv out of touch with the world.

Pretty much.  I'm sure the average person doesn't go round in their everyday lives considering alternative political systems.  Maybe I'm in the minority, but I had never thought about it.  I'm not saying I agree with / think it's a good idea, but the people who do have the capacity to implement and manage a different strategy (and this is something that I really doubt as well) won't draw the same kind of attention if someone famous like Russell Brand talks about it.

There are more and more career politicians who are, essentially, straight out of Uni. They'll do politics and be involved in politics at uni, then go to work for one of the parties in some capacity, or an affiliated think tank, building up their profile till they get picked for some no-hope constituency. Provided they handle themselves well, they'll get selected for a safer seat next time around, so whilst they may be in their late 20s/early 30s they will have done nothing in life apart from politics.

I'd be in favour of raising the age you can become an MP to 35 or 40 - try and force people to do something else before getting involved in politics, build up some general life experience and get to know the world their constituents live in.

Obv I don't spend the entirety of my day contemplating alternative political systems but if you are able to tie a shoe lace I would imagine you are aware that there has to be some alternative to a democratic government. That said, it might have forced some teenage girls to stop staring at their one direction poster for 5 mins or some young fella might have had an epiphany whilst trying to squeeze into his skinny leather trousers. I can't imagine any other demographic paying heed to him, apart from redarmi who for some reason seems to be the RB fan club president.

FWIW, a bit of KY and they will slide on easily.

Reminds me of this:

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8VWWCPeEL4

it'd be kewl if they were actually judged on the reasoning and logic for their decision making rather than stick with the standard party politics bullshit.


Brands right imo in saying that we need to take a really hard look at this twatfilled system, however ldo not voting doesn't help. If he wasn't a complete wannabe showoff he could talk normally and not use 4000 long words a sentence to try and prove that his drug habit was some spiritual enlightenment trip where his mind was free to think rather than sitting on the floor jabbing needles into his arm for weeks on end.

ldo this gives him more insight into these problems than most people let alone ANY MP, watching him a few months ago on question time was so frustrating. Making really important points on the subject only to have the other side of the argument be some middle aged woman whos friend Anne has a son and he totally went of the rails so they deffo have indepth knowledge of the subject.

See we have different ideas of what an MP should be, i want the best of the best leaving the private sector entering the public and using their skill sets, they won't do this unless the pay is at least near that of the private sector. Until that is the case we will get substandard applicants for the most important jobs in the country.

But everything they have is paid for  + a salary.

If you factor in a second home allowance, everything they need in life paid for (including food, drink, all bills) it works out their actual wages are alot more.

We currently have multi millionaire toffs running the country, they good yeah?

This is London dear boy, you need to be paying people a lot more than that.

I guess why they are voting themselves a 12% rise then, poor MP's literally.

it's all relative.

it's similar to the hacking debate. why work for the government doing good work for not much money when you can be an engineer at google/facebook/us def contractors and earn tonnes more.


we don't set ourselves up to have the best people making the decisions that affect us the most, we just effectively vote in people who couldn't make it elsewhere and who then go with their own personal/party opinions.


let's go back to proper democracy, draw names out of a hat imo. 

LOL - I'm really not.  I find him a bit cringeworthy to be honest but I don't think the fact he looks ridiculous and is a bit of a dick means that he doesn't have anything worthwhile to say.  I would say huge swathes of the country below the ages of 40 feel disenfranchised and disconnected from the political system and play no part in it.  Brand is someone, rightly or wrongly, that has a voice in that demographic and has something to say.  I think that should be encouraged and I largely agree with what he says even if it is a bit superficial I think he generally articulates what a lot of people think.  Sure we can dismiss it as tripe or nonsense but at least he is trying to engage which is more than the politicians are trying to do.

Incidentally, I used to work in politics part time in my late teens as a researcher and if you don't think that there is a ruling elite that all know each other and have a somewhat bizarre and sheltered view of the world I will recount two incidents from the first week I worked in the Commons.  The first day I was there I was introduced to the Conservative researchers in an adjacent office who were very nice and friendly but their first question was "which school I had gone to?"  I was a bit wet behind the ears and it took a while to figure out why they laughed when I said "Parkview" but I later understood that effectively meant I hadn't been to school as far as they were concerned.  The second thing that happened was when I was with the MP I was working for and we got stuck in a lift with a Tory researcher.  After a while the Tory turned to the member I was with and said "aren't you a labour member?  You must be able to fix it. Didn't you used to be a fitter or something?"

Ahahahahaha thats incredible

but MPs don't do anything that that justifies their salaries+the rest at the moment.  They don't make policy, they don't write laws, they just vote the way they're told. 

So basically you don't know what the job of being an 'MP' entails do you?

To be fair, most people who comment on how rubbish MP's are have no idea what they do either.

I could have sworn those in parliament are meant to represent the populace. Pretty sure that's not the case in practice tho.

I could cover all the other bollocks they do (like being rude in commitees), but none of it justifies a salary any higher than a middle manager. 

If you have something they do, that you think requires a talent that is particularly scare, please enlighten me.

Basically, any excuse to post a Stewart Lee sketch

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZn4Xv9MC6Y

I like Russell Brand and think he is a refreshingly witty fellow. If you identify a problem but don't really have a solution the best thing you can do is raise awareness and stimulate debate. I notice that even on a poker forum this video has been posted and numerous pages of debate have followed. Thus he is making contribution to a solution even if he doesn't know what that solution is right now.

I don't buy the concept that MPs should be paid handsomely to attract the best talent because I figure the very best public servants are stimulated by the opportunity to make a difference rather than by financial reward. If people in the media spotlight today can highlight problems and thus encourage a future generation of public spirited problem solvers then I don't see how that is a bad thing.

Also remove the power the City of London has over our 'democratic' parliament.

As we're quoting the New Statesman:

http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporation-city

I am not going to defend offshore tax havens, but that article doesn't seem to show that the city is a tax haven, or how it writes its own laws and regulations.  It is probably a good idea to approach articles in the New Statesman with the same healthy cynicism as you would an article in the Daily Mail.

That was just a link to highlight what the City of London Corporation is.  Most people aren't aware of it, or the massive influence it has on our 'democracy' and how the system controls wealth (and the lack of it).

A far more in-depth read is Treasure Islands, by Nick Shaxson.  You can buy it through the blonde code to give blonde a bit of a kick-back (although there's no kick-back for the HMRC)... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Treasure-Islands-Havens-Stole-World/dp/0099541726/ref=as_li_wdgt_ex?&linkCode=wsw&tag=blondepoker-21

But he wrote the article, which looks like dishonest gibberish.  Why would his book be different?  I am not saying Financial institutions do not have influence, but the article doesn't say that, it says the City is a tax haven, which is bollocks.

I disagree.  Whilst it doesn't act as a physical tax haven, it's a fundamental part of the system that enables and allows the tax havens to work as they do.  It's also a highly undemocratic and very powerful entity, and isn't really accountable to anyone.

Are we talking The City, the City of London Corporation, some firms that work in the City, those based in Canary Wharf, those with Overseas Parents?  The Financial Sector isn't an entity, it is a whole bunch of separate companies that compete with each other.  The City doesn't tell CitiBank what to do, Prudential doesn't set European Law and KPMG doesn't work out of the Bank of England offices.  All these companies are accountable to lots of different people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation

Does the role of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_remembrancer really have a place in a democratic system?

Brand may be a bit of a tosser but what he says is 100% correct.  Constitututional Politics have failed these islands for hundreds of years.  Election after election not much changes for the majority.  The poor continue to be poor the rich get richer. 

I hope Scotland choses independence next year, maybe she can do something different and show the rest of these islands where we all live that there is a different way.  Sadly I believe that won't be the case becaue the same people who fail us time and again operate a campaign of negativity and fear which will win votes. 

A lot of the poor have got richer - then they're counted as being part of the rich; by definition the poor continue to be poor.

If you really think that 'the government' hasn't improved the lives of 99% of the population over the last few hundred years then you don't really have a good understanding of social history.