Ignoring Russell Brand's politics is the best policy

Me among the Comic Relief audience, in the middle of the row behind Russell Brand.

Russell Brand. Isn't he a character? I usually admire people like him. The boy from Essex overcame drug addiction at a young age and has seemingly moved on from those dark days, making a decent living and sending out inspiring messages to the public about the effects of drugs. I should raise my hat to him.

I actually saw Russell Brand with my very eyes. Back in March during Comic Relief's Red Nose Day, I was part of the audience at 1.30am where suddenly he came and sat in front of me, presenting the show (see image below). In front of him, there were little notes on the Autocue in front of him to go by, yet he presented his bit with such fluency. Certainly, he had a bit more freedom in what he could say because he was presenting past children's bedtime, but my views of him changed.

My views of Mr Brand this time last year was largely negative. I couldn't relate to his humour. I thought his comedic-ways were both childish and immature. We take Sachsgate, for example, when he and equally idiotic Jonathan Ross prank called actor Andrew Sachs live on BBC radio saying what they supposedly done to his granddaughter. Consequently, both got into deep trouble and when they both left the Beeb, both turned bitter about the corporation.

Jonathan Ross moved on to rival channel ITV, continuing his popular talk show he had with the BBC while Russell Brand hit Hollywood. He married, then quickly divorced pop singing sensation Katy Perry, and was involved in some mediocre films (apart from "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and "Rock of Ages", both were brilliant films). It is fair to say, he loved the American Dream, while at the same time showing the world that he has moved on from his drug taking days. As I said, I usually admire such a transformation, yet there was something about Brand which made one's stomach turn. I found him an idiot.

However, on Red Nose Day that all changed and soon afterwards, I discovered his great column writing in The Guardian. He wrote intelligent things, we knew what he was talking about. I thought, "Wow, maybe he has grown up after Sachsgate and moved on from his daft 'comedies'". At one point, I even thought his hair was 'cool'.

But that was all to change. The inevitable occurred earlier this week. Brand appeared on BBC's Newsnight, being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman talking mainly politics. Brand has only touched on politics in the past - one instance, he wrote a piece on Margaret Thatcher's legacy, moments after her death earlier this year. However, this interview was to reveal what he really thinks about modern-day politics. And what better to reveal this to Mr Paxman, the man best-known to the British public as the person who grills politicians, exploiting their weaknesses on national television. And what better to unleash your anger and frustration to a channel you have felt bitter about for a number of years, even if the interview didn't touch on Sachsgate.

This ten minute edited encounter was praised by fans of Russell Brand - he has many admirers. I, however, was left flabbergasted. Jeremy Paxman asked for it when he tried to challenge Brand's authority in guest editing political magazine The Spectator simply because the comedian never voted.

There were two things Russell Brand said in particular where I wanted to gasp for air.

One of Russell Brand's opening remarks saw him admit to have never voted, and never will. That I don't mind. But then he goes on by saying he encourages the British people never to vote either. On one hand, I can see what he means. We are losing our trust in politicians as they are making ineffective, yet life-changing decisions which will not benefit the British public. For example, energy bills are going up for most of us by an average of between 8-9%. Instead of the National Minimum Wage going up by a similar percentage, we see MP's get a pay rise by 11%, to £74,000 per annum - as if they were clinching onto their pennies in the past. They will ultimately benefit while the general public have to work even harder to heat their houses. The public are understandably unhappy. Why should these politicians get our vote when they're only thinking about their well-being?

But, imagine for one minute if a significant number of people followed Brand's guidance and not vote. Wouldn't that lead to further catastrophe? Russell Brand admits to follow Socialist ideologies, surely he can see that one person who doesn't vote means advantage Conservatives, and more crucially now, one vote for UKIP. He is making a dangerous statement, especially when Britain are undecided on who to vote for in 2015. Granted, some, perhaps most, of these politicians are from privileged backgrounds and were born MPs because of their wealthy upbringing - but who else would do a better job?

We can always picture ourselves doing a better job than the current crop of politicians but if you feel that way, why not be one yourself? Politicians are a bit like goalkeepers in football. Both have to keep their eyes on the ball at all times and make quick decisions which will change the outcome of their game. And one misjudged decision means they will pay the price - spectator mockery and team's morale crumbled. I don't trust politicians completely but people like Russell Brand have to at least appreciate them. If you don't like what they're doing, be an MP yourself and see if you can do better. If not, then take the back seat and observe the bigger picture. Someone has to do the dirty work. If you don't like your local MP's work, the least you should do is vote for someone different in your constituency. One vote can make a real difference.

The second point in Russell Brand's interview which I found horrifying was his view that rich people are to blame for social inequality. He, and myself included, despises the widening financial gap between those who are well off, and those who aren't. In his encounter with Jeremy Paxman, he said the word 'profit' is a "filthy" word. Of course, profits for major corporations means rise in costs for the public but what happens if there were no profits? Job cuts, more people needlessly heading towards poverty. You have to look at things from both sides.

Ideally, we want the gap between the "rich" and "poor" to be more narrow, but instead of slating millionaires for creating capitalism and start a "revolution" against them, as Russell Brand insinuated, we must encourage them to help those less well off to land on their own two feet. We must now live in a world where we pick up those who have tumbled, regardless of their social class, and make sure they stay up. The same applies to those who are better-off. They must stop whining about those who are in a lower social class than them, blaming them for the economic downturn. The thought of a revolution must stop. The last thing we need is a civil war. Britain must lead by example.

Let's put it this way, Russell Brand's latest episode has gotten him in my "people who annoy me" list again. I suppose I should have opened my eyes when he recently announced his "Messiah Complex" World Tour. I wouldn't vote for him if he was a politician in my constituency, that's for sure.