In his article, Brand reflects on his interview with Jeremy Paxman, in which he is queried on his unorthodox political stance of complete abstinence from voting altogether. Claiming that, contradictingly, the current system is too flawed to warrant his attention and the economic disparity between the rich and poor is something to be immediately addressed. Brand comments in the article that his interview was commended because he had “articulated what they” presumably meaning the public who share his views, “were thinking”. This is perhaps true, but the points stated are nothing innovative, and have been articulated many times before, however the main difference between Brand and those who have also spoken his views is the guileless manner in which he voiced his, and to an extent my own, views on the bizarre runnings of this country.

It is very easy to take up arms alongside Brand, especially when he talks of politicians such as Boris Johnson “simpering under a makeup brush” which portrays a very vivid picture of the insincerity associated with politics. As a person who is not yet allowed to vote, I am discouraged immensely as Brand gives his take on how “The only reason to vote is if the vote represents power or change. I don’t think it does.” And that “We deserve more from our democratic system than the few derisory tit-bits tossed from the carousel of the mighty when they hop a few inches left or right” the emotive language creates a feeling of being robbed of a functioning government, and more importantly one of powerlessness to change that; Brands emotive language is akin to that of propaganda in prose and in effect.

Brand’s article, while maintaining an aloof composure within his writing, makes very direct and serious arguments, calling democracy as a whole “irrelevant” and that “it is our responsibility of be more active if we want real change” these rather contradictory statements occur in the very same paragraph. It seems that Brand encourages both passive protest of the government through abstinence and a simultaneous, radical revolution. Or perhaps the more likely alternative, that Brand wants an article to be agreeable to those dissatisfied with the government, of which there is a large amount, and one that will draw positive publicity to him.

Brand also seems all too eager to place the blame solely on the politician’s shoulders, which in part is a fair verdict. It is undeniable that the governments acts have not been with the whole interest of the people they “serve” as Brand puts it, but as much as “it’s their job to be serious” it cannot be said that citizens have no responsibility for the country they live in; we’ve passively condoned their behaviour for a multitude of reasons, perhaps the most difficult to come to terms with is that we are not so fervent in our dissatisfaction that is gives us cause for wanting change, let alone acting to create change in the near future. It seems that Brand, for a lack of a better word preys upon this token desire for democratic amendment, but neither Brand nor his sympathisers have reform on their agendas.