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. Brand believes the economic disparity between the rich and poor is something to be immediately addressed, however he also claims that the current political system is too flawed to warrant his attention. This suggests that this budding dissenter has very little understanding of how these two vital components of our society correlate; something that is concerning when considering how much support this man has elicited. 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” portraying 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. Brand’s 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 declaring “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. His opinionated oscillation makes his motives (likely intentionally) vague; acquiring a rally of support while saying very little that could condemn him in the eyes of those more conservative.

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 behavior 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 it gives us cause for wanting change, let alone acting to create amendments 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.

I personally cannot say that Brand is incorrect in his political assertions. In my significantly shorter time on Earth than Brand and my even more significantly shorter time paying the remotest attention to politics. I have noticed very little change extending beyond a few cursory policies or the occasional passing of a mundane law. Certainly nothing similar to the change Brand envisions, but maybe perhaps that is the aspect of Brand’s argument I find strikes a chord; it’s just too perfect. With phrases like “If we all collude and collaborate together we can design a new system that makes the current one obsolete.” Preaching behind a laptop that “There are alternatives” causes me to doubt anything like genuine change entailing from this escapade when such naive statements are used. This seems evident to me that Brand is treating this more like an advertisement than a campaign for political reform, but I suppose that is to be expected from an article in a newspaper. It is just unnerving that someone who seems to desire change enough to write about it for the world to see, does in the same keystroke trivialise it in its entirety.