Dear Mr.Brand
I watched your Newsnight interview with a mixture of anticipation and trepidation. Paxman’s reputation precedes him; he is a verbal Leviathan forged in steel. Of course, not implying that you are one of the meek fisher-folk the Leviathan preys on, quite the opposite in fact. You are a very powerful wordsmith and are very capable of parrying and countering anything that is thrown at you. This is what makes this interview not David Vs. Goliath but Goliath Vs. Goliath. However, your article is the main focus of this letter. Your article portrays your intentions and your beliefs much more clearly than the barrage of arguments that the interview turned into.
The article stated your stance on voting, that it only serves a purpose if it brings along change. Since there is little change being brought, the frustration is completely justified. Let me explain. There is a procedure in place for situations like that, say nobody voted (including the dummy votes put in by parties), the monarchy decides on one of the two things- either it takes complete power like it did in the times before the English Civil War or it chooses the party it deems more “able” to rule the country. This is bad because we don’t want an absolute monarch and we don’t want the same old garbage we had before. In any case, not voting will get you the governance that you do not want. Therefore, not voting will only lead to one of these three undesirable results.
You misunderstand the message that will be sent to the Parliament by not voting. They will not receive an eye-opener about their sub par governance but rather another opportunity to grovel their way to power. There is a very key issue, exposed with first past the post voting, that the majority are not represented. Say there are a hundred people, 50 people decide to follow your advice and not vote, this leaves 50 people who choose to vote for one for one of the two majority party because independent parties don’t have a chance anyway. They want their voices to be heard, so they vote for those with a higher chance to be in power, so 24 vote for Party 1 and 26 votes for party 2. Party 2 wins but 74% of the population is already not represented. Not voting just enables the powerful to keep in power. So, I agree that the system needs to change, it needs to change from the inside and it needs to change now. It’s not that they’re deaf, they have noise cancelling headphones on. It’s not stupidity, it’s willful ignorance and a deliberate manipulation of the system, as stated in your article: “The lazily duplicitous servants of the City expect us to gratefully participate in what amounts to little more than a political hokey cokey where every four years we get to choose what color tie the liar who leads us wears.”
Your points are very relevant but they are sometimes lost in this heavy prose, which while makes it very interesting, makes the point clouded overall. The language that you use shows your articulation and intelligence(which is no suprise to those who have heard you speak on Trews) but can alienate those with a less developed vocabulary. However, you do address this issue: “I think these columnist fellas who give me aggro for not devising a solution or for using long words are just being territorial. When they say “long words” they mean “their words” like I’m a monkey who got in their Mum’s dressing up box or a hooligan in policeman’s helmet.” I think that that is a very good point and addresses the sudden classicism that comes around when us common folk use their high-born tongue.
However, the only problem with breaking the system from inside is entropy, in a metaphorical sense. The entropy of the self, the men who set out to do good will be captured by the system and “turned”. A very good example of this is the AAP in India (Aam Aadmi Party which means the Common Man’s Party), once set entirely on fixing corruption and the broken system of Indian Government but now are caught in small bureaucratic issues and red-tape as well as issues with leadership. Unfortunately, this is an issue we ( being the discontented and dissent spreading individuals we are) cannot in any way fix.
In conclusion, maybe your view is right, and really all of this procedure is ignored in a situation like that, maybe all we’re doing when voting is empowering the idiots who will continue ruining this country. I would love to believe that by not voting, the corrupted minds of these glorified mummers would turn into some care and consideration for the men, women and children of this country and others. I would to love to. But I can’t.
The speaker in the Laboratory is a woman driven to instability by the infidelity of her husband ( the identity of her husband is a point of contention when we were discussing this poem but I digress.). She, unlike other characters in poetry, is cold and calculated in her revenge. She shows little regret for her actions and has no visible sense of morality.
The speaker from The Laboratory has multiple shades to her personality often displaying psychopathic tendencies (lack of care for the people she interacts with ( the plot is shows she doesn’t care about the “sanctity of life), lack of morality.) Despite displaying these, she also shows emotion and not just a mild emotion but a very powerful one. Rage. “You may kiss me, old man, on the mouth if you will”, she is being promiscuous to the chemist who is brewing this “phial” for her. This shows she can also manipulate people easily and is a very skilled at the art of deception.
In conclusion, this character is mentally unstable and very broken by the infidelity that had happened to her. Her flawed nature and strong language make this character very entertaining to read and study.