The nature of “Change”

It amazes me that people actually consider any party; Labour, Tory, or Lib Dem of being the “party of change”. Absolutely unreal to believe that. I voted Liberal Democrat, almost in a moment of madness. I suppose I got caught up in the excitement of the election. It amuses me how many fellow students actually believe they were voting for “change” for the Liberal Democrats. It makes me feel like banging my head against a wall. The same feeling I get when people say “Well Gordon Brown caused this mess, so the Tories have to fix it!!!“. I am actually quite ashamed of myself for voting. I agree with the Lib Dem policy on Trident, and I agree with them on laying the foundations for a Greener economy. I disagree, profoundly with them and the Tories and Labour, on pretty much everything else. But my main issue with them, and my main issue with why they offer no real change, is because they still seem to believe that democracy is only acceptable in the Political sphere, and that the economic sphere is best left to faceless businessmen, as if they know what’s best for the World and the rest of us should just accept it.

Why was financial reform not at the top of the agenda? Why did centre-left and left wing parties allow the political discourse to become one of the necessity of savage public spending cuts? Why did centre-left and left wing parties allow the discourse to suggest that it is the public sector that is to blame, that government spending is to blame for the deficit? It is because they are not centre-left or left wing parties, they are parties for the rich, by the rich. The Lib Dems offer no real change. They offer the status quo, and the status quo is centre-right.

Financial deregulation was started by the Conservatives in the 1980s. It continued under Labour. The Liberal Democrats did not oppose it. The Liberal Democrats have no plans to reverse it. What they have basically been telling us for thirty years, is that government spending distorts the market by artificially affecting the demand side of the economy, whereas a bank offering easy imaginary money to stimulate our obsession with debt fuelled consumerism, is perfectly acceptable. They decided that it’s okay for a bank to use our money and our savings, not to invest in productive enterprises that progress mankind, but in totally non-productive speculative gambling and massive monopolising corporate take overs and mergers.

The very people who got us into the mess over in the private financial sector, are the same people who finance the parties across the World who are now not offering any kind of financial reform to stop them doing it again. A global banking transaction tax is surely only going to end up being passed onto consumers? The financial industry holds us all to ransom. When we hear them say that capital will flow out of the country, and cause investment to drop, if tax is put up……. they’re right. A lot of people dispute it. But they are correct. You almost have to bribe them to try and get them to stay in the Country. Bribing with political power, is usually the way it’s done. If you look at Latin America, what tends to happen when a Latin American government tries to invest in social justice, and attempts to help it’s people through a better standard of schooling and health, is that either America funds a right winged coup (see Nicaragua), or capital flows out of the country, which is then brought to it’s knees, and the Western World blames the evils of Socialism. When in reality, what is happening, is that slowly, politicians have less and less power, they have to give in to the owners of great wealth, otherwise capital flows out, and investment falls. The economic sphere, has the most power, and we have no say over that. Financial speculation has absolutely no social good. It is a cancer on the fabric of society. The financial industry, holds the World to ransom. And until the public have some control over the economic sphere, it is never going to change. The Lib Dems, certainly aren’t going to change it.

If you think through the logic of this, you’ll see that so long as economic power remains privately concentrated, everybody...everybody…….. has to be committed to the one overriding goal: and that’s to make sure that the rich folks are happy.
Whenever a reform measure does come along somewhere, they have a big propaganda campaign against it saying ‘it’s going to hurt jobs, it’s going to hurt investment, it’s going to hurt business confidence and so on. That’s just a complicated way of saying unless you keep business happy, the population isn’t going to have anything.

– Professor Noam Chomsky

There are no left wing intellectuals left within the political system any more. Politics demands leaders of Parties who pander to the public mood, which is artificially created and implanted, by the media. Immigration is a great example. Migration is caused by global inequality, nothing else. When capital and goods are free to flow across the World, so will human beings. It is our survival instinct at work. And so the only real way you deal with immigration, is to deal with global inequality. Stop the IMF destroying poorer countries with ideological warfare. A global initiative to tackle exploitation. A Global bill of rights ensuring a minimal standard of living for all human beings. In the 21st Century, where it’s considered morally acceptable to allow someone to amass a fortune worth billions of pounds, it seems abhorrent that it is considered morally acceptable to allow another to starve to death as a result of nothing more than this nightmare of an economic system. A Global financial sector regulator that is fully independent of any private interest. To sum up, a Global initiative to create a socially responsible form of Capitalism, rather than a regressive Darwinian form of Capitalism we’ve all had forced down our throats. Global solutions, to Global problems. Politicians across the UK and the World, especially in the developed Nations, pander to idiots, bigots, and xenophobes who do not understand the World, and offer easy and quick Colonian-esque solutions to complex problems. The Lib Dems do not offer any change here either.

So, who do we vote for, for real change?

8 Responses to The nature of “Change”

  1. jay says:

    For real change, you can have a look at the Greens to gently take down capitalism. Of course, as they don’t plan to keep the rich guys happy, they don’t have a whole lot of support.

  2. Your next post has to be “how to put the genie back in the bottle”? The mechanics are initially simple (although given human nature may get complex), but the politics seem next to impossible.

    What percentage of your living standard are you prepared to give up for global equality? Is it as much as (or as little as) 50%? And how would you want that cut manifested? It is not just a halving of personal income (based on the above guess), but it is probably a halving of the tax take, which roughly means a halving of public spending:

    abandon much of our defence – but keep some military to run gas water electrity fire and ambulance services etc. when we have the inevitable public sector strikes
    close half the NHS
    privatize the universities
    voluntarise the welfare system
    confiscatory taxes on savings (including pensions), to pay government debt run up during the old days of the “big economy”

    Even if we “squeeze the rich until the pips squeak”, those on “average” living standards will have to take very noticeable cuts in living standards and in a “democracy” would the electorate (that’s us) vote for it? What percentage of income do people voluntarily give to charity?

    I’m sorry, we have sold our souls, and capitalism will not give them back and you will never get universal agreement to grab them back.

  3. Black Flag says:

    who do we vote for?

    NO ONE

    Until you and others understand the nature of a ‘political’ vote, disappoint plus slavery will be your lot.

    Human problems are NOT solved by political action (ie: legal violence). Every answer government has to any problem is “club the people senseless”.

    Until you release that; step away from it; no longer support it; – the worse of humanity will remain at the top.

  4. jay says:

    Black flag: I totally agree. The world needs to inspire from Somalia, a country without government.

  5. Black Flag says:


    Brilliant argument.

    It let’s me say:
    “The world needs to aspire to the examples of Afghanstan, Iraq, Stalinist Korea and Russia, and of course, good ol’ Maoist China and Hitlerite Germany for countries with government….”

  6. we can organise elections ourselves in a new way, first a global plan of some of the demands you mentioned and then an elections to elect the ministers of each project…they are obliged to follow the program-elections (internationally,telematically) or they are sacked octo

  7. Sean says:

    Black flag.. Somalia??!! You’d rather live in Somalia than the UK? If you’re implying that then you are wrong.

    Agree with you again on the article. Now the Lib Dems have joined a party which will probably not employ any of the progressive policies most of the Lib Dem voters voted for, it shows Clegg is just another politician seeking power. That’s the reality of politics.

  8. Black Flag says:


    I’d rather live free than a slave.

    It was an attempt at a fallacy argument – “Hey, ‘we’ are less worse, therefore that makes ‘us’ good!”

    A reverse beauty contest does not make ‘you’ beautiful, you’re still as ugly as ‘you’ were yesterday.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: