* Change the Government yet nothing seems to change: the same old policies seem to prevail.
*Pour ever-increasing amounts of money into medical care: yet nothing seems to improve.
Why does nothing ever seem to change? This is an oft-repeated cry of political frustration and dissatisfaction. The reason for this takes just a few minutes of simple reflection on how our world functions.
The British people voted for a change of government in 2024. The Tory government of the previous 14 years trashed the economy, education, the health service, the justice system, and most other social provision. People wanted something different/better so they voted for a Labour government, very decisively. Yet after little more than 16 months the new administration appears to have lost whatever hope/confidence people placed in it.
UK opinion polls now suggest that people are looking towards the Reform Party, a populist right wing party, for salvation. Reform’s central argument is that people believe they are not being listened to by politicians, and they are probably absolutely right! But why?
The underlying problem is that most people do not realise where political power resides.
We are too easily persuaded that we live in a democracy, that we, ‘the people’, elect our government on the basis of the policies they espouse, and that our elected officials will be willing and able to carry out our wishes. In Britain we have an election every 5 years; and we believe that our vote is the most powerful determinant of future policy. This is not an unreasonable assumption, given all that we have been taught now for several hundred years. We live in a democracy. We vote for our government. And our government pursues the policies we vote for. It’s a lovely idea. And maybe, once upon a time, it might have had a modicum of reality!
However the reality is now very different. Remember the maxim - follow the money? Politicians, political parties, and governments receive no money from the electorate. But our votes do provide those we elect with access to many lucrative sources of income. Consider, for example:
who funds our political parties (so important for politicians to entice us to vote for them)?
who invests in our economy (so vital for the policy, and the economic success, of all governments)?
who supports/funds/controls our mainstream media (so important in providing us with the information on which to base our vote)?
who spends £$billions on political lobbying?
Political lobbying is not a philanthropic enterprise. Industrial and commercial interests know full well that the money spent on lobbying produces rewards far greater than what is spent. Why else would they do it? So large corporate businesses, and mega-wealthy people, now spend huge amounts of money on lobbying, often across the full political spectrum; that is, it funds both Labour and Conservative parties; and in the USA both Democrats and Republicans.
Lobbying is about gaining/maintaining an advantage, about stopping the political process doing anything they consider to be against their private vested interests.
So politicians have to make a choice. They can pursue the policies on which they were elected. Or they can stick with policies that support the interests of powerful lobbying groups. Let’s look a just one small example of this ‘choice’ by using this comment I read from a UK campaigning group, 38 Degrees.
“The Government’s new Employment Rights Bill could transform the lives of millions of workers – bringing better sick pay, fair parental leave, and protection from unfair dismissal …..one. But there’s a problem. Powerful big business lobbyists are already pushing the Government to weaken or delay the Bill – fighting to protect profits over people. You can bet they want to keep exploitative practices like zero-hours contracts and ‘fire and rehire’ on the table”.
The Employment Rights policy was part of the Labour party’s General Election campaign. Labour has a clear mandate for it. Yet ‘powerful big business’ is lobbying against it. This political dichotomy happens regularly, routinely. And too often it is the political lobby that wins: and Government policy is watered down, or even abandoned altogether. The rich and powerful have spoken, the money has been followed!
What the electorate needs, and should be looking for, is a political party that focuses on transformational political action, action that seeks to carry through what people have voted for, one that is able to resist the temptations inherent within the lobbying process.
What they are getting, too often, is a party that says one thing, and then does another. Democracy requires political party’s that chooses to act on the basis of principle, and not according to some secret financial deal with ‘Big Business’.
So if the British people are looking for this from the Reform party they are probably looking in the wrong direction again, not for party political reasons, but because it is already well known that Reform is funded by rich and powerful individuals and corporations - indeed the same lobbyists that already have too much influence and control over the Labour and Conservative, (Republican and Democratic) parties.
So how does this affect what is happening to health provision? Why are we so sick? Why is chronic disease running at epidemic levels? And why has this been happening for the past 70-80 years
Events in the USA is instructive. The Trump administration, through Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy, is embarking on radical health care reforms. It was voted in to do just this by the USA electorate. Yet in doing so, Kennedy is pitting himself against the biggest, most powerful of all political lobbies - the Pharmaceutical lobby. So almost inevitably there is an important, indeed crucial battle going on over the future of health policy.
A significant reduction in the price of pharmaceutical drugs paid by Medicare and Medicaid. This is anathema to the pharmaceutical industry.
The reform of medical science to ensure its independence from the pharmaceutical industry. Again, anathema to the drug industry.
The re-establishment of an independent drug regulation process, one that is not dominated and controlled by the pharmaceutical establishment. More anathema!
The right of patients to be told, honestly and transparently, about the harm that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines can cause? More anathema.
Ending mandates on people to take pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and the re-establishment of patient choice and medical freedom. And yet more anathema!
So what can be witnessed is a battle between two very considerable forces. The American people voted for Kennedy’s health policies, so the federal government has a strong MAHA mandate, to “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA). Yet if this political mandate is pushed through it will undoubtedly have a devastating impact on the pharmaceutical industry.
So they will resist with all the influence that huge, unthinkable amounts of money can buy!
The USA Federal Government is clearly the weaker force. They are under vitriolic attack by most of the Democratic party, and most of the mainstream media. If we needed a demonstration about how a lobby works it is happening before our eyes! The entire Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment is defending its its dominance within health care provision.
Yet all Kennedy is asking for is to reform the current health system in order to make it safer for patients, and to reverse the serious ongoing epidemics of chronic disease in the USA. His is not really a radical agenda! He is only asking that conventional medical treatment is safer and more effective for patients. He is not even asking for health providers to utilise natural medical therapies, such as homeopathy, and offer them to the people so they can exercise patient choice and establish health freedom.
So who will prevail? Just how powerful is the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment? Can it overthrow Government policy? Can it ensure that medical science does not reform itself? Can it re-establish an independent Drug Regulatory process? Can it ensure that we do not find out that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have played a fundamental role in producing epidemics of chronic disease?
The next few years will determine who comes out on top, whether the principle of an honest, safe and effective medical system will prevail, or whether USA politicians will (as they often do) “follow the money” and thereby fail to protect their electorate from a dangerous system of medicine.
