People Want Change – But They Aren’t Even Looking for It

Choosing the best of a bad bunch isn’t the same as choosing something good

People talk about change constantly. They want it, they hope for it, they vote for it, and they argue about it. But beneath all that noise sits a quieter truth: most people aren’t looking for real change at all. Not because they don’t care, but because they’ve been conditioned to believe that real choice comes from outside themselves.

For generations, people have been taught – subtly, consistently, and often invisibly – that the only choices that matter are the ones handed to them. And when you’re only ever offered a narrow set of options, you eventually stop imagining that anything else could exist.

The Illusion of Choice

When people step into a polling booth, they see a list of names and assume those names represent the full range of possible futures.

But the options on that paper were shaped long before the voter arrived. Candidates were selected, narratives were set, and boundaries were drawn by processes the public never sees.

So people choose – but they choose from a list they didn’t write.

And here’s the trap:

Choosing the best of a bad bunch isn’t the same as choosing something good.

Yet people have been conditioned to believe it is.

They’ve been taught that if they pick the “least-worst” option, they’ve made a meaningful choice.

But the least-worst option is still part of the same system that produced the worst ones.

This leads to the unavoidable truth:

You cannot make a good choice if you’re not given any good options.

People aren’t choosing badly.

They’re choosing from what exists – and what exists is often inadequate by design.

How People Learn to Stop Looking

This pattern doesn’t just appear in elections. It runs through almost every part of modern life.

Most of the “choices” people make – what they buy, how they work, what opportunities they can pursue – are shaped by structures they didn’t design.

Over time, people learn to navigate within those boundaries rather than question them. They learn to adapt rather than imagine alternatives. They learn to accept rather than explore.

Eventually, people stop looking for real choice because they no longer believe real choice comes from them.

They’ve been taught that power lives “out there” – in institutions, parties, systems, markets – and that their role is simply to pick from whatever those systems provide.

The Real Question of Power

This is where the deeper issue lies.

Real choice – the kind that leads to real change – always comes from within.

It comes from people recognising their own agency, their own imagination, their own ability to shape what comes next.

But the system we live in depends on people forgetting that.

Everything is handed to us:

  • the candidates
  • the narratives
  • the acceptable opinions
  • the “realistic” options
  • the boundaries of debate
  • the structure of daily life

Most people don’t even see it happening.

Those who do often feel powerless to challenge it, because the problem isn’t individual – it’s systemic.

A system built on external control cannot easily accommodate internal agency.

Why People Feel Powerless

The frustration so many people feel today – the sense that nothing ever really changes – doesn’t come from apathy. It comes from a deeper disconnection between what people want and what they believe is possible.

People feel powerless not because they lack power, but because they’ve been encouraged to forget they have any.

They’ve been taught that:

  • the system defines the options
  • the options define the outcome
  • and their role is simply to choose between them

When that’s all you’ve ever known, you stop looking for anything else.

Real Change Begins Before the Options Exist

The most important shift isn’t political – it’s psychological.

Real change begins when people remember that choices don’t have to come pre‑packaged. That alternatives don’t have to be offered by institutions to be real. That agency doesn’t begin and end with a vote.

A genuine choice is one that:

  • isn’t manufactured
  • isn’t constrained by fear
  • isn’t limited to what already exists
  • and isn’t defined by someone else’s imagination

Most people have never been encouraged to think in those terms. Many don’t realise they can.

The Cycle Will Continue – Until People Look Beyond the Given Options

New parties may appear. Old ones may rebrand. Movements may rise and fall. But unless people start looking beyond the options placed in front of them, the outcomes will remain the same.

People will hope for change.

They will vote for change.

And they will be disappointed again.

Not because they chose wrongly, but because they were never offered a real choice in the first place – and never encouraged to create one.

The First Step Toward Change

If people genuinely want something different, the first step isn’t to wait for better options.

It’s to recognise that good choices require good options – and those options can be created, not just received.

People want change.

Deeply.

Sincerely.

But until they start looking for it within themselves – rather than in the limited menu the system hands them – they will keep finding only what the system already provides.

Freedom of anonymity is not freedom of speech, yet it serves all the wrong purposes for it to be seen as the same thing

A few days ago, I watched Emily Atack’s BBC Documentary about online abuse. Through all of the inappropriate, to unpalatable, to offensive, to harmful, to absolutely wrong stories and anecdotes that Emily and those she spoke to revealed, it was the words of one of the male respondents in a discussion group that spoke loudest. When asked why men do it, he replied; because they can.

Whilst the behaviour of anyone who causes the kind of mental distress and fear that so many clearly are, needs to be punished appropriately, my real concern is that punishment or focusing upon it as the effect that it is, rather than the real gate opener or cause to this problem, means that the focus is being pushed further and further away from the real issue – which is being avoided, because our politicians don’t want to upset their friends, or attempt to deal with any issue they believe likely will show them in a negative light.

The inability of our entire political class to be the public representatives that they regularly insist they are and that we should all be able to expect them to be, is mind blowing.

Throw a virus they know nothing about into the mix and they can bring life to a standstill in moments. Ask them to take the necessary steps to legislate the removal of the biggest cause of online threats to individuals, and its more than their ‘job’ is worth.

With things as they are today, the failure of the issue of online anonymity and the role it plays in online abuse to gain any real traction, probably means that there are a significant number of online abusers already on a pathway to carrying out much more serious crimes against others.

They will also arguably do massive but avoidable damage to themselves – all because the will and respect for the responsibility to the public they represent isn’t there on the part of legislators (MPs) who could solve this all very quickly.

Indeed, all they would need do would be to make it law for everyone using any kind of social media platform to be registered with an independent body – even if they then continue to publish and communicate under some kind of assumed name.

Yes, that independent body would need to be independent of a system of government that is increasingly displaying dystopian overtures. But it would also need to be independent of the Tech companies, who through their collaboration with the establishment and silent banning of dissenting voices, have already shown that they cannot act with integrity in any matter where they would be self-policed.

Freedom of speech is about the content of words, not who spoke them. Yet in this current climate, the terms freedom of speech and freedom of anonymity have become alarmingly interchangeable when they don’t in any way relate to the same thing.

The failure of the establishment to recognise and regulate to reduce unrecorded anonymity to its absolute minimum literally means that the parallel universe which is the internet and world of apps is a place where behaviour that would already be punishable in the ‘real world’ is being exploited by people online, who believe they have impunity against punishment for doing the same things.

With a disintegrating public sector, court system and police service, surely making it clear that everyone is simple to identify, and potentially has to abide by a code of conduct, even if they are overtly anonymous, would mean that abuse would almost disappear overnight. Meanwhile, those who genuinely need anonymity, would still be able to speak freely – as in any free speaking society, it is only right and fair that they should?