Change for the Worse?

To return to celebrity-bashing for a brief post, a newly non-Newsnight presenting Jeremy Paxman has been giving us more of his dubious 'wit' and 'wisdom'.  The occasion this time was the Chalke Valley history Festival, at which he was a guest.  Now, I should point out that this festival was sponsored by the Daily Mail which, I think, gives a pretty good idea of the kind of 'history' it covers: safe, establishment narratives which don't challenge the conservative consensus about, say, World War One and the Empire.  Which makes Paxman the perfect guest.  Anyway, to cut to the chase, Paxo used the event to comment on his time presenting Newsnight, characterising the programme's production team as being 'thirteen year olds' who, like all teenagers, apparently wanted to change the world, whereas he, a 'one nation Tory', (a label often used by Tory voters to make themselves appear less reactionary and more 'cuddly'), just wanted to maintain the status quo. 

Now, none of this should surprise anyone, but it is interesting for the insight it gives of the establishment mind and the fundamental lie they have to perpetuate in order to maintain the integrity of their world view.  That lie is that change is not only undesirable in some way, but that it can somehow be resisted.  The reality - which surely must be apparent to any student of history, even Paxo - is that change is inevitable.  Indeed, isn't that what history is - a chronicle of change?  The fact is that change happens whether we like it or not.  The only real choices we have with regard to change is that we can either seek to ensure that it benefits rather than disadvantages the majority of people, or try to manipulate it to benefit a powerful elite over the majority.  Of course, what the likes of Paxo try to do is pretend that the latter choice isn't really change, simply a continuation of the natural order of things.  A natural order which, obviously, just happens to preserve their privileges and status.