Skip to main content

"The Establishment" strikes back: SpAds, Dads and Rads this week pointed out that the succession of Ed Balls to the position of Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer marks the final triumph of the SpAd- the political special advisor. Now virtually all of the key positions on the front benches of both the Government and the Opposition are filled with professional politicians- who know no other life outside of politics. In fact the political clique is even narrower than you might think, since in order to obtain the unpaid jobs at the foot of the political ladder, there is a minimum degree of wealth required. It is not an accident then, that so many of the political leaders of Britain come from a privately educated background. The political class- in Peter Oborne's memorable phrase- is also a narrow social elite. "The Establishment", in the shape of the public schools, has recovered a level of control over politics that would have been regarded as unthinkable just a couple of decades ago.

Not just in politics.

In journalism, the Rifkinds, the Johnsons, and a whole host of other families have begun to make the press into hereditary dynasties. As I have noted before, the same is true of the legal profession. Even in entertainment, we see a parade of new faces but familiar names as comedians or writers.

Meanwhile the 90% of us who lie outside this magic circle have ever less chance to break in.

All this is coming at a time when the rewards for professional success have never been higher. The wealth gap between those at the top of the ladder- the judges or university professors- versus those lower down on the ladder- the solicitor or the research student- is wider than it has ever been. Yet the opportunities for those from ordinary backgrounds to break in to "The Establishment" are far fewer than in the 1960s. Indeed the radicals of that era have spawned their own group of celebrity success- the litany of Jaggers or Osbornes that appear in the press and on the television is testament to that. Those who have achieved success hand it on to their children.

It can not go on like this.

Social inequality is damaging at every level.

Yet, I do not buy into the Labour politics of envy- not least because it is laced with the hemlock of hypocrisy. Your wealth does not cause my poverty, because wealth is not a fixed cake of money to be divided, it is a flow of money.

The issue is therefore not equality of outcome which can not be achieved unless it is the equality of the grave- it is equality of chance. In the UK today if you are not part of the 7% who are privately educated, but part of the 93% who are not, then your chances are nearly five times less of entering the best universities and of achieving ultimate professional leadership. I do resent the public school politicians who presume to lead, despite having no executive experience and little understanding of the social crisis that the UK is stumbling into. The political class does not have to face the squalid breakdown of the NHS, the barely suppressed violence on the streets and in the (state) schools. Yet at the end, the fact is that the British people have allowed themselves to be gulled by an electoral system that permits a rigged choice every four or five years, by a social order that does not give sufficient educational opportunities to the economically disadvantaged. We have the government we deserve, because no one is speaking up.

In Buckinghamshire, where I stood for Parliament in 2005, the Grammar schools received nearly twice as much money per pupil than the non-Grammar schools, plus the support of wealthier and more involved and articulate parents. Yet it was the non Grammar schools were those who were taking in non English speaking kids and improving their attainment faster than those of the Grammar schools. There are successes to report, but these get drowned in a sea of social prejudice and a pervasive sense of failure of those not party to academic and social privilege.

In my view it is time for the Liberal Democrats to reassert their radical credentials. It is time to emphasise the need to create a more open society. It is time to remind ourselves why a free market creates not only greater wealth but also greater opportunity.

In the face of the closing doors of the Establishment, it is time to remember the radicalism and creativity of the 1960s- they time when Liberalism began to recover from its near death experience. Although as in the 1920s and the 1950s there is again pressure from the Conservatives to work more permanently together, we should- in my view- resist this powerfully. Liberalism is not Conservatism-lite, any more than it is Socialism-lite. It is a powerful ideology that informs an agenda of radical change.

British Society will in time reject the political class and this could be a serious breakdown. Yet at that point it could be the Liberal Democrats- with the free ideology of Locke and Hayek- who could be leading the way towards a more open and egalitarian political and social system.

That is a vision that we should be considering carefully over the next few months. Even as we note the filibuster in the House of Lords to try to prevent even the smallest change to our corrupt and dangerous electoral system. Those entrenched forces should be forced to defeat.

Radical change is needed and is coming- the question is who will lead it? And to what end?


Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi