'The Establishment Uncovered: How Power Works In Britain'

Started by Orchid, August 27, 2014, 02:54:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Orchid

The establishment uncovered: how power works in Britain | Society | The Guardian

QuoteThe establishment uncovered: how power works in Britain
In an exclusive extract from his new book, Owen Jones explains how the political, social and business elites have a stranglehold on the country.

Definitions of "the establishment" share one thing in common: they are always pejorative. Rightwingers tend to see it as the national purveyor of a rampant, morally corrupting social liberalism; for the left, it is more likely to mean a network of public-school and Oxbridge boys dominating the key institutions of British political life.

Here is what I understand the establishment to mean. Today's establishment is made up – as it has always been – of powerful groups that need to protect their position in a democracy in which almost the entire adult population has the right to vote. The establishment represents an attempt on behalf of these groups to "manage" democracy, to make sure that it does not threaten their own interests. In this respect, it might be seen as a firewall that insulates them from the wider population. As the well-connected rightwing blogger and columnist Paul Staines puts it approvingly: "We've had nearly a century of universal suffrage now, and what happens is capital finds ways to protect itself from, you know, the voters."

[sic] The differences between Fairlie's era and our own show that Britain's ruling establishment is not static: the upper crust of British society has always been in a state of perpetual flux. This relentless change is driven by survival. History is littered with demands from below for ruling elites to give up some of their power, forcing members of the upper crust of British society to compromise. After all, unchecked obstinacy in the face of demands for change risks bringing down not just individual pillars of the establishment, but the entire system of power with them.

The monarchy is a striking example of a traditional pillar of power that, faced with occasionally formidable threats, has had to adapt to survive. This was evident right from the origins of a power-sharing arrangement between crown and parliament struck in the aftermath of revolution and foreign invasion in the 17th century, and which continues to exist today. Many of the monarchy's arbitrary powers, such as the ability to wage war, ended up in the hands of the prime minister. Even today, the monarchy's role is not entirely symbolic.

"The Crown is a bit of a vague institution, but it is kind of the heart of the constitution, where all the power comes from," says Andrew Child, campaign manager of Republic, a group advocating an elected head of state. The prime minister appoints and sacks government ministers without needing to consult the legislature or electorate because he is using the Queen's powers: these are the Crown's ministers, not the people's. In practice, too, members of the royal family have a powerful platform from which to intervene in democratic decisions.

Prince Charles, the designated successor to the throne, has met with ministers at least three dozen times since the 2010 general election and is known to have strong opinions on issues such as the environment, the hunting ban, "alternative" medicine and heritage.

In contrast to other European countries, Britain's aristocracy also managed to avoid obliteration by adapting and assimilating. In the wake of the industrial revolution it absorbed – much to the disgust of traditionalists – some prospering businessmen into its ranks, such as the City of London financier Lord Addington and the silk broker Lord Cheylesmore. The aristocracy continued to wield considerable political power throughout the 19th century, supplying many prime ministers, such as the 1st Duke of Wellington, the 2nd Earl Grey and the 2nd Viscount Melbourne. But following parliament acts passed by MPs in 1911 and 1949, this power was curtailed when the elected House of Commons enshrined in law its own dominance over the aristocrats' House of Lords. The legacy of centuries of aristocratic power has not vanished, though: more than a third of English and Welsh land – and more than 50% of rural land – remains in the hands of just 36,000 aristocrats.

The full article needs to be read for greater context as the extracts quoted above are presented in a slightly disjointed way here and the reference to the monarchy forms only a fraction of the overall analysis and argument.  For that reason it was difficult to decide where to place this article on the forum: current affairs or republic. But I opted for Republic as it has the potential to act as a springboard into a really interesting discussion on "the establishment" and by extension the monarchy's and parliament's symbiotic powers/partnership. 

An often overlooked (and separated) issue in any debate on the powers of monarchy and parliament is the way in which one extends absolute power to the other thereby operating in partnership and outside the choices and approval of the electorate.  It would be interesting to read what people think on this point.

Several interesting points were made by Andrew Child on the nature of the monarchy which would feed a productive discussion:

- First off was 'The Crown' (a vague term in and of itself) which is defined in this article as being 'a vague institution' at 'the heart of the constitution'.
In light of the disparate interpretations - which range on a spectrum from a powerless, apolitical organisation to a powerful, influential organisation in possession of pejorative powers and the right to 'intervene in democratic decisions' plus anything in-between - is it accurate or inaccurate to evaluate the monarchy as something "vague"?

- By extension there's the assessment of 'The Crowns' Ministers, not The Peoples'. The applied powers of parliament which extend "down" from the monarch inarguably support this claim. In this way does the role of a monarch subvert the democratic process of an electorate and legislature?  I think it does. What do you think?
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

SophieChloe

#1
Jee-whiz you are very clever! 

I love Owen Jones - I often hear him on the radio.  Man after my own heart :

"Chavs"
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

Orchid

Quote-The chav stereotype, he argues, is used by governments as a convenient figleaf to avoid genuine engagement with social and economic problems and to justify widening inequality. Based on a wealth of original research, Chavs is a damning indictment of the media and political establishment and an illuminating, disturbing portrait of inequality and class hatred in modern Britain.

I haven't heard of this author/book. I think the above excerpt from the prologue is interesting. Have you read it sophiechloe? What was his concluding argument?
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

DaisyMeRollin

#3
Okay. Just as a refresher, a seat in the House of Lords is a hereditary appointment by peers, there are more members of the House of Lords than the House of Commons, and you have cross-benchers that are unaffiliated with any party? From what I understand appointment to the House of Lords is a life term, but if they have no party affiliation, what purpose to they actually serve? Forgive my ignorance, I just never understood this and I'm trying to get my bearings. Is it safe to assume that the House of Lords has a conservative majority also?

Wrapping at the door of Keynesian economics, that should have died way before the bottom fell out in 2008/9. Sounds familiar.

Using class systems pejoratively, instead of applying pragmatic thought to increase socio-economic mobility. Sounds familiar.

As an "outsider" this struck me:

Quote"The Crown is a bit of a vague institution, but it is kind of the heart of the constitution, where all the power comes from," says Andrew Child, campaign manager of Republic, a group advocating an elected head of state. The prime minister appoints and sacks government ministers without needing to consult the legislature or electorate because he is using the Queen's powers: these are the Crown's ministers, not the people's. In practice, too, members of the royal family have a powerful platform from which to intervene in democratic decisions.

I've never understood those who claim the crown is "apolitical" (no offense to anyone) when the crown, as I understand it, is the executive power. While the PM interim may act on behalf of the queen, the monarch always has the option of "stepping in", right?

I'm hesitant to discuss religion on here.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I find it bizarre that there is a preconditioned notion of a hierarchy that is perpetuated by the very people who it might hurt the most. Whenever I see this, it seems like it's socially-ingrained subordination also.
"No one is dumb who is curious. The people who don't ask questions remain clueless throughout their lives." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

cate1949

great article Orchid thanks for posting it

this part really struck me

The establishment is amassing wealth and aggressively annexing power in a way that has no precedent in modern times. After all, there is nothing to stop it.

I really agree with that and we see it in the ever increasing inequity in wealth accumulation.  It does not bode well for the future.

With respect to monarchy - the establishment of which the monarchy is an integral part is maintained through social connections.  There is a nexus at which the Church of England - the government (either Labour or Tory) and the monarchy connect and support each other.  It is those social connections which are important to watch.  Elimination of the monarchy would disrupt things but not end it - the establishment would continue. 

I recently read a book about the 1798 rebellion in Ireland - which was brutally horrifically put down - shockingly so.  One of the major points made in the book was how the "establishment" fearing what might happen if the native Irish Catholics and  the Scots Presbyterians made common cause - which they were doing during this rebellion.  So a propaganda campaign was initiated which set the native Irish and the Scots Presbyterians against each other.  I won't go into how they did it but the divide and conquer technique is still used to day -by the establishment to protect their wealth and their privileges and the rest of us still get suckered in by that technique.  Which is why they still have so much more wealth and privilege

Curryong

It isn't safe to assume anything about the House of Lords, Daisy!
I think there's about 220 Labour peers in the Upper Chamber, 221 Conservative and 99 Liberal Democrat. Three peers are UKIP, two each are Democrat Unionist and Ulster (Northern Ireland) Unionist, Plaid Cymru, (the welsh Nationalists), have two peers, Greens have one, and the Lords Spiritual, (the Bishops) have 26. Nineteen Independent and non-affiliated peers put in their contribution, and there are about 181 Peers sitting on the cross-benches for one reason or another!

Don't forget, the Lords is a House of Review and every Peer is entitled to a view.

Orchid

It's great to read everyone's contributions so far. And may I add how refreshing it is to see a proper discussion emerging where ideas are being exchanged and developed. Thank you!

A lot of points have been made and I hope to have some time in the morning to engage with them/post a reply.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

Curryong

Yes, cate but that is how elites have always behaved since the dawn of history in preserving power and wealth. Divide and conquer is a tried and true technique. The British establishment certainly isn't unique in its efforts to remain on top nor is their behaviour enabled because it operates in a Constitutional monarchy. Examine every imbedded power structure throughout history, from Ancient Rome to Nazis and the Franco and Stalin regimes, to the way the US elites behave, and you come up with much the same.

DaisyMeRollin

Quote from: Curryong on August 28, 2014, 01:08:04 AM
It isn't safe to assume anything about the House of Lords, Daisy!
I think there's about 220 Labour peers in the Upper Chamber, 221 Conservative and 99 Liberal Democrat. Three peers are UKIP, two each are Democrat Unionist and Ulster (Northern Ireland) Unionist, Plaid Cymru, (the welsh Nationalists), have two peers, Greens have one, and the Lords Spiritual, (the Bishops) have 26. Nineteen Independent and non-affiliated peers put in their contribution, and there are about 181 Peers sitting on the cross-benches for one reason or another!

Don't forget, the Lords is a House of Review and every Peer is entitled to a view.

Thank you for the reminder. I forgot that there were checks and balances within the HoL.

Ah, UKIP. They're a charming bunch, aren't they? Have any UKIPers filibustered with Green Eggs and Ham yet? Sorry, couldn't help myself there.

Retrospectively thinking, I've come to realize that our prerequisites for Poli-Sci, even on the university level, is maybe a little too American-centric for the tuition cost. It's usually intertwined with British history, but probably requires more emphasis on the structure for a better understanding. I used to be under the impression that cross-benchers were an intermediary within the UK parliament of sorts, but that notion was dismissed a couple of years ago.
"No one is dumb who is curious. The people who don't ask questions remain clueless throughout their lives." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

cate1949

Quote from: Curryong on August 28, 2014, 02:04:20 AM
Yes, cate but that is how elites have always behaved since the dawn of history in preserving power and wealth. Divide and conquer is a tried and true technique. The British establishment certainly isn't unique in its efforts to remain on top nor is their behaviour enabled because it operates in a Constitutional monarchy. Examine every imbedded power structure throughout history, from Ancient Rome to Nazis and the Franco and Stalin regimes, to the way the US elites behave, and you come up with much the same.


yes that is how they behave - human nature I suppose but curbs have been placed on the extent to which they can enjoy the massive wealth whilst the rest of the population struggles.  One need only look at tax policy and the distribution of wealth pre 1970's and compare it to today - there was much less disparity in the distribution of wealth very much less.

The whole idea od democratic societies is to curb these tendencies - but if our democracies are not "working" then the tendency to act in one's own interest as opposed to the common good gets worse.