Jeremy Corbyn's new year message was resoundingly anti-establishment. Amongst other things he said in a tweet:
Let's make 2017 the year we come together to take on the establishment and build a Britain for all.
Yesterday the Tory right and UKIP won the resignation of Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK representative to the EU. By any definition he is part of the establishment. Wise people are regretting his treatment and its consequences. The establishment may not be all bad then, which reminded me of a blog Andrew Purkis wrote a couple of days ago in which he said of Corbyn's new year message:
So the named enemy is the establishment. If the term means anything, that must include the Queen, the Church of England, other church and faith leaders, the senior ranks of the armed services, the security services and the police, the House of Lords, the Judiciary, senior civil servants, the upper ranks of business organisations and professional bodies of all kinds. Many charities are part of the establishment. Many head teachers across all sectors of education are part of the establishment. Does he really want to “take on” this lot? Might it be that important segments and individuals in this capacious category should be part of the solution, not lumped crudely together as the problem?
I have a great deal of sympathy with that. Let's be clear, there is a great deal I do not like about the way the UK has been governed for thirty or more years. I am angry every day at the injustice many people suffer. But candidly I rarely meet bad people, and I think it fair to say that I probably do mix with the establishment on occasion. I know Jeremy Corbyn, for a start.
What I meet instead are people captured by a system, doing what it requires of them. I do not dispute that there are some who drive that system's thinking and I can see every reason why anger is directed at them. But most people in the so-called establishment don't do that. They are just doing what they think seems to be required of them.
You can say they should think more. You can argue that like the concentration camp guard they should not have obeyed what seemed like orders to get by (get a job, get on, pay the mortgage, feed the family, etc, etc, etc.). But the truth is that for that to have happened there would have needed to be an alternative body of thought to which they could have subscribed which provided them with a compelling narrative that they might have thought it worth following as an alternative to the prevailing one. And that's not been there.
And let's not pretend that alternative is some form of socialism, because there is no socialist narrative of real consequence right now. And anyway, if there was its materialistic basis would have put it on conflict with the green narrative, which whilst strong still remains ill formed economically. And as for an alternative to financial capitalism? Some of us have tried to think about that, but it is a bit like whistling in the dark. So of course the establishment, who are by-and-large the deliverers but not the creators of the consequences of prevailing thought, have delivered neoliberal financial capitalism. It's been the only game in town. It still is: that's what is so worrying when its demise seems so near at hand.
That, though, makes an attack on the establishment illogical. All political systems need people to deliver policy, relatively unquestioningly, once a decision is taken. That is how a government gets its way. It does not take more than a moment's thought to realise that. In that case blaming the establishment is largely pointless. Blame the political thinkers by all means. Blame the politicians who delivered neoliberalism, for sure. Blame the media, for certain, because they can carry blame. Blame those who abused the system for gain, as is apparent many in the upper echelons of business have done. But blame most of the establishment? No that makes no sense at all. First, because we need them if government and society are to continue: their skills make things work, like it or not, and let's not pretend they could be replicated over night. But second, blaming them is illogical because the real failure comes from the likes of Jeremy Corbyn who have never come up in forty years of trying with an alternative coherent narrative that these people could have used. And we know he has not done that. If he had then Labour would be talking about it now and be way ahead in the polls, and it isn't.
I have tried such thinking: The Courageous State and Joy of Tax are evidence of that. I am working on the outline of another book now, based on the ideas I wrote here. But until anyone has got something alternative to offer its not just illogical to blame the establishment for delivering prevailing policy, it's indication of your own failure to come up with an alternative to suggest that doing so is their fault.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I agree that the term ‘the establishment’ is too nebulous a term to describe where to tackle it first. UKIP and the Tory Leavers know where to start though don’t they?
My worry is that after 30-40 years of dominant neo-liberal ideology in this country, the Civil Service is corrupted by its thinking and is beyond change. Every senior civil servant I meet seems to see themselves as either enablers of markets or witch finder generals of imaginary poor performance in the public sector.
I accept that
But that’s why narrative change is the start and right now Labour is talking about living within its means – a neoliberal idea
We are a wafer-thin mint apart in our diagnosis, Richard, but reach importantly different conclusions about the way ahead. Of course many Establishment individuals are polite, pleasant and have skills to deploy. Of course it is the case that many are camp guards subjected to a brutal systemic context that requires significant powers of individual conviction to oppose, characteristics that many do not posses. And of course it might make sense, as Purkis wrote, to include some elements of the existing hierarchy in the solutions to our current problems whenever they are being implemented. Of course.
But.
This isn’t any normal situation. We all perceive that this is a time of flux. The safe and rational and reasonable way forward from here is, in my opinion, not an alternative. It has proven not to be so consistently for the last thirty years. Incremental shifting, attempts to move the Overton window, working from ‘inside the tent’ have all failed; the current ideological power in residence, neoliberal economics, is as fixed in place as ever. Nothing has shifted it and in fact it looks so entrenched that many on our side already accept that it will get worse and worse until at least 2020. The inescapeable conclusion is that normal methods of working no longer function. Only radical change offers any hope of improvement for the many.
Radical change does not act reasonably; radical change does not sift the good from the bad of the current setup; radical change does not take a balanced and nuanced view. Sadly. Human history offers us many examples confirming that eggs will be broken to make the new omelette.
My suggestion is that those members of the current Establishment who are listening, those individuals on the list mentioned;
“the Queen, the Church of England, other church and faith leaders, the senior ranks of the armed services, the security services and the police, the House of Lords, the Judiciary, senior civil servants, the upper ranks of business organisations and professional bodies of all kinds. Many charities are part of the establishment. Many head teachers across all sectors of education are part of the establishment”
and a good few more (leading academics, civil servants, media figures of all kinds) should consider exactly the public judgment that will be forming now of which side it appeared they were on before the change. Because that is precisely what they could find themselves having to face in the future; an irrational, unreasonable and unthinking judgment of their position and activities over the last thirty years. It will, I suspect, be no defense to say ‘It was too difficult to change it’ or ‘No-one could have done anything’ because people will only see the gilt-edged pensions, the golden parachute payments and the constant wealth and preferment that they themselves did not have access to. They will only see the inequality.
Those are the times which face us, I’m sorry to say.
Soi you’re suggesting its change your mind time before heading for the wall?
No. That assumes everyone in a current position to do something about our parlous state of affairs buys into the prevailing orthodoxy and that is plainly not true. They may already be of a mind to help their fellows citizens rather than profit from their subjection so no ‘mind to change’ in that case.
And ‘no’ again because I don’t want standing in front of ‘the wall’ to be anyones fate.
But I do most earnestly urge anyone who has power to influence affairs to transparently put their shoulder to the wheel of change. The history of almost all rapid and jolting changes of direction for a society are not heartwarming examples of how tenderly members of the previous regime were treated. And the longer and more pronounced the current path of damage to many people continues to be, the more sharp and violent the coiled snap-back will be.
One anecdote to illustrate;
A few years ago Professor Greg Philo at Glasgow proposed a one-off wealth tax in the UK to eliminate the national debt at the time. It was a radical and completely rational proposition. It targetted the most wealthy 4 percent of the population by appropriating a significant but minority proportion of their wealth (around 25% from memory). What interested me was that the University department conducted research among those targetted by the plan and found that 75% or more of them not only understood why it was being proposed but, crucially, said they would accept the charge as they wanted to be part of a growing, hopeful and cohesive society not a fractured, hopeless and ailing one. They understood completely that they would pay a short term price for a longer term goal. I think this sort of thinking is predominant amongst most intelligent and wealthy people.
However knowing this sort of thinking exists makes it difficult to accept the protestations of those who are in a position to help but who fail to even exert themselves let alone sacrifice something substantial. And I don’t think I’m alone in seeing them as part of the problem rather than part of any solution.
At some point you have to choose a side; by remaining on the side of personal advantage at the expense of the many one can be said to have chosen.
I very much doubted the equity or viability of Greg’s plan, which was definitely not a just tax
Well if you accept the Purkis definition a challenge to the establishment does look misconceived. But I have never thought of headteachers of state schools or charities (apart from the IEA and their ilk) as part of it, and find it strange that he did not specifically identify the press, dominated as it is by tax evading billionaires. I share your concerns about Labour’s direction of travel, but can also appreciate the difficulties of assembling a raft of proposals around which MPs could coalesce.
But if you take a narrower view of who the establishment are (Owen Jones style perhaps) it is clear that “anti-establishment” sentiment should not be left to the right to lionize and distort as Trump and UKIP have.
If you want to call the Establishment big business that’s fine
But that’s clearly not what labour is saying]
he’s defining it as being most Labour MPs, for example
Corbyn MUST go! Time is running out before 2020 so there are two essential activities that need to be at full-throttle right now. As you say, a complete reframing of the political narrative. In this age of instant communiacation and sound bites, words take on a new dimension of importance. Secondly, a realistic alternative needs to be articulated and not a knee-jerk reaction to the current ‘divide & rule’ neo-liberal agenda.
All the statistical evidence suggests there is an opportunity for a more co-operative, positive, fairer message that would resonate with the electorate. Of course it’s necessary to pick apart any policy that doesn’t advance the well-being of the nation. But just doing that isn’t the passport to radical change. People want to be able to believe in policies that make sense for everyday lives. It’s not rocket science, is it? And, yes,the messenger is important.
I hope Caroline Lucas, Time Farron, Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon are talking to each other because there’s a war to be fought and won. Your country needs you!
Three of them are, I am sure
The Labour Party has enjoyed periods in national office and it’s goal is to do so again through the democratic route by securing a majority in parliament.
If that doesn’t make it part of the establishment I’m not sure what would.
Not for the first time, nor I am despairingly sure the last, Corbyn is talking utter drivel which is likely to turn even more voters away.
Wanting to be PM is, surely, the ultimate establishment goal?
Especially when you can’t say why
What I don’t understand about the Labour Party at the moment, Richard, is that the alternative – or a large component of it, at least, is already out there. Your book “The Courageous State” and the Compass “Plan B” report already outlined an alternative economic agenda back in 2011, and there are other examples. For sure, both of these publications were starting points rather than the final destination, but the broad direction of travel is very clear – basically a left social democratic agenda with a strong environmental component. So why isn’t Labour pushing ahead to develop a manifesto based on this agenda? Particularly as both Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership campaigns have relied strongly on these kind of ideas. So what’s stopping Corbyn and McDonnell, and their teams, getting on with the job of policy development? (Happy New Year by the way!)
Howard
Plan B was a stunner – even if I say so as someone who played a part in it
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Compass_Plan_B_web1.pdf
Why can’t he just get on with it? I wish I knew
And happy new year to you and yours
Richard
Richard – I’d not seen Plan B before and from even a quick read it does seem to cover a lot of the bases. if Labour failed to take it up, has there been any interest from the LibDems or Greens? Or SNP come to that. Or is anything going on to get them interested I wonder
Or as ever, are they all off developing different versions of much the same wheel…
The Greens have come closest
I agree with you entirely. But does this not bear similarity to those who attack the tax profession as a whole? Sure, blame those marketing off the peg schemes or regularly taking views at odds with the clear intention of Parliament, because acceptable tax planning has moved on from that. And blame the users of such schemes. And blame Parliament where the rules could be fixed, but aren’t. But why blame the people who are simply advising clients on what the rules actually *are*? Perhaps you do not, but it does seem as though some people lump all those categories of tax professional together, without distinction.
I don’t do that
I accept some do n ot have that nuance and that needs to change
Apologies for a false accusation, in which case.