The establishment is a term that has existed for some time now (1955 to be precise). But what is the purpose of the term and where does it come from? Has this definition changed over time? How can the establishment been defined in today’s political arena? Chapter One: The Establishment: What It Is, and What It Was. The Establishment as a term didn’t first appear until a 1955 Spectator news article by Henry Fairle. Here he suggested that the establishment wasn’t just; “the centres of official power—though they are certainly part of it—but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised” (1955). He described the establishment as an entire network of powerful figures and associates, an upper echelon of society that controls society. The article was met with fury by those it cited as part of the establishment, yet all it did was echo the thinking of influential left winger theorists such as Karl Marx and Fredrich Eagles. In their Communist Manifesto, originally entitled; ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’ (1848) they discuss the establishment, albeit by a different name - the bourgeois. They cite the idea of class segregation as nothing new, “freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed”. These are several of the comparative terms they use to describe what could now be called ‘the establishment and working class’. Marx and Fredrich go on to discuss the segregations of social class throughout history; “we find almost everywhere… a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guildmasters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations” (1848). It could be argued that these classes still exist today, albeit in differing terms; the establishment; consisting of the political class, the monarchy, big business etc; followed by the upper class, those who do extremely well financially, but without the long history of family money; the middle class, consisting of doctors, teachers, police officers, people with qualifications; and finally, the working class, formed by those with no qualifications, low income jobs etc. Marx and Fredrich suggest that “the modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones”. Marx and Fredrich believe that the bourgeois or ‘the establishment’ as Fairle described it is still in power, it has merely changed it’s form to suit the modern socio-climate. In his book ‘The Establishment and How They Got Away With It’ left wing columnist Owen Jones agrees, describing the Establishment as “a shape-shifter, evolving and adapting as needs must” (2014). However he suggests, “one thing that distinguishes today’s Establishment from earlier incarnations is it’s sense of triumphalism. The powerful once faced significant threats that kept them in check. But the opponents to our current Establishment have, apparently, ceased to exist in any meaningful organised way” (2014). For a time the Catholic Church, an embodiment of the Establishment (or rather bourgeois) had to respond to the Monarchy and for a time the Monarchy, a different iteration of this hierarchal power matrix, had to answer to Parliament. But who does Parliament answer to now? It could be argued that the Establishment is about to undergo another change, with Parliament now beginning to be manipulated and controlled by (parochial Ford - mill owners new money) strength of capitalist interests is higher than ever before - global force. Capitalist interests via lobbying. In an article for his Independent column Mark Leftly examples a lunch between then Conservative Transport Minister and a university friend
who was “a lobbyist for a developer”. Leftly states that, “The Tory MP described this as a private engagement that did not need to be disclosed, but plans for a £400m rail freight exchange the developer was working on were discussed”. This ‘suggested’ lobbying broke no laws, but is a prime example of the subtle ways in which capitalism is seeping into Parliament. Capitalism, if Jones’ theory is to be believed, could be the new face of the establishment. Peter Oborne, in his piece for The Spectator, has a differing opinion of the Establishment and believes it to be dead. He feels that Fairle’s article identifying the Establishment came out around the time that it was actually on the verge of collapsing. He suggests that “the Political Class has come to occupy the same public space that the Establishment was supposed to until the end of the 20th century” (2007). He perceives the Political Class to be a different beast to the establishment, when it is in fact, the same - simply having evolved to suit the current social landscape. Harry Mount, in an article also for The Spectator, differs in opinion - highlighting that “The old elite, including the monarchy and the political parties, aren’t quite broke yet, but they are desperate to shore up their assets. And the new billionaires on the block have never had so much money to give away, or so many reasons to give it away in return for power”. One example of this new money is oligarch - Maria Baibakova who claims to be from an impoverished background. Baibakova, an art collector who serves on the board of Barnard College, New York, is the daughter an executive for a giant metals company in northern Siberia. Baibakova recently wrote an article for Russian Tattler in which she described how to manage and discipline a team of servants. Writing for the Telegraph, Tom Parfitt says; “the Tatler article, published this week, reveals a firm and old-fashioned belief that servants must not be treated as equals, or allowed to get above their station” (Parfitt, 2014). This is a prime example of new money holding onto the old establishment ways, which beggars the question, is the establishment really dead? Mount understands as Jones does that it isn’t - instead it is simply changing as it has done before, however he does suggest that there is indeed someone to answer to; those with money. Just as the Church and the Monarchy lost their respective power, so now too is the political class losing it’s. But how has the establishment changed? The Communist Party of Great Britain believes that during the first half of the 19th century Britain had “carved out a gigantic empire that at its peak covered one-quarter of the earth’s land surface and included one-quarter of its population” (CPGB, 2015). It had an industrial monopoly that enabled the elite of Britain to strike down any movements created by the working class. However through decolonisation, war and many other matters, the British Empire collapsed, with the monarchy, the previous incarnation of the establishment, feeling the brunt of this disintegration. Meanwhile Parliament, an assembly of governance that developed out the daily political needs of the king grew in power. Granting itself more authority during the monarchial eras of the Stuarts and the House of Hanover, Parliament evolved into something Peter Oborne describes as “The Political Class” (2007). He suggests that; “until recent times members of British ruling elites owed their status to the position they occupied outside Westminster. Today, in an important reversal, it is the position they occupy in Westminster that grants them their status in civil society”. This decline in the monarchy and the rise of the political class has been seized upon by capitalism. In 1950’s post-war Britain there was a rejuvenation within the economy - the time of Fordism had arrived with mass production. “In 1950 the United Kingdom accounted for a quarter of world trade in manufactures – a higher proportion than before the Second World War and far greater than today” (Quinault, 2001). This boom in manufacturing was common in most western civilisation at the time and has led to capitalism becoming what it is today with
politics becoming accountable, not solely to the people, but also to big business in the form of capitalism. Herein lies the problem; “The limits of political subjectivity… are established by an objective social structure - a capitalist society, animated by the imperative of economic growth, and constrained by it’s possible reconfigurations by an underlying structural essence that is not accessible to politics at all” (Gibson-Graham, 1996) What Gibson-Graham describes here a political environment that is limited by capitalist society due to it’s reliance on the economy. The British government has in recent years become dependant on saving the economy, to the point of ruination of the working class; this will be discussed in greater length in the next chapter. To reflect, from what has been established so far ‘The Establishment’ as a term is relatively new, it has existed throughout history in different forms, from the feudal lords of the Middle Ages, to the bourgeois of the 17th century, to the elite controllers of today. The establishment exists as a matrix to exercise power, but how is that done in modern society? A closer look is need to understand fully the role of the establishment specifically in the modern political arena.
Chapter Two: The Establishment: It’s Power and Influence Considering the current climate of austerity within Britain it would be all too easy to point fingers and decry the Conservative Party as the face of the Establishment. But that would be an incorrect accusation. Whilst having more influence in politics since the Conservative Election win, the Establishment, as evidenced, has for some time had a say in politics. To a degree it transcends political parties. This is all done through ‘Lobbying’ - but what is it, and how does it undermine democracy? The Business Dictionary describes Lobbying as; “The act of attempting to influence business and government leaders to create legislation or conduct an activity that will help a particular organization” (2015). Whilst Tamzin Cave and Andy Rowell in their Guardian article describe lobbyists in the political sector specifically as; “the paid persuaders whose job it is to influence the decisions of government. Typically, they operate behind closed doors, through quiet negotiation with politicians. And the influence they enjoy is constructed very consciously, using a whole array of tactics.” (2014). Both of these descriptive examples present lobbying as a somewhat underhand and seedy act, but is that true? Miles Radin, writing for the website represent.us, suggests that lobbying isn’t as bad as it is made out to be. He puts forward that it is a frankly normal thing, “every day citizens lobby for what they believe our government should do — everything from equal marriage rights to lower business taxes — and it’s an honest, integral part of our democracy”. Not only is it as normal as the common voter putting their opinion forward, Radin goes on to suggest that there are even benefits to lobbying; “lobbyists understand the legislative process much better than most Americans, and can help congressmen learn about an issue they don’t have much background in”. From this it can be understood that lobbying is an act where the motives of big companies are pushed upon the government by in-between-men otherwise known as lobbyists. Whilst not always underhand, these influences do affect bills and amendments thus changing democratic process at it’s heart - the government doesn’t answer to the people, rather that of big business. A prime example of this would be the Conservative government’s backwards step on the issue of Climate Change. This is an problem that can’t be ignored and which the entire world is currently discussing. A graph from Nasa shows just how serious the issue carbon output is (see figure 1); within the last two hundred years our carbon output has skyrocketed. It’s no surprise then that carbon cutting is huge political issue with many countries such as Germany, Sweden and Costa Rica cutting their output drastically. The Conservative Party in their 2015 manifesto described themselves as ‘the greenest government ever’ (2015). This is both true and false. In November 2015 the Conservative government announced it would close all of the UK’s coal-fired power plants by 2025 replacing the energy source with more gas and nuclear alternatives. Ex US Vice President Al Gore praised move, saying; “The UK has become the first major economy to set a clear date to phase out coal, and I am hopeful that others will follow suit as we repower the global economy with the clean energy we need for a sustainable future” (Mason, 2015). However not all responses to the news were positive - Green MP Caroline Lucas describes the move as “trying to go dry by switching from vodka to super-strength cider – it entirely fails to seriously address the real challenge at hand”. She goes on to call for more investment in renewable energy saying it is more “effective economically, environmentally” (Mason 2015). If this is the case, why do the Conservatives invest more into gas and nuclear energy whilst cutting subsidiaries to renewable energy? In an article for the Guardian, Leo Hickman suggests why this may be the case; “senior civil servants responsible for ensuring the building of the UK's new fleet of nuclear power stations have
been extensively wined and dined by nuclear industry lobbyists, documents released under freedom of information reveal” (Hickman 2012). What Hickman presents here is an example of direct involvement between big business and politics which directly or indirectly has affected policy making. The government was in a position where it answered to big business over any thing else. The matrix of relations between officials is being managed to exercise power, just as Fairle suggested in his initial description of the establishment. So far only the Conservative government has been brought into question over lobbying, but what of Labour, whose last majority government was between 1997-2010? Surely, being a left wing party built on the ideas of socialism, they were resistant to such lobbying? In 2003 the US along with several of it’s allies, including the United Kingdom, invaded Iraq with the goal of liberating it from Saddam Hussein’s government. It has long since been suggested that the true purpose of this invasion was to acquire the vast oils wells in the area. Brendan Nelson, the Australian Defence Minister at the time of the invasion, said of Iraq that it is “an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world, and Australians ... need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq” (Sturcke, 2007). This comment was quickly downplayed by then Australian Prime Minister - John Howard under fears that it would reignite “claims that the 2003 invasion was more a grab for oil than a bid to destroy Saddam Hussein” (2007) and his regime. This issue was humorously mocked by Steve Bell in his Guardian cartoon (see fig). The image shows Nelson at his podium on a beach surrounded by politicians, military men and extremists all reacting in shock to the comments. This insinuates that there was little surprise in this news as the suggestion of oil being the goal of the war was quite common place at the time. These suspicions are reinforced in a 2011 article from the Independent that claim secret memos link oil firms and the government in the run up the Iraqi invasion. Paul Bignell states that “Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas”. This would act as reward for a military commitment authorised by Tony Blair in aiding the US’ plans for regime change in Iraq. He goes on to explain that BP, one of the biggest oil companies in the world, were invited to the Foreign Office on 6th November 2002 “to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Minutes taken from the meeting state; ”Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity.” (2011). This suggests that big business profiteering was a large reason the Iraq War began; this is currently being investigated in The Chilcott Enquiry, a report that has been slow to reveal it’s results. With examples such as those mentioned, it can be believed that the lobbying of governments (not just UK governments) is quite commonplace in the modern political arena, even having worldwide ramifications. The influence of capitalism over democracy can be seen before the Conservatives got into power, so to suggest that they are the face of The Establishment would be wrong. However that mustn’t be mistaken as innocence. The Conservative government are just as beholden than the previous Labour government. Not all lobbying is about financial gain however, charitable organisations such as Greenpeace also lobby. As do companies such as Aviva and Ikea who recently lobbying to prevent the UK from watering down EU legislation concerning mandatory sustainability reporting. “Lobbying for good is increasingly overriding the cultural aversion that rails against it. Getting on board puts you not only in the company of some fantastic business leaders down the ages, but also on the right side of history” (Monaghan, 2014). However the cases of positive lobbying are enormously outweighed by big businesses who use their say for financial profiteering.
Other examples of big businesses holding sway over political motivation can be seen in the Austerity measures enforced since the recent Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition Government. Numerous cuts to the welfare state were made whilst new taxes, such as the bedroom tax were introduced. The attack against the welfare state has only gotten worse since the Conservatives won a majority government in May 2015. Meanwhile, businesses such as Boots, Amazon and Facebook work around tax loopholes that allow them to avoid paying billions of pounds worth of tax each year, all whilst austerity strangles the poorest. The process of scaling back expenditures to control finances has become a common ethic in politics since the economic crash of 2008, with the term for this, austerity, being used daily. Britain has been in a state of austerity since the economic crash, as “poorer households have… borne the brunt of austerity measures over the last five years” (Morris, 2015). During the 2010 election campaign the Conservative slogans read ‘We’re all in this together, however evidence would suggesting otherwise is overwhelming. The IFS has made several reports on the working class being driven into the ground but cuts and losses stating; “The government’s planned changes to tax, tax credits and benefits will reduce household incomes significantly, especially for those on very low incomes” (Bloodworth 2015). The Tax Credit bill, perhaps the most notorious of the attacks on the working class, passed through all three of its readings in Parliament before being thrown out by the House of Lords by a narrow margin. The debate around tax credit cuts had been waged since the bill was first announced in July 2015. It’s purpose being to save roughly £4.4 billion pounds of the £12 billion that the government promised to save between 2015 and 2020. Some have compared this to Margaret Thatchers Poll Tax moment for George Osborne. The Poll Tax, introduced between 1989 and 1990 across the UK, was a taxation method with a flat rate per-capita adult tax. It was very poorly received and was replaced with the Council Tax in 1993 after the downfall of Margaret Thather’s premiership. The tax was seen as just too harsh on some, with the poorest not being able to pay it, or even survive it. The knock of effect of this was a near loss for the Conservatives in the 1992 election. The same could very well happen again if the Conservatives push ahead with these plans. In the run up to the election in May 2015 the Conservatives were clear that £12 billion worth of cuts had to be made to to welfare to get the country out of debt, however they were vague on where such cuts would be made. George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer insisted that it was “signalled in the general election campaign and… heavily debated in the general election campaign” (Bennett, 2015). Their reluctance to fully detail where such cuts would be made led to muddled answers by other Conservative hopefuls. When asked whether tax credits would be cut during an interview Michael Gove clearly stated “No” (Bennett, 2015). David Cameron himself when asked by David Dimbleby, in April 2015, about tex credit replied that they were “not going to fall” (Hartley, 2015). However several months later during his July Summer budget George Osborne, announced the £12 billion of cuts would indeed land on tax credits. These cuts which would see “3.3 million families lose an average of £1,300” (Bennett, 2015) from 2016. To offset the tax credit cuts Osborne announced a living wage of £8.40 an hour in the UK and £9.40 in London. The reasoning for this was to create a high earning, less welfare dependant state. The cuts in welfare will hit the well-being of millions, including their children. But why insist on such harsh measures? Will Hutton argues that the reason for this is that “the Conservatives’ choice is driven by a refusal to see any merit in public activity: in their
worldview, the point of life and the purpose of civilisation is to celebrate and protect the private individual, the private firm and private property” (2015). This suggests that while the ultimate goal here is to reign in the countries debt, this can’t be done at the expense of the establishment. Those with the power and financial capability to actually help rebuild the economy will be spared from cuts, whilst the working class are hit hard. As stated earlier, all of this is occurring at a time when businesses such as Amazon, Boots and Facebook are taking advantage of billions of pounds worth of government subsidies and tax cuts. Recent arguments suggest that these high earning companies have a responsibility to society in paying fair tax. In his article for the Independent Owen Wright claims that in 2012 Amazon paid less corporate tax than it received in government grants; despite sales being £4.2bn they paid just £3.1 in total taxes all whilst receiving £2.5m to build a new distribution warehouse in Dunfermline, Scotland. Aditya Chakrabortty, in his article for the Guardian, sees the attitudes towards hand outs as quiet hypocritical. “Benefits are what we grudgingly hand the poor; the rich are awarded tax breaks. Cut through the euphemisms and the Treasury accounting, however, and you’re left with two forms of welfare” (2014). He interestingly points out that that welfare towards people is often spoken of as a bad thing, whilst corporate hand outs are rarely even touched up, let alone given an opinion. Oliver Wright however claims that; “David Cameron and George Osborne are attempting to impose tighter regulations that would prevent the out-sourcing of profits to low tax jurisdictions” (2013). However, Chakrabortty claims that isn't the case and that a state of “Upwards redistribution” (2015) is giving to richest whilst taking from ordinary taxpayers. This suggests that Fairle’s description of a social matrix exercising power to support itself is indeed correct, evidencing that the establishment is indeed thriving in modern society. But why does this high level of aid happen? Chakrabortty says “corporate welfare is part of what David Cameron calls his government’s policy to make the UK “the most open, welcoming, business-friendly country in the world”” (2015). With more businesses open to trading in the UK the economy will continue to grow, however these comes off the backs of Briton’s how fund these companies through taxation. It is an intricate knot that means the government is tied to making the economy it’s utmost priority. And therein lies the problem, with a government that is beholden to capitalism, it will always bend to the capitalist’s will. In her book ‘The End of Capitalism (As We Know It)’ J.K. Gibson-Graham suggests that; “The limits of political subjectivity… are established by an objective social structure - a capitalist society, animated by the imperative of economic growth, and constrained by it’s possible reconfigurations by an underlying structural essence that is not accessible to politics at all” (1996). There are limitations as to what a society built around the economy can do. If the economy is bad, so must society feel the repercussions. This all but confirms that yes, there is still an establishment, one that is alive and well in modern day society. It is now largely controlled by capitalism as it once was the monarchy or the bourgeois, but it still exists. But who apposes the establishment? If we live in a culture where the small few with power dictate everyone else's lives, why doesn’t someone stand up to this? What of the opponents to the establishment?
Looking at Taxation could be interesting because it can be contextualized socially and historically – tax was occasionally used as a weapon or just at the whim of the monarch. That could lead reasons for our perceptions of the Establishment. Recent arguments about responsibilities towards society and tax – bringing in Amazon etc.
Chapter 3: Opposition to the Establishment and Media Swaying Power Opposition to those in power will always exist. It would be impossible to please everyone, that is why we have a democratic process - to alleviate some of the displeasure. This allows a larger percentage of the population have their say. However, the democratic process isn’t always perfect, for example in the UK we have what is called a ‘first past the post’ electoral system. It works by MPs winning constituencies which are then totalled up from across the country. There are currently 650 constituencies in the UK which means that a party must win 326 seats to have a majority government and be able to run the country without forming a coalition with a separate party. The issue with this voting method is that it ignores the votes of unsuccessful candidates, therefore preventing equal representation within parliament. Different areas of the country have different populations, so a constituency that had 100 people living in it will elect one MP, just as a constituency with 1,000 people. By looking at the figures we can see how people voted (fig 3) and how those votes translated into MP’s (fig 4). At first glance this doesn’t look like much, but a closer look reveals a few enormous changes. The Conservatives won the election with 10,893,030 votes and earned 322 seats whilst Labour 9,113,091 votes and won 228 seats. This doesn’t seem entirely at odds with the number of votes, but when the Scottish National Party and The United Kingdom Independence Party are brought into account, things look a bit different. The SNP won 1,454,436 seats and earned 56 seats, whilst UKIP won 3,736,717 and gained just one seat. This is down to the lower constituency numbers in Scotland, where the SNP won votes, than the rest of the UK where UKIP won theirs. These numbers present a fundamental flaw with the first past the post voting system and allow for an unequal representation within parliament. The problem being that millions of votes are being ignored and allowing for oppositional voices to be silenced. Parties such as the Green Party who won over one million votes (and only gained one MP) are largely ignored. There have been attempts to change the voting system such as the Alternative Vote in 2011, which would elect governments on voting numbers rather than constituency wins, however such attempts have been rejected by the public, possibly due to aggressive campaign tactics such as the NOtoAV campaign run by Matthew Elliot. This campaign played on people’s perceptions and opinions by asking voters whether they want “£250,000 spent on a new voting system” or “spend it on incubators for babies or body armour for soldiers” (2014). Obviously people would say they wanted to protect babies and soldiers in favour of changing a voting system most people don't consider to be restrictive. Such rejections work well for the establishment as it prevents real change from occurring on a large scale. However there are instances where opposition to establishment do succeed, albeit in different ways. After the 2015 election Ed Miliband stood down as leader of the Labour Party as he’d field to win the election. So began many months of leadership debates. The four main candidates for leadership were Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Jeremy Corbyn. Out of the four, three considered themselves centre-left politicians, whilst Corbyn is outwardly left, with firm beliefs of opposition towards the establishment. This opposition and different perspective on politics eventually won him the Labour Leadership role, but also garnered the attention of much right wing media. Since being put forward as a contender, Corbyn has faced a smear campaign in attempts to sway voters opinions. He has been portrayed a stubborn, divisive communist with headlines such as; “Labour leadership hopeful Jeremy Corbyn is so left wing that he divorced his wife when she refused to send their son to a failing comprehensive” (McTague, 2015) from the Daily Mail and “Corb snubs the Queen” (Newton-Dunn, Hawkes, Sabey, 2015). Both the Daily Mail
and The Sun are owned by Conservative supporters Lord Rothermere - Harold Jonathan Esmond Vere Harmsworth and Rupert Murdoch. They represent a different aspect of the establishment - the media. “The political views of media owners set the tone for the newspapers, transforming them into effective political lobbying machines” (Jones, 2014). Jones suggests that openly those in charge of the media believe they should speak for their readers, but privately “couldn’t give a toss”. In the 2010 election just 36 per cent of voters opted for the Conservatives, however 71 per cent of newspapers circulating at the time backed David Cameron which suggests that there is a link between the interests of the media beyond impartiality. The media are intrinsically tied to the establishment, with links to MPs, energy companies and other high society figures. Jones (p230, 2014) states that “large corporate interests, deeply embedded in government and backed by the mass media” cooperate with other aspects of the establishment to take on those that oppose it. This can been seen with Jeremy Corbyn who is possibly the closest thing we have to a communist politician leading a major party in the modern political arena. The media has used this aspect of Corbyn to scare the average voter who isn’t fully versed in politics. Even those that aren’t particularly against Jeremy Corbyn have jumped on the ‘communist’ bandwagon. Martin Rowson as seen in (fig 5) portrays Corbyn as Doctor Frankenstein creating a monster composed of past left leaning politicians with the help of his Igor like helper . Note how he is wearing a communist hat to signify his leftward principals. Meanwhile he is about to confronted by the zombie like mob of old centre left Labour players who have vocally decried Corbyn during his time as Labour leader. However before Corbyn was the centre of the right-wing media’s attention, in the run up to the May 2015 election, Ed Miliband was it’s focus. Miliband’s ideology was more leftwing than what had come before with Blair and Brown’s centre left governments, which didn’t sit well with the establishment. In the run up the election Miliband condemned the big six energy firms, suggesting that he would put in place guidelines to prevent them from overcharging customers. Murdoch believed that Miliband would also try to break up his media empire News UK, which owns The Sun, The Times and The Sunday Times. That was enough to create an alliance, along with different establishment figures, that directly attacked Miliband through the press. They frequently referred to him as ‘Red Ed’ due to his history of activism, his father being a Marxist scholar and his goals of devolving certain capitalist powers. The marxist statements came alongside other reports that made him out to be a part of the establishment. The Sun famously ran an article concerning his household having two kitchens that they deemed ‘Red Ed’s Downton Secret’. This coupled with other news articles of a similar vein left Miliband in a difficult position, he could neither sway too left, or be too centralised. Whatever he did was distorted by the press. Quite possibly the lowest attack on his person came when the Sun ran a front page story just before the election concerning how Miliband ate a bacon sandwich (fig 6). The page consisted of an ill-timed photo and the headline “SAVE OUR BACON” saying “This is the pig’s ear Ed made of a helpless sarnie. In 48 hours, he could be doing to the same to Britain”. This entire story was devised to scare people and turn them away from voting for the Labour leader, and judging by the outcome of the election, it worked. Miliband’s attacks on central establishment pillars resulted in a full force attack by the media. Miliband seemingly made a break through when he appeared on Russell Brand’s web based news show The Trews. There he informed Brand that he had plans to reign in the big energy firms and break up the big news companies. The next day the Sun covered there front page with a photo of Miliband outside Brand’s home (fig 7) with the headline “MONSTER RAVING LABOUR PARTY” claiming he cosied up to Brand. Meanwhile the Daily Mail (fig
8) asked “Do you want this clown ruling us? (And, no, we don’t mean the one on the left)”. These papers not only suggest that the Labour party are lunatics, but that Miliband will rule. The idea of ruling is an interesting one as it implies a sense of loss to democracy, this is said, whilst also undermining democracy through a lack of impartiality. Brand, another opponent of the Establishment, stated during an interview with Jeremy Paxman, that he’d never voted and believes that voting results in only serving a few people. He didn’t vote out or absolute indifference, weariness and exhaustion due to the lies and misrepresentation that the Political Class has created around itself. In his book Revolution, Brand reflects on the interview; “British media today is awash with half-hearted condemnations of my observation that voting is pointless” (Brand, p77, 2014). Chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society agrees in part with Brand’s comment, but disagrees with his overall statement. “Russell Brand is absolutely right to point out that people are increasingly disillusioned with politics, and that something has to be done. But he is wrong to think that encouraging people not to vote is any kind of answer. We should not forget how precious democracy is, and calling for mass non-participation is a dangerous, irresponsible and ultimately futile way of tackling disengagement” (Brett, 2013). Amelia Womack of the Green Party counters this point by saying; “Russell Brand makes a good point, he doesn’t say don’t vote. He just thinks he doesn’t have anyone to vote for” (Channel 4, 2015). Some might think Brand a bit rash to say this, but when millions of voters are being ignored, as evidenced earlier, by the voting system in place, is Brand not correct? The establishment, judging by the evidence on display is indeed a matrix of central pillars of society, looking after each other by using different means to stay in power, the most widely used of these being the media. However there is opposition out there, it just happens to be unorganised and on the few occasions it does formulate, as with Ed Milliband being endorsed by Russell Brand, the establishment will muster all it’s power to remove it.
Chapter 4: Conclusion Ultimately, the establishment is alive and well. Comparisons could be made to the Blackadder television series. With each series we see a different iteration of the same character, but all of the same characteristics are there albeit in a different situation. Throughout the course of this essay it has become apparent that, no, the establishment isn’t dead it is alive and well, with those in power controlling society just as they have done before. 
Fairlie Hose, H. (1955) Political Commentary [Online] Available from: http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/23rd-september-1955/5/political-commentary [Accessed 1st November 2015] Marx, K. and Eagles, F (1848) Manifesto of the Communist Party [Online] Available from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf [Accessed 16th November 2015] Jones, O. (2014) The Establishment: And How They Got Away With It, St Ives: Penguin Random House UK Leftly, M. (2015) New Transparency International UK Report Lays Bare the Scandal of Lobbyists [Online] Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-report-lays-bare-thescandal-of-lobbyists-10031467.html [Accessed: 17th November 2015] Oborne, P. (2007) The Establishment is Dead. But Something Worse Has Replaced It [Online] Available from: http://new.spectator.co.uk/2007/09/the-establishment-is-dead-but-something-worsehas-replaced-it/ [Accessed 1st November] Mount, H. (2014) How to Buy Your Way into the British Establishment [Online] Available from: http://new.spectator.co.uk/2014/03/a-buyers-guide-to-the-british-establishment/ [Accessed on 1st November 2015] Parfitt, T. (2014) Oligarch's Daughter Apologises For 'Insensitive and Crude' Advice On Servants [Online] Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11136634/ Oligarchs-daughter-apologises-for-insensitive-and-crude-advice-on-servants.html [Accessed on 20th November 2015] Communist Party of Great Britain (2015) Capitalism in Britain [Online] Available from: http:// cpgb.org.uk/pages/programme/2-capitalism-in-britain/ [Accessed 20th November 2015] Quinault, R. (2001) Britain 1950 [Online] Available from: http://www.historytoday.com/rolandquinault/britain-1950 [Accessed 20th November 2015] Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2006) The End of Capitalism (As We Know It), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers The Business Dictionary (2015) Lobbying [Online] Available from: http:// www.businessdictionary.com/definition/lobbying.html#ixzz3sOeAueC3 [Accessed 9th November 2015] Cave, T. and Rowell, A. (2014) The Truth About Lobbying [Online] Available from: http:// www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/12/lobbying-10-ways-corprations-influence-government [Accessed 9th November 2015]
Radin, M. (2015) Is Lobbying Good or Bad? [Online] Available from: https://represent.us/lobbyinggood-bad/ [Accessed 20th November 2015] Mabbutt, A. (2015) The Conservative Manifesto 2015, St Ives: Conservative Party Mason, R. (2015) UK To Close All Coal Power Plants in Switch to Gas and Nuclear [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/18/energy-policy-shiftclimate-change-amber-rudd-backburner [Accessed 24th November 2015] Hickman, L. (2012) Nuclear Lobbyists Wined and Dined Senior Civil Servants, Documents Show [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/28/nuclear-lobbyistssenior-civil-servants [Accessed 18th November 2015] Sturcke, J. (2007) Oil A Factor In Iraq Conflict, Says Australian Defence Minister [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/05/australia.iraq [Accessed 18th November 2015] Bignell, P. (2011) Secret Memos Expose Link Between Oil Firms and Invasion of Iraq [Online] Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-linkbetween-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html [Accessed 18th November 2015] Monaghan, P. (2014) Lobbying For Good Will Put Business and Its Leaders on the Right Side of History [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/lobbyingbusiness-leaders-history [Accessed 24th November 2015] Morris, N. (2015) Poorer Households Hit Hardest by Austerity Over the Last Five Years, According to New Report [Online] Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poorerhouseholds-hit-hardest-by-austerity-over-the-last-five-years-according-to-newreport-10004203.html [Accessed 9th November 2015] Bloodworth, J. (2015) IFS: Government Tax and Benefit Changes to Reduce Household Incomes ‘Significantly’ [Online] Available from: http://leftfootforward.org/2015/09/ifs-government-taxchanges-to-reduce-household-incomes-significantly/ [Accessed 9th November 2015] Bennett, A. (2015) Tax Credits: What Are They, Who Claims Them, and Why is Everyone So Angry About the Cuts? [Online] Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/ 11951056/Tax-credits-what-are-they-who-claims-them-and-why-is-everyone-so-angry-about-thecuts.html [Accessed 9th November 2015]
Hartley, E. (2015) David Cameron's 'Lies' On Child Tax Credits Revealed In Pre Election Television Footage [Online] Available from: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/20/mash-up-videoexposes-david-camerons-broken-promise-on-tax-credits-_n_8337702.html [Accessed 9th November 2015] Hutton, W. (2015) Everything We Hold Dear is Being Cut to the Bone. Weep for Our Country [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/tories-autumnstatement-george-osborne [Accessed 9th November 2015] Chakrabortty, A. (2015) Cut Benefits? Yes, Let’s Start With Our £85bn Corporate Welfare Handout [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/06/benefitscorporate-welfare-research-public-money-businesses [Accessed 24th November 2015] Wright, O. (2013) Revealed: Amazon Earns More Through Government Grants Than It Pays In Tax [Online] Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/money/tax/revealed-amazon-earns-morethrough-government-grants-than-it-pays-in-tax-8617919.html [Accessed 24th November 2015] Chakrabortty, A. (2015) Now the Tories Are Allowing Big Business to Design Their Own Tax Loopholes [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/13/toriesbig-business-tax-loopholes [Accessed 24th November 2015] Chakrabortty, A. (2015) The £93bn Handshake: Businesses Pocket Huge Subsidies and Tax Breaks [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfarea-93bn-handshake [Accessed 24th November 2015]
McTague, T. (2015) Labour Leadership Hopeful Jeremy Corbyn is So Left Wing That He Divorced His Wife When She Refused to Send Their Son to a Failing Comprehensive [Online] Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3127962/Labour-leadership-hopeful-Jeremy-Corbyn-leftwing-divorced-wife-refused-send-son-failing-comprehensive.html#ixzz3sapDEhJk [Accessed 25th November 2015] Newton-Dunn, T., Hawkes, S., Sabey, R., (2015) Corb Snubs the Queen [Online] Available from: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6640626/National-disgrace-Corbyn-blasted-foranthem-snub.html [Accessed 25th November 2015] Brand, R. (2014) Revolution, London: Random House Brett, W. (2013) Russell Brand: Right About the Problem, Wrong About the Solution [Online] Available from: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/press-release/russell-brand-right-aboutproblem-wrong-about-solution [Accessed 25th November 2015]
Channel 4 (2015) Is Russell Brand Right Not to Bother to Vote? [Online] Available from: http:// news.channel4.com/election2015/04/29/update-4424/ [Accessed 25th November 2015]