David Thomas Roberts BA (Hons) Illustration 2015/16 How Can The Term ‘The Establishment’ Be Defined Within The Context of Capitalism and Modern Politics?
Word Count: 8,987
Acknowledgements Thank you to my partner Rebecca for supporting me throughout the work on this paper, and my supervisor Pete, for the advice and guidance along the way.
Contents List of Illustrations
1
Introduction
2
Chapter One: The Establishment: What It Is and What It Was
4
Chapter Two: Capitalism’s Power and Influence
9
Chapter Three: The Establishment and The State
15
Chapter Four: Opposition to the Establishment
21
Conclusion
26
Illustrations
29
Bibliography
30
List of Illustrations Figure 1. Bell, S. (2007) ‘The Australian Defence Minister Who Suggested Oil Might Be A Factor In The Iraq War’ [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/cartoons/stevebell/0,,2120204,00.html [Accessed: 15th November 2015] Figure 2. Rowson, M. (2015) ‘Frankenstein vs. Zombie Apocalypse!’ [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/picture/2015/sep/27/martin-rowson-on-thecorbyns-labour-cartoon
1
Introduction
This paper will investigate the social power known as the Establishment; examining it’s relationship with capitalism, the ramifications this has on the modern political arena, and the different forms of opposition that have existed throughout history. From the evidence given it will be argued that the Establishment, despite being a reasonably modern term, is actually an ever-changing beast that successfully transforms to keep those with wealth and power in such positions. But what happens to constitute these changes, are there limitations to it’s methods and, finally, what form does the Establishment take today? The idea of an Establishment has existed, in some form or other, for centuries as a means to discuss those within the upper echelons of society such as; the Church, the Monarchy and more recently, the Political Class. But where did this term ‘The Establishment’ come from? As with most words in the English language there must be an etymology to it. The origins of the word will become apparent during the course of the first chapter, and from this, a discussion will be formed as to whether the Establishment is currently changing to accommodate capitalism.
If it is to be believed that the Establishment is forever changing to meet the needs of the current global climate, it must therefore be apt to suggest that it still exists today in some capitalist form. Using the knowledge gained in chapter one, an examination of the Establishment in the modern political arena will begin in chapter two. Here questions will begin to arise, such as how capitalism, using the ability to lobby and offer economic guidance, now factors deeper into the discussion. Lobbying, a force that can be used for differing purposes, has become a global method of swaying political motivation. From climate change to military action, it’s influence can be seen on a daily basis, but does it’s needs outweigh that of the electorate. The affect it has on the State will become more apparent as the discussion moves onto the third chapter, analysing the ramifications of the global financial crisis.
Austerity, a term used during a time of financial restraint, is common in modern politics and it’s effects following the 2008 financial crash were felt globally. However, the majority of cuts introduced to ensure a stable economy were primarily directed towards the working class whilst big businesses continued receiving tax levies. 2
Taxing is a means to allow government spending without causing inflation. The modern British government is described as a welfare state, due to its role in protecting the social well-being of it’s citizens via financial aids. This welfare is provided by taxation of both people and businesses, however manipulation through lobbying and politico-economic ties allow for unequal payments in tax to become apparent. By analysing the evidence at hand, the discussion will move onto how taxation is used by the Establishment whilst having a detrimental effect on the welfare state. With the Establishment’s role in keeping those in power in such positions, a question begins to arise, how does is opposition prevented from rising up to claim a fairer society?
The forth and final chapter will delve into how the electorate perceives opposition to the Establishment and how it manages to maintain it’s control over the general public. This is primarily done through the media, another pillar of the Establishment, with ties to capitalism, that disguises itself as the voice of the working class. By reflecting on what is presented and with knowledge gained earlier in the paper a thorough understanding of the Establishment’s capitalistic goals will become apparent. This will also help underline why there is little in the way of uniform opposition to the Establishment and why it is perceived the way it is.
All the points of discussion will carry through to the conclusion. Here a summative statement of the effects of capitalism on the Establishment and the political arena will be formed. It will be understood what the Establishment is and how capitalism effects it, society, the economy and the State through political manipulation. Finally it will be mentioned how the the media is used to prevent opposition rising. All of this evidence will help to create a conclusive theory that, in the modern era, capitalism is becoming the primary face of the modern Establishment.
3
Chapter One: The Establishment: What It Is, and What It Was
What is the Establishment?
The Establishment as a term first appeared in 1955 in a Spectator article ‘Political Commentary’ by Henry Fairlie. Here he discussed the Establishment and suggested that it wasn’t just the typical roles of power, though they are a part it, “but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised” (1955). He described it as a entire network of powerful figures and associates, a set of wellconnected people based on social relationships rather than official, or legal arrangements. The article was met with fury by those it cited as part of the Establishment, however Fairlie simply echoed the thinking of influential left wing theorists such as Karl Marx and Fredrich Eagles. Fairlie’s article was written during a time when Britain was abandoning it’s postwar austerity in favour of consumerism, a point in history where capitalism began to thrive once more and new faces began to appear in the upper echelons of society. People were beginning to spend money on items to make their lives easier, while aspiring to improve one’s lifestyle was an achievable goal. However, Marx and Fredrich, wrote their signature work the ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’ in 1848 during a time of political upheaval that saw the end of monarchial rule throughout much of Europe, a social revolution. This suggests that despite both pieces of work being arguments concerning inequality, their target audiences were in fact quite different. Or are they? In their manifesto, Marx and Fredrich describe the Establishment as Fairlie did, albeit by a different name - the bourgeois. They cite the idea of class segregation as nothing new, using comparative terms such as ‘freeman and slave’, ‘patrictian and plebian’, and ‘lord and serf’. Recognising the idea of an ‘oppressor and oppressed’ they described what Fairlie would later deem ‘the Establishment and the Working Class’. Marx and Fredrich 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 4
lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations” (1848). Whilst listing these unequal social roles the theorists suggest that class antagonisms hadn’t at the time disappeared with the fall of the feudal monarchies. The bourgeois societies that had replaced the old regime still maintained those antagonisms. This suggests that Fairlie’s Establishment was merely a new iteration of the old segregated model, changed to suit the socio-climate of the time. The Shape Shifter
In his book ‘The Establishment and How They Got Away With It’ left wing columnist Owen Jones agreed, describing the Establishment as “a shape-shifter, evolving and adapting as needs must” (2014, p12). With that in mind it could be argued that, at the time of Fairlie’s article, the Establishment was about to undergo another change, with Parliament now being manipulated and swayed by capitalist interests via lobbying.
Capitalism, if Jones’ theory is to be believed, could be the new face of the Establishment, however, Peter Oborne, in his piece for The Spectator, ‘The Establishment is Dead. But Something Worse Has Replaced It’, differs in opinion, believing it had ceased to be entirely. He argued that Fairlie’s article identifying the Establishment came out a time that it was on the verge of collapsing. He suggested 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). Oborne perceived the Political Class to be a different beast to the Establishment, while evidence so far suggests that it was the same - having evolved to suit the current social landscape.
The idea that a change has been occurring once more was alluded to in Harry Mount’s Spectator article ‘How to Buy Your Way into The British Establishment’. He highlighted this by stating that, whilst not quite broke, the old powers of monarchial and political parties are desperate to retain their position. To achieve this they are willing to sell their assets. Mount stated that “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” (2014). This process of selling off ownership of resources results in the 5
State becoming more and more privatised, ultimately leaving those desperate for control, with less. The billionaires have become a controlling pillar of the Establishment, but is this new regime a bad thing? Maria Baibakova an oligarch, or rather ‘new money’ in Russian, claims to be from an impoverished background. However, she is in fact the daughter of an executive for a giant metals company in Northern Siberia, and has studied at prestigious colleges around the world. She is also on the board of various museums and galleries such as the Tate, London, which has recently come under disrepute for an exhibition sponsored by BP Plc. BP, or British Petroleum, is one of the seven major oil and gas companies in the world and has been criticised on many occasions for it’s poor environmental record and numerous health and safety violations. Baibakova herself recently came under fire when she wrote an article for the Russian Tattler, describing how to manage and discipline a team of servants. Tom Parfitt, reflecting in a 2014 Telegraph article suggested that, “the Tatler article… reveals a firm and oldfashioned belief that servants must not be treated as equals, or allowed to get above their station” (2014). This indicates that whilst the face of the Establishment may change, its underlying qualities remain the same, with social inequality considered natural.
Previous Iterations With the Establishment in the midst of a new evolution, it’s worth investigating how it transformed before. The Communist Party of Great Britain believe that at it’s empirical peak, Britain held one-quarter of the Earth’s land and population. It had an industrial monopoly that enabled the elite of the empire to strike down any social movements created by the working classes. However through decolonisation, war and many other matters, the British Empire collapsed, with the monarchy, the central pillar of the old establishment, feeling the brunt of this disintegration. Meanwhile Parliament, an assembly of governance that developed out of the daily political needs of the monarchy grew in power. Granting itself more authority during the eras of the Stuarts and the House of Hanover, Parliament evolved into something Peter Oborne described as the Political Class.
6
He suggested 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” (2007). The lords and landowners that previously governed gave way to elected officials, creating new positions of power with political careers. Whereas in the past a person could simply inherit power, now it could be gained through a career in politics.
The decline of the monarchy and the rise of the political class was seized upon by capitalism. In 1950’s post-war Britain there was a rejuvenation within the economy and the time of mass production arrived with the era of Fordism. The United Kingdom at the time accounted for one quarter of the world’s manufacturers, greater than before the Second World War. The boom in manufacturing was common in much of western civilisation and led to capitalism becoming what it is today, an entity intricately involved with politics.
This level of interference has many drawbacks as suggested by Julia Graham and Katherine Gibson, under their shared pen name J. K. Gibson-Graham:
“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) What Gibson-Graham describe is 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 which will be discussed at greater length later in the paper. From what has been discussed so far it can been understood that whilst the term ‘the Establishment’ is relatively new, it has existed throughout history in many different forms, from the feudal lords of the Middle Ages, through the bourgeois of the 19th century, to the political elite of today. The Establishment is a matrix to exercise power, an unofficial network of well-connected people based on subtle elitist social 7
relationships. However, as stated, it evolves with time and is currently in the midst of such a change with capitalism becoming a major aspect to consider. A closer look is needed to fully understand the role of capitalism within the modern political arena and how it is changing the Establishment as a whole.
8
Chapter Two: Capitalism’s Power and Influence The Origins of Capitalism Capitalism, a political Marxist would argue, was the unintended consequence of a class struggle that occurred rather uniquely in the English Countryside between feudal lords and peasants. “The lords were unable to maintain the old feudal relations and the peasants were unable to free themselves from the lords’ control of land” (Smith, 2011). This resulted in tenant farmers leasing land from the lords, before hiring labourers of their own, giving birth to a capitalist labour paradigm of which hadn’t been seen before. Feudalism was introduced with the crowning of William the Conquerer in 1066 and lasted for several hundred years. However the Crusades opening international trade options and the Black Death making labourers a valued commodity resulted in the end of the old feudal systems. Although these weren’t the only reasons, they were however, the most important in terms of the seeding of capitalism. An early capitalist would “buy labour in the same way he brought his raw materials” (Braveman, 1974, p42). This reflects attitudes still apparent today as evidenced earlier when discussing Maria Baibakova and her belief that servants aren’t equal, rather sub-human. In the modern age, Gibson-Graham argue that, through industry restructure, society is continually a negative experience for the ‘Working Class’. However, capital has “achieved a new ascendancy, whether by… increased mobility and internationalization, or by… complex transition in society as a whole” (1996, p46). Whilst workers rights have continually improved since the inception of capitalism, the idea that those who work in the labour market are unequal is still apparent. The Lords of old have now become business owners with capitalism as their monarchy. They have ingrained themselves into society through the prospects of economic growth and adjusted themselves into positions of power. The right wing belief that social inequality is inevitable or unavoidable is greatly at odds with left wing socialist ideology, but remains relevant today despite people like Marx and Fredrich believing there is an alternative. We can see such inequality today, as the ‘Working Class’ is crippled by austerity, whilst huge capitalist enterprises continue on as usual. How does this happen? Why are governments 9
committed to hurting the lowest in society whilst large multinational companies are given financial relief? The most apparent and logical answer, considering what has been discussed so far, would be because of economic dependency. But how did capitalism become so entwined with politics? Lobbying In short the answer is through lobbying; an act of influencing businesses and governments into conducting activities or creating legislations that benefit a specific organisation. In their Guardian article ‘The Truth About Lobbying’ Tamzin Cave and Andy Rowell described lobbyists in the political sector 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). This is an example of one pillar of the Establishment matrix directly influencing another to keep both in a profitable position. In turn this suggests that lobbying is somewhat of an underhand act, and is only employed by those with the power to influence, but is that necessarily true? Writing for the website represent.us, American Miles Radin suggested that lobbying isn’t just for the elite groups, nor is it as bad as has been suggested. He believed it is a quite common process on all levels of society stating; “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” (2015). Radin suggests that lobbying is as simple as a person putting an opinion forward and, as concerning equal marriage, can be a good thing. The prospect of equal marriage rights just fifty years ago would have seemed impossible, however due to social action through different forms of lobbying, many Western countries now recognise the union of same sex partners. The most notable of these countries being the U.S., which occurred in 2013 due to extensive activism and a decades long political campaign to win over the American People and the Supreme Court. 10
This tells us that whilst lobbying isn't inaccessible to those outside of the Establishment it is certainly easier and more common for those who are a part of it to make use. Due to the ease of this practise it can’t be unsurprising that big businesses use lobbying for their own gain. Between 2010 to 2014 BP and Shell, two of the worlds largest gas and oil companies, alone saw more access to ministers than the renewable energy sector with the number of meetings suggesting acts of lobbying are taking place. This is supported by reports that the government aids the fossil fuel industry by providing it with £6bn worth of subsidies each year. Meanwhile renewable energy companies received just £3.5bn, a figure that will decline in 2016 with the announcement that the government will cut subsidies to green power. Contradicting this move Tom Bawden, in his Independent article, quotes David Cameron: “We need to give business the certainty it needs to invest in low carbon. That means fighting against the economically and environmentally perverse fossil‑fuel subsidies” (2015). This comment was made at a UN climate-change conference, which suggests that for the world stage the Conservative government desires to be a leader in green power. However evidence would suggest that through lobbying, the party’s motivations are skewed to appease capitalism. Helena Bengtsson et al. quote MP Caroline Lucas’ criticism of the government for giving these giants of industry precedence, describing their policies as “riddled with contradiction” (2015). Her comment reflects a frustration commonly seen in left-wing socialist attitudes where the need of those in power outweigh any other. In this respect, Green energy faces an uphill struggle against the fossil fuel industry whose lobbyists hold sway over the government, knowing there is a global dependency for their product. In her book ‘This Changes Everything’ Naomi Klein details the situation, “They know full well that ours is a global economy created by and fully reliant upon, the burning of fossil fuels” (2014, p39). Klein indicates that the carbon industry has a stranglehold on politics, with policies and legislations built around their 11
needs. Whilst the Conservatives claim to be for the removal of fossil fuels and acknowledge the need for low carbon initiatives, their need to appease the capitalist driven economy dictates their actions. As Fairlie suggested in his initial description of the Establishment, the matrix of relations is exercised to manage the flow of power. Iraq So far, there has been a discussion on the recent effects of lobbying during the Conservatives time in governance. The Conservatives are often portrayed as Establishment figures with strong ties to business, but what of the Labour government? Labour, whose last majority was from 1997 to 2010 are most commonly associated with left wing, socialist ideals. Surely such a government would be more resistant to lobbying from capitalist interests? In 2003 however, the US along with several of it’s allies, including the United Kingdom, invaded Iraq with the intention of liberating the country from Saddam Hussein. It has long since been argued that the true purpose of this invasion was to acquire the vast oils wells in the area. These speculations were widely reinforced in a 2011 article by Paul Bigness in the Independent. Bignell stated that months before the invasion in March 2003, Trade Minister Baroness Symons informed BP that the government’s belief was that British energy firms should profit from Iraq’s oil and gas reserves. 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 were invited to the Foreign Office on 6th November 2002 to discuss post regime opportunities in Iraq. Minutes taken from the meeting described Iraq as a promising oil prospect, noting that BP was “desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity” (2011). This raises several points, the first of which being that the Labour government apparently approached BP, further cementing Fairlie’s idea of social relationships in the top of society looking out for one another. Before we saw the Conservative government’s motives were influenced by fossil fuel companies, whilst we now understand the Labour government had actively sought out such ties. This strengthens the idea of one aspect of the Establishment investing in another for mutual gain. The second point that comes to light is the anxious attitudes that BP felt 12
at the prospect of being denied such a premium. Whilst capitalism does hold sway over modern politics it appears that there are indeed still some limitations on it’s influence. Internationally, the Iraq situation was eventually brought into question as it became apparent that oil played a leading role in the invasion. Brendan Nelson, the Australian Defence Minister at the time of the war, said of Iraq that it was: “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” (Sturcke, 2007). This comment was quickly downplayed by then Australian Prime Minister - John Howard under fears that it would reignite suspicion that the 2003 war was less of a bid to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime, and more a grab for oil. Comments such as these muddy the waters of the invasion and suggest that a capitalist motive was the real reason for the war. Steve Bell mocked the entire affair in his July 6th 2007 cartoon ‘The Australian Defence Minister Who Suggested Oil Might Be A Factor In The Iraq War’ (Figure 1). The piece presents Nelson on his podium on a beach surrounded by world leaders and supporting players of the Iraq War. A power station can be seen in the background as well as an oil tanker, a plan and a helicopter - all vehicles that involve oil. The characters are fainting and collapsing in shock to the suggestion that oil was the reason for the war. To add an additional level of humour to the work, even the vehicles are exaggerated as such with both the helicopter and plane plunging to the ground out of disbelief, and the tanker half sunk into the ocean. The piece is inspired by H. M. Bateman who was famous for his cartoon series ‘The Man Who…’ featuring overly exaggerated reactions to the social gaffes of the upper class. Bell’s work indicates that whilst those involved with the Iraq invasion may play naive, the electorate is fully aware that there was a capitalist motive underpinning the war. Since 2009 a British public inquiry has been ran to understand the nation’s role within Iraq. Announced by Gordon Brown, the second Prime Minister in Labour’s 1997 to 2010 government, the investigation is known as the Iraq Inquiry, or the Chilcott Inquiry, after it’s chairman Sir John Chilcott. Its purpose is to establish why decisions 13
were made leading into the conflict, pinpoint what happened and to understand lessons that arise from the situation. The idea of the Chilcott Inquiry suggests that, whilst capitalism can motivate political ruling through lobbying, there are limitations to it. Policies and legislation may be simple to bend to capitalist ideals but there comes a breaking point, as seen with the Iraq invasion. The lobbying of governments worldwide, is quite commonplace in the modern political arena with international events taking place due to such intervention. Although lobbying can be a method for the electorate to voice itself, with the introduction of equal marriage rights as an example, more often than not it is used as a tool for capitalism. Fossil fuel giants such as BP and Shell lobby the government and receive billions of pounds worth of subsidiaries whilst green energy receives cuts to such aid. This is despite the government arguing the case for renewables publicly. However, behind the scenes we have discovered that Establishment ties and fear of economic uncertainly play a key role in how the country operates. Whilst there has been a lengthy discussion on how lobbying affects capitalist interests, there hasn’t thus far been much on the effects of the electorate beyond it’s own lobbying. If we are to continue considering capitalism as a face of the Establishment then it can only be reasonable that it’s needs outweigh that of the electorate.
14
Chapter Three: The Establishment and The State Austerity Austerity has become a common term in the modern political landscape since the 2008 global financial crisis, which threatened the collapse of many large financial institutions. The cause of the crisis is long winded and unnecessary to this paper, so the discussion will move to it’s aftermath in which these institutions were saved by national governments bailing out banks, another pillar of the Establishment. Globally a time of austerity occurred due to the massive costs governments had incurred saving the financial market. Such actions resulted in a time of Austerity for many countries around the world. The term itself means to be in a state of frugality, or reduced spending in the financial sector. In this time a government will attempt to reduce it’s growing budget deficits by shrinking it’s expenditures. This idea of scaling back expenses to better manage finances has become a repeated policy in British politics since the crash. The Conservative Party used the financial crash in their 2010 election campaign; blaming Labour for both excessive spending and suggesting that tighter banking regulations would have prevented Britain from being hurt as much as it was. Their election slogan was ‘We’re all in this together’ referring to the fact that whilst the government would need to reign in it’s expenditures, so too must the electorate. The slogan helped win them the election by suggesting they were economically competent, however austerity hasn’t faded from their vocabulary. In a 2015 article for the Independent Nigel Morris commented that the “poorer households have… borne the brunt of austerity measures over the last five years” (2015). This would suggest that the Conservative rhetoric of nationwide austerity isn’t quite as it seems, with the Establishment in a better position than the working class. Julia Hartley-Brewer had a differing viewpoint believing that, “right now almost a third of working age people in Britain are reliant on State benefits for more than half of their income” (2015). She suggests that the nation has become dependent on welfare, and imposed austerity cuts are actually building a more self-reliant country.
15
Frances Ryan disagrees with this, stating that, “the recession provided not only a long-term economic excuse to dismantle state support but, increasingly, a moral one” (2015). This argument supports Morris’ idea that it is the welfare of the working class at risk. This implies that the Establishment intentionally imposed harsher measures on the lower parts of society in an attempt to alleviate the economic trouble they themselves faced. However, if cuts to the welfare state aren’t an option, what is? Another common approach to lighten the ease of government debts is to sell off it’s assets, as stated in chapter one, however this has an underlying effect as it weakens the position of the political class. As Harry Mount observed, the new billionaires have never had so much money to give away, so while the government sells it’s property the new face of the Establishment gains more power. Privatisation is heavily contested in today’s politics with socialists believing that it continues the rhetoric of social inequality being unavoidable. Assets that were once part of the state and available to the working class at a reasonable price suddenly become less accessible for those without money. The idea of privatisation began during the era of Margaret Thatcher’s premiership but has since been adopted by every government since, shirking the State further and further. Recently in 2015 George Osborne, Chancellor for the Conservative party, sold the governments shares in Royal Mail to produce £1.5bn to pay off the countries debts. His reasoning for this was “to protect our economic security, by taking the difficult decisions to live within our means and bring down our debt” (Osborne, 2015). This difficult choice feeds the capitalist narrative, and just as Parliament grew during the monarchy’s collapse, surely now Parliament is on the brink of falling to capitalism. In his article ‘It’s the £64bn Question: What Does George Osborne Have Left to Sell Off?’ David Hellier suggests that Osborne’s motives are to “pull out of areas in which he believes the state should not be involved, and to raise cash to cut the national debt” (2015). This statement reinforces the idea that as a Chancellor, Osborne may indeed not want to be lumbered with the unpredictability of certain businesses, finding it much more reassuring to remove them from the State’s concern entirely.
16
However Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, was quoted in the The Herald Scotland, accusing Osborne of "rewarding the Tory party's friends in the city in a spectacularly lavish style” (2015). This again repeats Mount’s belief that political parties sell off assets to retain their position of power. Osborne may intend to sell off ownership in an attempt to strengthen bonds between business associates, but it comes the cost of the State. Cuts Due to the economic crisis the government has been eager to make as many cuts to the State as possible in order to reduce it’s expenditures. Beyond selling it’s assets, Osborne has cut many financial benefits to the working class in an attempt to shrink the Welfare State Britain is known as. Initially the Conservatives introduced the idea of rewarding ‘strivers’ and punishing ‘scroungers’ by removing certain financial benefits and making others harder to attain. However, in 2015, after half a decade of cuts, many feel that Osborne’s actions can no longer be defended. In an article for the Guardian, Aditya Chakrabortty argued on the topic that, “implementing year upon year of austerity means the Conservatives have to start hurting and offending their own supporters” (2015). Chakrabortty didn't mean those within the Establishment, he refers to the middle class electorate who, along with the Establishment, initially shunned the working class. The middle class are those at the halfway point of the social hierarchy sitting between the working class and the elite. They, despite usually being financially secure, can still benefit from government aid, and potentially receive help in the form of working tax credits. In the run up to the election in May 2015 the Conservatives were clear that a further twelve billion pounds worth of cuts had to be made to welfare to get the country out of debt. However they were vague on where such cuts would be made. This reluctance led to muddled answers by other Conservative hopefuls. Eventually, after winning the election, Osborne revealed that one area of welfare to be hit would be Working Tax Credits. These subsidiaries are an initiative to support those that need additional financial aid by giving them certain tax breaks. The Chancellor insisted that it was “signalled in the general election campaign and… heavily debated” (Bennett, 2015). Both David Cameron and Michael Gove, when asked about Tax Credits, responded by saying they wouldn’t be diminished. This tells us that, whilst their 17
intention was to perform the cuts, they couldn’t openly admit to it for fear of losing a part of their target electorate. The middle class would have had to think deeply about their vote if they were to know such severe cuts were on the way, as Chakrabortty suggested. The cuts to Tax Credits would be felt by 3.3 million families across the country who would lose an average of £1,300 from 2016. To offset the tax credit cuts Osborne announced a living wage of £9.40 an hour in London and £8.40 in the rest of the UK. His reasoning was to create a high earning, less welfare dependent culture within the country. This in turn removed a cost from the government’s budget and placed it in the hands of businesses. Whilst the middle class will lose out, it is the working class that would feel the brunt of these cuts. The Institute of Fiscal Studies made several reports on the working class being driven into the ground 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). Again we see the divide in society widening as capitalism flourishes within the Establishment, inequality grows, supporting the rightwing belief that it is unavoidable and inevitable. Tax Taxation is a financial levy imposed by a State on the taxpayer to finance certain public expenditures. In Britain this incorporates spending on institutions such as the police, the fire service and the NHS. The earliest known form of taxation was in Ancient Egypt around 3000 - 2800 BC and was known as corvee or tithe. The corvee was forced labour given to the State by those too poor to pay a tithe. Taxation has taken different forms throughout the years with England having both a fireplace tax and a window tax at different points throughout history. Despite certain opposition to it, tax is usually seen as a good thing, with many political philosophies believing they are beneficial to the funding of society.
18
However, in the modern era, there is a limit to how much tax the electorate is willing to pay. The Conservatives in recent years have prided themselves in not raising taxes on the people, but in doing so doing so have also raised issues such as how to fund the National Health Service. The NHS is paid for largely through taxation and as demand for it grows so too is the need to raise taxes. One solution to this is to raise the tax on international businesses that pay very little business levies, such as Amazon. In recent years the online giant has been criticised for the minimal amount of tax that it has paid, for example; £2.4m on £4.2bn worth of sales in 2012 to 2013. In his 16th May 2013 Independent article, Oliver Wright quotes Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee saying, “Amazon is paying… actually less than they are taking from UK taxpayers’ pockets in the form of government grants” (2013). This presents to us an interesting situation as, whilst the State is forced to shrink to pay the debts from the financial crisis, big businesses in effect are given tax payer money to continue. This is the opposite approach given to the lower classes of the electorate who face cuts in financial aid. Why insist on such light taxation for businesses whilst the electorate aren’t awarded the same measures? Will Hutton argues that the reason for this is that “the Conservatives’ choice is… to celebrate and protect the private individual, the private firm and private property” (2015). What Hutton puts forward is the repeated idea that, if we believe capitalism to be a central pillar of the modern Establishment, it is entitled to such privileges. The matrix of powerful figures Fairlie discussed maintains it’s station by managing the social and economical environment, creating a system for it to thrive in. Chakrabortty, whilst discussing such huge subsidies, points out that David Cameron believes the policies involved in such incentives make the UK “the most open, welcoming, business-friendly country in the world” (2015). Cameron believes that welcoming businesses in such a way that they are treated to financial aid will create a strong economy in Britain, yet this further proves how entwined the economy and, in turn, capitalism are to politics. From what has been discussed, we can see that there is a right-wing agenda at play within society as unequal financial distribution and aid differentiates the working 19
classes to the Establishment. We can see that the motivations of politicians are malleable with subjectivity changing to suit the purpose of economic growth and not the electorate’s needs. Global events such as the financial crisis predominantly affect the welfare of the working classes with the State shrinking to accommodate the debts of economic failure. Mostly those in the lower rungs of society feel this whilst those in the upper echelons continue on as before. Cuts to welfare prove this, whilst subsidiaries are given to large multinational companies to keep the economy thriving. What becomes apparent is the reoccurring theme of those within Establishment ensuring continued success within it’s ranks regardless of global issues. But with such obvious unequal sharing of financial responsibility across the classes of society, should there not be an revolution similar to that which occurred during the birth of Communism? Who in the modern political arena opposes such regimes that punish the working class as such?
20
Chapter 4: Opposition to The Establishment Labour We have already touched upon the idea of opposition to the Establishment with Karl Marx and Fredrich Eagles writing the Communist manifesto, but what of those that argue against the Establishment structure in the modern political arena? Despite a somewhat centralised position in the 1997 to 2010 government, The Labour Party has generally taken the role of opposition to the Conservative’s right wing agenda. The party was created for the working class with socialist values at it’s core. Labour began in the late 19th century when it was recognised that there was a need for a new political party to represent the working class. Over the course of a century the party grew into a formidable left wing opposition to the right, winning many elections during that time. However, in the late 1970’s and 1980’s support for the Labour Party dwindled, with the Conservatives using the economy as the focal point of their campaign. It was only in 1997 that they gained enough support for a general election win, as Tony Blair revived Labour as ‘New Labour’ a party that appealed the left leaning working class and the centre ground middle class. Dennis Kavanagh and Anthony Seldon state, “voters now saw it as… much more united, trustworthy, economically confident and representative of Britain” (1999, p244). From this it can be considered that the electorate believe the economy to be an important role in the political sphere. Capitalism, throughout the years has become so intrinsically tied to the political stage that the voter now desires a party with a deep understanding of it’s practise. The 2008 financial crisis caused an upset to the Labour Party, as rival politicians publicly claimed Labour’s extensive spending to be the cause of the crash, despite evidence suggesting it to be a global issue not just inherent to Britain. Writing in The Political Quarterly, Dan Corry cautioned against the emerging consensus of Labour’s economic failings, stating “it presents an overwhelmingly negative interpretation of United Kingdom economic performance under New Labour, detracting from many positive achievements” (2011). Following the crash the Conservatives were quick to ensure Labour were recognised by the electorate as a economically illiterate party, thus ensuring their own election win in 2010. 21
Mathew Elliot, head of the campaign to reject an alternate voting system in 2011, presented in Jones’ ‘The Establishment: And How They Got Away With It’ a different Conservative Party to the one now in charge. “The Tories had basically convinced themselves that the only way to get back into office was to not only match Labour’s spending plans, but actually say they’d possibly spend more” (2014, p32). This presents to us a different Conservative Party to what was portrayed, a financially irresponsible party, desperate to regain power. They later, successfully, convinced voters of their economic confidence, which has since become a staple of their political campaigning. It wasn’t just Labour’s apparent lack of financial prowess that lost them the 2010 and 2015 elections; the Conservatives also had the reassurance of the British media majority. Spin Spin is a form of political propaganda that is used in public relations; it provides a bias opinion of an issue attempting to change public favour. This is most commonly seen within the press whose responsibility is to provide factual news and opinion to the public on a daily basis. To fulfill this role, the press should accord to fundamental values of professional ethics and journalism. Yet in the modern political arena bias opinion is becoming more frequent in an attempt to pursued the electorate of the Establishment’s ideology. The press, with all it’s ties to politics, big businesses and other aspects of high society, could to be considered a pillar of the Establishment. During the run up to the May 2015 General Election, the right-wing media viciously attacked Prime Minister hopeful Ed Miliband in an attempt to subvert his mildly antiEstablishment policies, making him unelectable. Miliband’s position on big business placed him more left wing than centralist Tony Blair and his successor Gordon Brown. During the election campaign, Miliband pledged to freeze energy prices, break up the media giant News UK and abolish certain big business tax breaks. Miliband’s affront to the Establishment resulted in an attack campaign by the British media on a personal level. With capitalist interests being threatened, Miliband was referred to as ‘Red Ed’ due to his years of activism and father’s career as a Marxist scholar. They painted him as a left-wing extremist whilst also portraying him as part 22
of the Establishment at the same time. The Sun ran a story about Miliband’s home having two kitchens, one of which being for the house staff. These contradictory attacks ensured that he was an unviable option to the entire spectrum of the electorate. Peter Jukes, quoting Andrew Neil, former editor of the Sunday Times, argued that the front page headlines on Miliband “show British press at partisan worst… All pretense of separation between news and opinion gone, even in ‘qualities.’” (2015). This raises an interesting point as, once journalistic ethics are removed the will of those in power becomes the common opinion. Jones believes that, “the political views of media owners set the tone for the newspapers, transforming them into effective political lobbying machines” (2014, p96). Rupert Murdoch, owner of News UK, took a dislike of Miliband after his decision to dismantle the media company. This is evident by Miliband’s portrayal by the media; it also establishes that those in the higher tiers of society were aware of the damage his victory could cause. Adam Sherwin and Owen Wright, in their April 20th 2015 article for the Independent, stated that Murdoch vocally chastised his journalists for not doing more to damage Labour, warning that the “future of the company depended on stopping Ed Miliband” (2015). Sherwin and Wright’s comments cement the idea that capitalist interests were the primary factor of the Miliband’s election defeat. Media spin is common in the modern press as capitalistic values overshadow appropriate discourse. With newspapers largely being a profiteering venture it would be hard to suggest that their role is not for financial gain, thus tying them to the capitalist agenda. With the electorate subjected daily to the media’s motived discussion, it is not beyond the realm of possibility to suggest that the beliefs of the voting public could be manipulated. The Overton Window The Overton Window is a political theory that examines the range of policies that the electorate will accept. Consider a window of political policies which lies within the centre of the left and right wing agendas, otherwise known as the centre ground. The 23
policies inside of this window are considered politically sound and acceptable by the electorate, whilst policies outside are not. The further away from the window these policies are, the more extreme the public considers them. The term is derived from Joseph P. Overton who claimed that where an idea lay in or around the window reflected it’s political viability. It is entirely possible, however, to move the window, making more extreme left or right wing policies acceptable to the public whilst simultaneously making the opposite policies more unreasonable. In recent years the Conservative party, with the help of other Establishment pillars such as the media, have attempted to move the Overton window to the right, making casual left wing beliefs more unapproachable whilst the more outlandish right wing policies to become acceptable. Owen Jones described the effect the move had on Ed Miliband’s proposed temporary energy price freeze as, “portrayed by the media and right-wing politicians as cryptoMarxism, even though most voters support a far more radical option” (2014, pXVIII). The wilder option Jones refers to is the nationalisation of energy firms. Since Miliband’s election loss, the Conservative Party moved the Overton window to the right under the guise of it being in the public’s best interest. The lurch to the right became more evident as Miliband’s successor Jeremy Corbyn took the role of Labour leader. Corbyn’s socialist background and strong antiEstablishment, anti-capitol beliefs have lead to him being portrayed as a communist in the same vein as Marx. This is evidenced in Martin Rowson’s 2015 piece called Frankenstien vs. Zombie Apocalypse (Figure 2). The illustration portrays Corbyn as Frankenstein putting together a monster of past left wing Labour politicians whilst the doors to his castle are thrown open by the zombie like supporters of Blair’s New Labour. A notable visual cue of Corbyn is his communist hat, which Rowson has gifted him due to his left wing beliefs. Despite being a left leaning voter himself, Rowson engages with the right wing rhetoric. In his article ‘Jeremy Corbyn versus the media – will he take on Murdoch?’ Roy Greenslade suggests that “like all leftwingers, especially those prepared to stand up for unpopular causes, Corbyn has suffered from a mixture of marginalisation and demonisation” (2015). This presents an idea that any threat to the Establishment’s 24
capitalist agenda should expect to be portrayed in a negative light. It is part of a system designed to destroy threats to the Establishment, before they gather support. An social upheaval, such as the one created during the 19th century, would force a change to the Establishment that capitalism isn’t prepared to allow happen. However, it is important to note that out of the four Labour leadership potentials, Corbyn was considered further left wing than any of his opponents, yet won with 59.5% of the vote. This suggests that Labour supporters are looking for more socialist values from their leader and could indicate the general mood of the electorate as a whole. It could be considered that Ed Miliband lost the 2015 General Election, not because he was tarnished as a Marxist, or even due to Labour being portrayed as economically inept, but perhaps he wasn’t willing to be as left wing as the media portrayed him to be. Without a unified left wing opposition to both the media and the Conservatives, the capitalist agenda will continue furthering the Establishment’s divide of society.
25
Conclusion The discussion within this paper has attempted to highlight how capitalism, being the new face of the Establishment, has affected the modern political area. The Establishment, a relativity new term introduced by Henry Fairlie, is used, to describe the matrix of elite players that connect, not through official arrangements but through networks of social relationships. It is an ever-changing entity that is currently going through another metamorphosis, one with capitalism becoming the primary face for it to operate behind. From the evidence that has been gathered it can be surmised that capitalism has, over an extended period of time, grown into a hugely influential entity with businesses including Amazon, BP and Shell becoming forces of a global scale. These giants of industry use lobbying to manipulate the intentions of politicians with the understanding that compliance will bring economic security. This influence, under the pretence of guidance, has created a somewhat symbiotic relationship with politics, so much so that the Iraq war is suspected to have arisen from BP’s desire to attain the oil wells within the country. These formidable businesses aren’t omnipotent though and, as Paul Bigness suggested, do have limitations. These were evidenced by the anxiety displayed by BP at the possible prevention of opportunities by way of political interference. Global companies receive financial aid from the government as the lure of a strong economy tightens the relationship between politics and capitalistic ideology. The subjectivity of politicians is malleable to suit the needs of economic growth, as evidenced by David Cameron’s contradictory nature towards the divestment of fossil fuels. Global events such as the 2008 financial crisis further prove just how beholden the government is to capitalism. The events of such an incident highlight the differing attitudes towards the working class and big business as those at the bottom of society are faced with unrelenting cuts. Meanwhile, giants such as Amazon are given government handouts in the form of subsidiaries to maintain an investment within Britain. The right wing agenda is evident here as those with power maintain a continued success despite the lower classes losing out.
26
Labour, the voice of the working class, have faced a torrent of media attacks in recent years. Despite being in government from 1997 to 2010, they are now portrayed as economically inept with their leaders Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn facing endless right wing media scrutiny. The biggest opponent to the Establishment no longer poses a threat to it’s capitalist regime. Unless a unified front can be formed across the lower class of society this looks to be the case for the foreseeable future. It can be considered that capitalism now has such a strangle hold on both politics and the electorate that nothing short of a Marxist era revolution would change the situation. With that in mind, any other left wing success will most likely be achieved by correctly navigating the media and embracing capitalism as the new face of the Establishment. From this discussion it can be understood that capitalism’s tie to the Establishment has created a powerful force, with the capacity to influence not only governments but also events on a global scale. It maintains the Establishment ideology of social networks within the upper classes, however isn’t beholden to it, as new capitalist powers can enter this matrix, with Amazon being a prime example of such an enterprise. This highlights the difference of the Establishment under monarchial rule, in which power was a birthright rather than an aspiration. It can be assumed, judging from the evidence, that just as the monarchy lost control to the political class, so too will politics give way to capitalism. With no appropriate alternative to the right wing agenda, the only likely socialist push back will come in the form of a revolution, similar to that which occurred during the era of Marx. However it must be said that the victors of such an uprising cannot be precisely gauged, only presumed. In such an event the most logical outcome, judging from the evidence discussed within this paper, is that the Establishment would triumph. But in exactly what form would be difficult to judge. The research gathered together within this paper is an important step in understanding the social matrix Henry Fairlie discussed in his 1955 Spectator article, and the role of capitalism within it. The Establishment, as a subject, is still quite vague with only a few selected pieces discussing it at length, such as Owen Jones’ ‘The Establishment: And How They Got Away With It’. It is hoped that by reading this, one would want to research the topic further in the hopes of truly understanding the transformative entity that inhabits the apex of modern society. 27
Further research into areas such as capitalism and the political class are strongly recommended. Such investigations will potentially lead into an even greater understanding of this society and how the capitalist driven Establishment molds it to suit the needs of the few. In conclusion, from what has been discussed it is evident that the Establishment, with it’s new face of capitalism, is unyielding in it’s quest for more power, with inequality being a by-product of such a pursuit. It lobbies governments to manage the flow of power whilst the media is used to maintain the electorate’s belief that, those who oppose it are untrustworthy individuals and left wing extremists. The evidence presented suggests that the most logical of futures for the Establishment are as such; it’s complete dominance by the capitalist pillar that has entangled itself within it’s matrix, or a social upheaval that will limit capitalism’s grip and trigger another transformation. Regardless of the outcome, the Establishment will perceiver in some form to exercise the power it has become accustomed to.
28
Illustrations Figure 1.
Figure 2.
29
Bibliography Books Brand, R. (2014) Revolution, London: Random House Braveman, H. (1974) Labour and Monopoly Capital: The Degredation of Work in the Twentieth Century, New York: Monthly Press Review Jones, O. (2014) The Establishment: And How They Got Away With It, St Ives: Penguin Random House UK Gibson-Graham, J.K. (1996) The End of Capitalism (As We Know It), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Kavanagh, D., Seldon, A. (1999) The Powers Behind The Prime Minister: The Hidden Influence of Number Ten, London: Harper Collins Klein, N. (2014) This Changes Everything, London: Penguin Books Mabbutt, A. (2015) The Conservative Manifesto 2015, St Ives: Conservative Party
30
Websites Allegretti, A. (2015) George Osborne's State Asset Sell-Off: 'Greater Privatisation In 12 Months Than Last 20 Years’ [Online] Available from: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/05/george-osborne-public-assets-rbs-royalmail_n_7937816.html [Accessed 23rd December 2015] Bawden, T. (2015) UK Government 'Pays £6bn a Year in Subsidies to Fossil Fuel Industry’ [Online] Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukgovernment-pays-6bn-a-year-in-subsidies-to-fossil-fuel-industry-a6730946.html [Accessed 21st December 2015] Bengtsson, H., Carrington, D., Evans, R., Howard, E. (2015) Shell and BP Alone Eclipse Renewable Energy Sector on Access to Ministers [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/28/fossil-fuel-lobby-given-farmore-access-to-uk-ministers-than-renewables-analysis [Accessed 22nd December 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-whatare-they-who-claims-them-and-why-is-everyone-so-angry-about-the-cuts.html [Accessed 9th 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/secretmemos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html [Accessed 18th 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-tax-changes-to-reduce-householdincomes-significantly/ [Accessed 9th November 2015] 31
Brett, W. (2013) Russell Brand: Right About the Problem, Wrong About the Solution [Online] Available from: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/press-release/russellbrand-right-about-problem-wrong-about-solution [Accessed 25th November 2015] Business Dictionary, The (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-corprationsinfluence-government [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/benefits-corporate-welfareresearch-public-money-businesses [Accessed 24th November 2015] Chakrabortty, A. (2015) George Osborne has reached the point where his cuts can no longer be denied or defended [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/02/osborne-austerity-cuts-taxcredit-cuts [Accessed 8th January 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/tories-big-business-taxloopholes [Accessed 24th November 2015]
32
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-welfare-a-93bn-handshake [Accessed 24th 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] 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] Fairlie, H. (1955) Political Commentary [Online] Available from: http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/23rd-september-1955/5/political-commentary [Accessed 1st November 2015] Greenslade, R. (2015) Jeremy Corbyn Versus the Media – Will He Take on Murdoch? [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/sep/13/jeremy-corbyn-versusthe-media-will-he-take-on-murdoch [Accessed 10 January 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-video-exposes-davidcamerons-broken-promise-on-tax-credits-_n_8337702.html [Accessed 9th November 2015] Hartley -Brewer, J. (2015) End austerity now? What austerity? [Online] Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11691027/End-austeritynow-What-austerity.html [Accessed 8th January 2016]
33
Hellier, D. (2015) It’s the £64bn Question: What Does George Osborne Have Left to Sell Off? [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/08/64bn-question-george-osborneleft-to-sell-asset-sales [Accessed 22nd December 2015] Herald, The (2015) Osborne to sell more public assets in 12 months than in past 20 years [Online] Available from: http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/13573755.Osborne_to_sell_more_public_ass ets_in_12_months_than_in_past_20_years/ [Accessed 8th January 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-lobbyists-senior-civilservants [Accessed 18th 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-autumn-statementgeorge-osborne [Accessed 9th November 2015] Jukes, P. (2015) The British Press Has Lost It [Online] Available from: http://www.politico.eu/article/the-british-press-has-lost-it/ [Accessed 8th January] Jones, O. (2014) The Establishment Uncovered: How Power Works In Britain [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/26/theestablishment-uncovered-how-power-works-in-britain-elites-stranglehold [Accessed 15th December 2015] Leftly, M. (2015) New Transparency International UK Report Lays Bare the Scandal of Lobbyists [Online] Available from: 34
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-report-lays-bare-the-scandal-oflobbyists-10031467.html [Accessed: 17th November 2015] Lords and Ladies (2015) Decline of Feudalism [Online] Available from: http://www.lordsandladies.org/decline-of-feudalism.htm [Accessed 21st December 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] 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-shift-climatechange-amber-rudd-backburner [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/article3127962/Labour-leadership-hopeful-Jeremy-Corbyn-left-wing-divorced-wife-refusedsend-son-failing-comprehensive.html#ixzz3sapDEhJk [Accessed 25th 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/lobbying-business-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/poorer-households-hit-hardest-byausterity-over-the-last-five-years-according-to-new-report-10004203.html 35
[Accessed 9th November 2015] 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-britishestablishment/ [Accessed on 1st 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/Nationaldisgrace-Corbyn-blasted-for-anthem-snub.html [Accessed 25th 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-isdead-but-something-worse-has-replaced-it/ [Accessed 1st November] Osborne, G. (2015) Chancellor George Osborne's Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015 speech [Online] Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-george-osbornes-spendingreview-and-autumn-statement-2015-speech [Accessed 22nd December 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/Oligarchsdaughter-apologises-for-insensitive-and-crude-advice-on-servants.html [Accessed on 20th November 2015] Quinault, R. (2001) Britain 1950 [Online] Available from: http://www.historytoday.com/roland-quinault/britain-1950 [Accessed 20th November 2015] Radin, M. (2015) Is Lobbying Good or Bad? [Online] Available from: https://represent.us/lobbying-good-bad/ 36
[Accessed 20th November 2015] Runciman, D. (2014) The Establishment: And How They Get Away With It by Owen Jones – Review [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/10/the-establishment-how-they-getaway-with-it-owen-jones-review [Accessed 9th December 2015] Ryan, F. (2015) Austerity is a Feminist Issue – Women Will be Hit Twice as Hard as Men by Cuts [Online] Available from: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/austerity-feminist-issue-women-willbe-hit-twice-hard-men-cuts [Accessed 8th January 2015] Siddique, H. (2015) Netflix Paid No Corporation Tax Despite 4.5m UK Subscribers, Report Claims [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/20/netflix-paid-no-uk-corporation-taxreport-claims [Accessed 21st December 2015] Sherwin, A., Wright, O. (2015) Rupert Murdoch Berated Sun Journalists for Not Doing Enough to Attack Ed Miliband and Stop Him Winning the General Election [Online] Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/rupert-murdochberated-sun-journalists-for-not-doing-enough-to-attack-ed-miliband-10191005.html [Accessed 4th January 2015] Smith, A. (2011) Political Marxism and the Rise of American Capitalism [Online] Available from: http://isreview.org/issue/78/political-marxism-and-rise-americancapitalism [Accessed 21st December 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]
37
Wikipedia (2015) Right Wing Politics [Online] Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics [Accessed 15th December 2015] Wikipedia (2015) The Revolutions of 1948 [Online] Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848 [Accessed 15th December 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-more-throughgovernment-grants-than-it-pays-in-tax-8617919.html [Accessed 24th November 2015]
38
Journals Corry, D. C 2011, ‘Labour and the Economy, 1997–2010: More than a Faustian Pact’, The Political Quarterly, Vol. 81, pp S123–S139. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2010.02225.x/abstract [Accessed 8th January 2015]
39