THE RULING CLASS and the STATE

The “deep state” has become, in recent years, a common term and the last post wondered whether it could actually applied to the UK – with its very different political system. 

The term to which Brits are more used has been “The Establishment” coined 

by Henry Fairlie in 1955 and whose provenance was explored recently in 

this fascinating long article. The concept was explored in a book edited by 

Hugh Thomas in 1959 - The Establishment 
But it was a journalist who kept the public interest in the country’s elite alive 

from the 1960s through to the new millennium, namely Anthony Sampson 

whose first effort was the subject of a rather jaundiced review in NLR. 

By 2004 Sampson’s work produced Who Runs this place?  the anatomy of Britain 

in the 21st Century 

Owen Jones’ The Establishment (2014) didn’t so much assess the UK’s power 

structure as describe its prevailing ideology of neoliberalism. As one reviewer 

put it -

Jones sees a glaring contradiction and hypocrisy in neoliberalism’s simultaneous 

rejection of the state (sclerotic, bureaucratic, unable to ‘wash the pots’, let alone 

build houses) and embrace of the state (for bailouts, for ‘security’ and for violent 

action where necessary). ‘Despite shades of moderation and radicalism, the British 

establishment’s governing ideology is consistent. The state is a bad thing, and gets 

in the way of entrepreneurial flair. Free markets are responsible for growth and 

progress. Businesspeople are the real wealth creators.’ This, as Philip Mirowski and 

Richard Seymour among others have recently argued, was a ‘contradiction’ that 

didn’t trouble Hayek and his colleagues one iota: it was always part of the totality 

of their theory. However, it was not and is not how neoliberalism is sold to the British 

or American public, and The Establishment is at its strongest when it is detailing 

how vulgar neoliberalism works in practice.

By 2018 Aaron Daviews was wondering in Reckless Opportunists whether the 

term had outlived its usefulness. 

It might be time to question whether the British Establishment still functions. Yes, some members of the elite have become very rich. They are united in their fear and loathing of left-wing ideas and ordinary publics. Their decisions have powerful consequences that are widely felt. But they are also rather less able to exert control or predict what those consequences will be. As a body, they have reached a tipping point. They are no longer coherent or collective or competent. These failings are not only causing larger schisms, inequalities and precariousness in Britain; they also threaten the very foundations of Establishment rule itself.