There's the irony. Government that is; strong, effective, disinterested, adequately resourced, genuinely accountable and subject oversight by an independent judiciary is a bulwark against the threats posed by; predatory, neo-liberal nihilism. Yet people are convinced that the "deep state" is their enemy.
I’m not sure they are, but they might look at the continuities across four and a half decades of governance by different parties and think, Well: maybe there’s something else behind the curtain that we don’t get to vote in or out. Would they be wrong? Do your comments on whether or not the Treasury will tolerate the elected Chancellor suggest that they’re wrong?
The power and overweening arrogance of the Treasury is not going to be challenged by weakness and decay across Whitehall and the rest of the public sector. I'm not necessarily saying that the chancellor should be more than a good economist that the role's demands so much is something we should seek to change.
Ashworth and his wife Oldknow were involved in the coup and attacking Abbott. Seems just the right sort to appear on a Kuenssberg program. Kuenssberg appeared to challenge him yet didn't ask the difficult questions like how is the process independent?
All I'm saying here is that British political life, and indeed daily life, is shaped in large degree by institutions that are opaque, fairly immutable and extremely well-insulated from democracy. Given that the people who are paid to explain this to the public in rational terms - political journalists - will instead giggle and post tinfoil hat memes whenever the issue is raised, it's a miracle that more people don't believe in fantastical stories about the Deep State.
Strong government has been the key driver for predatory neoliberalism, not a bulwark against it.
The only people who incite the concepts of the “deep state” are people like Truss and Trump. Yes they have their followers in QAnon etc, but not sure that the deep state conspiracy theory has common currency in anything that could be called the people. At least not in the UK.
This is the crux. Like stereotypes, conspiracy theories have to contain a kernel of truth in order to function. The ruling class do conspire, but it’s not through the Bilderberg Group, The Elders of Zion, the Freemasons (well, maybe a little) or the Illuminati, it’s the Bank of England, the CBI, the G8, the EU Commission and other unelected bodies.
Precisely.
Yes. And it was Thatcher who gave unfettered power directly to the city in the Big Bang which ended well.
Yes. Also worth noting that democracy itself had only taken root a decade or so before that.
One thing to note is that neither Abbott nor Corbyn are especially amazing politicians, as is often pointed out. The idea that people are crying out for Great Statesmen or amazing orators or incredibly competent professionals is just balls, put about by a media-politics class overwhelmingly drawn from the professional and managerial classes. You don't need any special talents to govern. Abbott and Corbyn generate support because they represent people's interests and are themselves quite ordinary people.
That was the period that corresponded to the post-war boom, characterised by an unprecedented global economic expansion where people’s living standards (at least in the west) grew in real terms year upon year. It enabled my working class parents, born into unimaginable poverty, to eventually own their own home, own a car, colour tv, and take foreign package holidays to the Spanish Costas.
Nasty British and short. Sounds like a slot on GBNonce.
“Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off with Iran.” Seems it was a little bit more than simply a fantasy believed by anti-war protestors. You can argue that this was just the crazed dream of some Dr. Strangelove in the Pentagon, but it was more likely having their asses kicked in Afghanistan and Iraq that halted this particular strategy. Although of course, the US would go on to intervene in Syria, Libya and Somalia in any case.
