Re: [A-List] UK state: Hutton aftermath

["Anyutka" <annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>]

Well, I guess that sets me straight:-).  Actually, I appreciate your
vast knowledge of all these various British personalities and their
histories, of which I am bereft.  So, I take your point and accept
that Heffer's true lament is for the "gentlemanly" establishment
which concealed what today's advertizes loudly.  Nonetheless,
the article, as read by me, had resonance regarding a subject it
doesn't address - the US's vaunted 2-party system in which both
the RNC and the DNC are "two wings of the same predatory
bird."  Somehow, it seems a shared affliction.  -A.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>
To: "The A-List" <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [A-List] UK state: Hutton aftermath


> Simon Heffer writes:
>
> This new Establishment is packed with people who have willingly
surrendered
> their principles in order to hold ministerial office. Serving the public
> seems very much a secondary consideration to having an interesting,
> well-paid job with a chauffeur-driven car. Just count the number of
> ministers - Mr Blair among them - who happily fought the 1983 general
> election on Labour's manifesto, which included unilateral nuclear
> disarmament, leaving the EC and nationalising large swaths of British
> business. Look at the ones who used to be student revolutionaries,
> anarchists and syndicalists. Just look at those who have never had a job
in
> the private sector, and who therefore have no room for independence. More
to
> the point, just examine the innumerable acts of prestidigitation,
> sleight-of-hand and downright lying that the government has engaged in
with
> the public. And just ask the BBC and, indeed, any newspaper about the
> relentless and shameless bullying that Alastair Campbell, Peter Mandelson
> and others engaged in to ensure that the best possible gloss was at all
> times put on the actions of a government that felt it should be portrayed
as
> wise and infallible.
>
> Nor, like its predecessors, is this a group of people who play by the
rules
> or accept responsibility. Ministers avoid Parliament at all costs. Matters
> that ought to have been subject to a full inquiry, in the public
interest -
> such as the Kosovo expedition, the Iraq war or the foot-and-mouth
outbreak -
> are swept under the carpet. And when something goes wrong, the old maxim
> that civil servants advise but ministers decide is discounted. If a civil
> servant can be found to take the blame, he is blamed. So bullied and so
> careerist are the higher ranks of the Civil Service that they make little
or
> no protest at this. The prime purpose of our rulers is to smother dissent,
> stifle criticism, intimidate the media and dismantle any part of the
British
> constitution that impedes them in that activity. This is about power for
the
>
> sake of power. This Establishment is no longer at the apex of a social
order
> and a nation, but entirely apart from it except when, parasitically, it
> feeds off it. That, Lord Hutton, is what the Establishment you have just
> whitewashed is really like.
>
> It is always provocative to make such comparisons, but there is a parallel
> here with how Hitler hoodwinked President Hindenburg from January 1933
until
> the old soldier's death a year later. The stiff, correct Prussian simply
> could not begin to imagine the sort of tricks that the Nazis were getting
up
> to, nor would he have comprehended their wholesale refusal to play by the
> rules. Hitler well knew this, and Hindenburg's unknowing service to him as
> head of state was that he allowed the Austrian corporal to get away with
> murder through ignorance rather than complicity. Now, in a government run
by
> lawyers, the new Establishment understands all too well how recourse to
the
> judicial inquiry can help them appear whiter than white to the public, and
> to maintain their hold on power (though the public, to its credit, does
seem
> to have seen through this, with Hutton being by way of the last straw).
>
> Of course, the Major government did something similar with the Scott
inquiry
> into arms to Iraq. Despite taking infinitely longer than Lord Hutton to
> ponder his conclusions, and despite having a reputation as something of a
> progressive, Sir Richard Scott nonetheless produced a similar
> industrial-sized vat of whitewash. But then the Major government was in
> prototype what this administration is in a de luxe version: composed of
> careerists, unattached to principle and not above deceit and duplicity
when
> it came to staying in office. The new Establishment cuts across party
> politics. It is about a conspiracy of those in power to stay in power and
> uphold the impregnability of their high offices. It is as well they can
rely
> on the unwitting help of some of the older members, who do not realise how
> the rules have changed. The electorate, we must hope, are a little more up
> to date.
>
> Simon Heffer is a columnist on the Daily Mail.
>
> ------
>
> To understand the above paragraphs one need only read the final sentence.
> What a load of crapola, to put it mildly. This is the guy who wrote the
> fawning biography of Enoch Powell, for goodness sakes. More importantly,
> however, he reveals just how disconnected and bitter are the punk
> Thatcherites from what is really going on, and, in a way, tells you
> something of why it should be this way. For Heffer desperately wants to
have
> it both ways -- he admires authority and hierarchy, he wants to serve the
> greater good and is willing to defer to the higher ups. And for decades,
> nay, centuries, the higher ups were deserving of such deference, because
> they were innately good. It was only when the imposters of John Major's
> administration managed to sneak in that the rot set in. The New Labour
> avalanche in 1997 sealed the fate of the "honourable establishment", which
> has been totally displaced by "people who have willingly surrendered
> their principles in order to hold ministerial office". Their only
difference
> with the Conservative predecessors that Heffer hankers after forlornly is
> that the Conservatives of old had but only one principle -- to hold
> ministerial office.
>
> Heffer has to be careful, because he does not want to impugn the motives
of
> the honourable judge, whose instinct to protect the establishment was
> absolutely correct, in his view. No, the problem is that he's protecting
the
> wrong establishment! How dare these imposters hoodwink the honourable
judge,
> just as Hitler deceived the good Hindenburg (!)
>
> This is what gives the game away:
>
> "This is about power for the sake of power. This Establishment is no
longer
> at the apex of a social order and a nation, but entirely apart from it
> except when, parasitically, it feeds off it. That, Lord Hutton, is what
the
> Establishment you have just whitewashed is really like."
>
> Apparently there are two Establishments -- the real one after which Heffer
> hankers, and the bunch of cowboys and chancers who presently occupy the
> reins of power:
>
> "the Major government was in prototype what this administration is in a de
> luxe version: composed of careerists, unattached to principle and not
above
> deceit and duplicity when it came to staying in office. The new
> Establishment cuts across party politics. It is about a conspiracy of
those
> in power to stay in power and uphold the impregnability of their high
> offices."
>
> Oh dear. Unfortunately, Anne, this is not the principled jeremiad of an
> objective observer able to chart the truly downward trajectory of "Great
> Britain" during the last decade, but instead a lament for doomed middle
age,
> consigned to the sidelines and irrelevance by the very counter-revolution
> that he and his ilk cheerfully sponsored way back in the 1970s and 80s.
>
> Bah humbug to bastard Blair, horrible Heseltine, macabre Mandelson and
> hideous Hurd, and raise the banners in tribute to glorious Maggie...
>
> Pass the sickbag,
>
> Michael
>
> ps Even the most casual glance at the careers of the "great and good" that
> Heffer wishes would be reincarnated to lead us back to honour and glory
will
> reveal just how careerist our leaders have always been. The revolving
doors
> connecting Whitehall, Westminster and the City were never mere legend. But
> the secrecy inherent in the older, cosier arrangements of "gentleman's
> clubs", military circles, merchant bank boardrooms and the Palace of
> Westminster are obviously much more to the taste of Heffer than the
uncouth
> arriviste nouveau riche poseurs who have usurped the places formerly
> occupied by the "true" Establishment.
>
>