Watching …
Before I jump into the promised review of three essays by Professor Matthew Goodwin, here’s the obligatory glance at the newsie news our Westminster MSM have decided are ‘important’: “Newspaper headlines: BBC chair quits and ‘new King for our times’” (link). A quick scroll shows that only the Mirror has this ‘new King for our times’ as lead on their front page. Perhaps it’s because the editors of that lefty red top believe the ‘poor workers’, be they ever so Labour-supporting, still love their Royals …
And thus we elegantly swerve into the review of yon three essays. He published them on his substack site, in the wake of his new book ‘Values, Voices and Virtue’. Their overarching title is ‘How Britain came apart’. The titles for the separate three parts are already sufficient to make one sit up:
“Part 1: The Rise of Hyper-Globalisation (link); Part 2: The Hollowing out of Democracy (link); Part 3: The Onset of Mass Immigration (link)
I cannot possibly do justice to this huge text. Thus I’d recommend reading them all – if you are prepared to spend some time on them. It’s worth it not least because of the graphs he has included. There’s a preface to each of the three parts in which he sets the scene and givens the reason for writing these essays, concluding the preface thus:
“[…] over the next three posts, we’ll explore the three most important features of this revolution and how they came to alienate millions of ordinary people.” (link)
In Part 1 we’re given a wide historical overview, an explanation of how we got to where we are. Goodwin describes it as revolution, setting the scene. Certainly all the ‘new’ generations have either forgotten or, on the Left, try to diminish Labour’s role by pointing exclusively at Mrs Thatcher ( emphases are all mine):
“Beginning in 1979, eighteen years of uninterrupted Conservative Party rule were then, from 1997, followed by thirteen years of uninterrupted New Labour rule. […] Left and right converged on the same territory, becoming indistinguishable, and leaving much of the electorate with a palpable sense they were simply no longer in the national conversation about who we are as a country or where we are going.” (link)
The following historical overview simply puts flesh on this observation, do look at it if you can. Scrolling down, there’s this observation:
“In 2020, similarly, Britain’s Office for National Statistics pointed out that whatever measure of inequality one used, they all increased sharply during the Thatcher years before widening even further during the New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who accepted much of this legacy, and then only falling slightly back after the Global Financial Crash, amid a prolonged economic squeeze. As this suggests, hyper-globalisation was not just a child of the neoliberal right, it was also nurtured by the left.” (link)
It was nurtured to an extent which made me gasp, not having been aware of it because in those years, like so many others, I was simply trying to live my life as best I could:
“It was during the New Labour years, after-all, when the top 1 per cent saw their strongest income growth of all while inequality reached new heights. When New Labour came to power, in 1997, promising things can only get better, the average pay of Britain’s CEOs was forty-seven times higher than that of the average worker. By the time Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell were campaigning against Brexit nearly twenty years later it had rocketed to 145 times higher.” (link)
This is followed by a corruscating description of how Blair’s government drove this development, how Britain became London-centric and how regional inequality rose:
“By the time of the vote for Brexit, at least half the population were living in regions whose overall level of prosperity was no better than the poorer parts of former East Germany and US states such as Mississippi and West Virginia.” (link)
In the ensuing paragraphs, Goodwin presents crushing data showing not just the effects of this rise in inequality, he also points out how much it contributed to the rise of the ‘New Elite’, an ‘elite’
“who simply appeared less interested in upholding the strong sense of obligation to others, national belonging and ethical purpose which had characterised some of Britain’s leaders in years gone by. Whether on the left or right, Britain’s rulers were now completely focused on pushing through a revolution which reflected their values, interests and priorities but showed little interest in everybody else.” (link)
I think that the following Part 2 is the truly important part because Goodwin lays out what we’ve been talking about for years: the lack of political representation. Calling it ‘The Hollowing out of Democracy’ is very apt. Goodwin starts Part 2 by describing how hyper-globalisation overturned national economy and that the re-shaping of national interests around those of the new elites hollowed out national democracy and making people feel powerless and having no voice:
“Much of this flowed from how meaningful choice in Westminster disappeared. As hyper-globalisation unfolded, political power and influence were increasingly pushed outside the boundaries of national democracy to much more distant and less accountable institutions. Politics, in other words, was stripped out of politics —it was ‘de-politicised’.” (link)
Goodwin describes how there was suddenly no ‘meaningful difference between Lab and Con’, how they “had converged on the same narrow territory, offering the same economic and cultural liberalism.” and how, moreover,
“Many of the most important and influential institutions were increasingly dominated by the new middle-class graduate elite —people who tended to have gone to the same schools, the same universities, the same backgrounds and shared the same cluster of values.” (link)
In the following paragraphs Goodwin describes how Labour’s Europhily contributed and increased this hollowing-out, observing that the ‘new elite’, Left and Right, were singing from the same hymn sheet, being committed to ‘moar EU’:
“Such was the scale of this new consensus that when the Brexit referendum finally arrived, in 2016, no less than 96 per cent of Labour MPs, 75 per cent of all MPs, 80 per cent of David Cameron’s Cabinet, and a majority of Conservative MPs campaigned to remain in the European Union.” (link)
These numbers left me speechless. I had no idea how entrenched EUrophilia really was in the Westminster classes. Given the ‘de-politisation of politics’, the conclusions of Part 2 come as no surprise:
“As Britain’s democracy was hollowed out, then, it became clear that, whether on the left or right, the country’s leaders were no longer deriving their sense of authority and legitimacy from their vertical relationship with the masses below. Instead […] they were deriving their sense of political authority and legitimacy from their horizontal relationships with other members of the global elite – whether in the EU or at Davos.” (link)
The scene is thus set for Part 3, addressing what Goodwin calls the ‘revolt from below’, the result of the Brexit referendum, with one more ingredient added: mass immigration and the ensuing cultural change. The blame is laid firmly at the Left’s feet:
“[…] from the late 1990s onward New Labour kept the economic liberalism but replaced all the rest with a much more radical cultural liberalism. […] By the twenty-first century, Britain’s new ruling class was completely committed to a policy that would have seismic political, social and cultural effects and do more than anything else to drive support for national populism, Brexit, and Boris Johnson.” (link)
Keep in mind that during these years the Westminster opinion makers and politicians, i.e. the ‘New Elite’, have turned ‘populism’ into a political slur. It has become the label of choice for anyone daring to question the ‘New Elite’, making it interchangeable with ‘far right’, fascist’ and the other slurs believed by the Left..
Next, Goodwin relates how the Tories not only did nothing to stop mass immigration but ‘let it rip’. The numbers are staggering – do read the whole thing! – but Goodwin also takes a step back and describes Labour’s policies which actually enabled the Tory failures regarding mass immigration. Blair relaxed immigration rules but:
“New Labour was also deeply reluctant to discuss the move publicly for fear it would alienate the working-class and the large majority of voters across the country who wanted to keep immigration low. It was another example of how the decisions that were affecting people’s lives were being kept as far away from them as possible.” (link)
I note in the margins that this was easy because the New Elites governed public discourse, smearing anyone expressing criticism as ‘racist’ etc. The other aspect whose consequences we see played out daily in the ‘cancel culture’ and accusations of ‘racism’ and the rest, and never mind
“[…] people’s growing worries about how, in their eyes, mass immigration was not just weakening Britain’s economy but also undermining its distinctive identity, culture, and ways of life.” (link)
This scenario, where the ‘New Elites’ on Right and Left have become indistinguishable while people feel alienated and powerless, explains for Goodwin why Brexit ‘won’. Here are the concluding paragraphs of Part 3 which also stand for the preceding Parts:
“While New Labour had embraced the radical economic liberalism of the New Right, the Conservatives now fully embraced the radical cultural liberalism of the New Left. And this new consensus, this new orthodoxy, was about to have enormous consequences on the country and its politics. It was about to cut much of the rest of the country adrift and set the stage for an enormous backlash against the new elite.” (link)
Goodwin does not describe what this backlash looks like. So , at the end, let me add my humble thoughts on that. Every day we see how the ‘New Elites’, having grown up under Blair’s transforming policies, are now sitting nicely in Whitehall where they do their best to keep the Blair Project going.
These ‘elites’ haven’t grasped the big divide described by Goodwin. They do not, cannot understand our disdain for them. We however have become ever more aware of the hollowness of British politics created by the Uniparty and the power of Whitehall.
We are also aware of our own powerlessness. Thus the only ‘backlash’ I can envisage is increasing civil disobedience, accompanied by our understanding that the “new elites’ will suffer as much from their policies as we do. However, they are far less equipped to cope with those than we are.
That’s all I have for today. Apologies for the length of this review. Regard it as a ‘weekend edition’ which is permitted to be long. Get reading and enjoy this Bank Holiday weekend!
Following on from Viv’s excellent critique of Matthew Goodwin’s essays/book
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/04/28/the-revolt-against-the-new-elite/?utm_source=spiked+long-reads&utm_campaign=99dfeaef25-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_04_30_08_38&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-99dfeaef25-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D.
Thanks for your critique of Goodwin’s essays Viv
Sad to say that everything that Goodwin sets out has been flashing up there in full view for 30 years.
Sadly, the vast majority of people chose not to see it and if they did, they chose to do sod all about it.
What the globalists are up to now:
https://stopworldcontrol.com/pedoreport/
Somehow they have to be stopped. Please share wherever you can.
I see we’re now flying in people from Sudan who just have work permits. Next they’ll want to bring their families over. You watch.
Peter Mair published “Ruling the Void: the hollowing of Western Democracy” in 2013. This was the book that turned me from armchair sceptic into an anti-EU and anti-elites activist in UKIP. I’m surprised Goodwin does not acknowledge it – given Mair beat Goodwin to the punch – and I will ask him when I next see him at a talk or debate somewhere.
Goodwin’s new book, of which these essays are a potted summary, synthesises and updates many sources such as Peter Mair and has caught the eye of Lord Frost, Spiked and others. Goodwin can be described (by me) as a populist academic in contrast to the many others whose work is less accessible. He has performed a service, therefore, in articulating something in a very readable way that makes sense, though whether it changes anything remains to be seen. Like Douglas Murray’s books, Goodwin’s adds to the growing library of diagnostic manuals but are short on remedy.
There is no such thing as a society not governed by an elite (even the communist ones that advertise themselves as opposed to elites) and the prospect of an elite responsive to the people they govern seems as remote as ever.
Stout at 11.35 29/4. Totally agree.
Magnificent Viv. I think this probably started when the Monarchies started crumbling in France. and religion started crumbling in England and the low countries. and people started saving and investing and all the spare wealth was used and started to grow and was harvested and produced. but has by now gone in tax. The elites will now attempt to live off the infrastructure for a few years. with continued wastage. Like Sewage in rivers, Unions in railways, Back to coal, Windmill disposal firms, ripping out wiring for the copper , reduced speeds on roads , and all sorts of other delaying tactics. It continues with gifts to our protectors the EU. and America, delay of HS2.. Sale off of hospitals, crumbling of tower blocks and on and on.
And Tax will rise. because human nature needs it.
“Such was the scale of this new consensus that when the Brexit referendum finally arrived, in 2016, no less than 96 per cent of Labour MPs, 75 per cent of all MPs, 80 per cent of David Cameron’s Cabinet, and a majority of Conservative MPs campaigned to remain in the European Union. (link)
These numbers left me speechless. I had no idea how entrenched EUrophilia really was in the Westminster classes…….”
Vivian, I don’t mean to upset you, but I’m surprised that these numbers left you speechless. I thought people knew that in the EU Referendum campaign more than three quarters of the MPs in the Commons were for Remain.
Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dominic Raab campaigned for Leave before the EU Referendum, and were dismayed by Theresa May’s “Withdrawal” Agreement. Boris Johnson correctly called it a Vassalage Treaty. Yet in 2019 when she tried to get it through the Commons for the third and last time those three voted for it. Very strange behaviour from them, which I still don’t understand.
As it is, we are now left with the thumping lie told repeatedly by the BBC, which is that Brexit Has Been Done. But it isn’t Brexit at all, instead it is Brexit In Name Only. Boris Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement & Political Declaration and his Trade & Cooperation Treaty have seen to that.
All that has happened since the 23rd June 2016 is that the UK is now no longer a member of the EU, but has become a colony of the EU instead. Brexit hasn’t been done, it’s been done in good & proper, and the BBC and the rest of our deceitful rulers are dancing on Brexit’s grave.
It left me speechless because at that time, we had our impressions, we felt that the HoC was mostly Remain – but we didn’t have those numbers! Obviously we didn’t have them because they’d have made even more of us into fierce Leavers. That’s the reason for TPTB being both secretive and playing these numbers down.
I am certain that the reason those three voted foe T May’s vassalage treaty was because they knew it would not be passed anyway and they preferred not to lose their ‘Con’ label for an unecessary reason. John Redwood did something similar further back, when he supported a clearly Remain leader in spite of being anti EU himself. I do not blame them. That is because they may do more good by remaining near to the seat of power than by being totally excluded from it. Mind you, things have rather changed now. I am tempted to hope that a whole lot of Con Party members will now openly leave that party and join another ‘far right’ party or start a new one. Including David Frost.
I will be saving the links to read as soon as I can thanks Viv. My instincts about the rot within is confirmed.
Thanks for that Viv, no time to delve into the links now but you confirm that whatever shade of government we have had it is always our enemy within despite a few MPs doing their job and actually representing us.