Blogotariat

Oz Blog News Commentary

For Your Eyes Only

September 4, 2020 - 20:45 -- Admin

The opaque
and secretive networks on which Boris Johnson builds his power.

By George
Monbiot, published in the Guardian 2nd September 2020

To
accumulate power, a government with authoritarian tendencies must first destroy
power. It must reduce rival centres of power – the judiciary, the civil
service, academia, broadcasters, local government, civil society – to
satellites of its own authority, controlled from the centre, deprived of
independent action. But it must do this while claiming to act in the people’s
name.

So it
needs an apparatus of justification: arguments that can be fed through a
sympathetic press and manufactured into outrage against its rivals. This is
where the intellectual work of such a government is focused. Dominic Cummings
is not the sole architect of this project: much of the intellectual landscaping
has been outsourced.

Since the 1950s, an infrastructure of persuasion has been built in the UK, whose purpose is to supplant civic power with the power of money. The model was developed by two fanatical disciples of Friedrich Hayek, the father of neoliberalism: Anthony Fisher and Oliver Smedley. They knew it was essential to disguise their intentions. While founding the first of the thinktanks whose purpose was to spread Hayek’s gospel, the Institute of Economic Affairs, Smedley reminded Fisher it was “imperative that we should give no indication in our literature that we are working to educate the Public along certain lines … That is why the first draft [of our aims] is written in rather cagey terms.”

The institute, and the other lobby groups Fisher founded, honed the arguments that would be used to strip down the state, curtail public welfare and public protection, and restrict and discipline other forms of social strength, releasing the ultra-rich from the constraints of democracy. Unsurprisingly, some of the richest people on Earth poured cash into his project. His groups translated Hayek’s ideas, that were seen by many as repulsive, into a new political common sense, producing the reframings and justifications on which Thatcher and Reagan built their revolutions. 

Others began to copy this model. In his autobiography, Madsen
Pirie, the founder of the Adam Smith Institute, describes how, using funds from
20 of the UK’s biggest companies, he helped to chart the course that Margaret
Thatcher took. Every Saturday, while Thatcher’s Conservatives were in
opposition, staff from the Adam Smith Institute and the Institute of Economic
Affairs sat down for lunch with her researchers, and leader writers and
columnists from the Times and Telegraph, to plot the revolution that would
bring her to power. They “planned strategy for the week ahead”,  and would “co-ordinate our activities to make
us more effective collectively.” Pirie describes how he devised many of the
policies that defined Thatcherism.

In Pirie’s book, in the
testimony
of the whistleblower Shahmir Sanni
and elsewhere, there is
evidence that these lobby groups coordinate their work, creating the impression
that people in different places are spontaneously coming to the same
conclusions. Several of them work from the same offices, in 55 and 57
Tufton Street
, Westminster.

The lobby
group that Boris Johnson’s government uses most is Policy Exchange. While it
claims to be a neutral educational charity, it was founded in 2002 by the
Conservative MPs Francis Maude and Archie Norman, and Nick Boles, who later
also became a Tory MP. Its first chairman was Michael Gove. Its proposals and
personnel have been adopted by the Conservative Party ever since.

It seems to
me that Policy Exchange has played a crucial role in shifting power away from
rival institutions and into the Prime Minister’s office. For several years it
has been building a case for
curtailing the judiciary. It provided the ammunition for the
government’s current attack on judicial review.

Judicial
review enables citizens to sue the government to uphold the law. It was the
process Gina Miller used in 2016 to oblige Theresa May to seek parliamentary
approval for Article 50, that began the Brexit process, and to overturn Boris
Johnson’s suspension of parliament last year.

Policy
Exchange calls such rulings “judicial overreach”. It claims that they threaten
the sovereignty of Parliament and the separation of powers between government
and judiciary. To my mind they do the opposite. The law is not whatever Boris
Johnson says it is. It is legislation passed by Parliament and interpreted by
the courts. Both the Gina Miller cases returned powers to Parliament that prime
ministers had seized. The government has appointed a former Conservative
Minister, Lord Faulks, to examine judicial review, along
the lines suggested by Policy Exchange.

The lobby
group has called for the
Prime Minister’s office to have greater powers “to develop and direct policy
change” through the civil service, and to appoint leaders of public bodies
whose “culture and values” align with government’s aims. It has led the public attacks against
what it calls the “chilling effects” of leftwing views in academia. Its recent
report on academic freedom was brilliantly eviscerated in the
Guardian by Jonathan Portes, who found it riddled with basic statistical errors
and mistaken assumptions. What purports to be a campaign for intellectual
freedom looks more like a McCarthyite attempt to suppress left-leaning ideas.
It’s an effective weapon in the government’s gathering culture war.

The
thinktank’s proposals for changing the planning system, that
involve a massive removal of power from local authorities, have been adopted wholesale by the
government. One of the authors of this scheme, Jack Airey, has moved from
Policy Exchange to Downing Street, as a special adviser.

Last year,
Policy Exchange published a polemic that
claimed Extinction Rebellion is led by dangerous extremists. As usual, it was
widely covered by the media. Less discussed was the report that the
lobby group has received funding from the power company Drax, the trade
association Energy UK and the gas companies E.On and Cadent, whose fossil fuel
investments are threatened by environmental activism. These are among the few
funders whose identities we know. Policy Exchange is listed by WhoFundsYou as among
the most opaque thinktanks in the UK.

It might
seem remarkable that its activities qualify as charitable: without having to
reveal its funders, while promoting shifts that could harm civil society,
Policy Exchange remains a registered charity.
Conservative governments attach great importance to the way charities are
overseen. In 2018, a parliamentary committee sent the government an unprecedented letter, pointing
out that the government’s preferred candidate as chair of the Charity
Commission, the former Tory minister Baroness Tina Stowell, was “unable to
demonstrate … any real insight, knowledge or vision”; could not be seen as
neutral; and had failed to withstand the committee’s scrutiny. The government
appointed her anyway, and she remains chair today.

By such means, political life is steadily undermined, until little remains but authority and obedience to the Prime Minister. Without strong civic institutions, society loses its power. From the point of view of global capital, that’s mission accomplished. To resist the government’s machinations, first we must understand them.

www.monbiot.com