A web of privilege supports this so-called meritocracy
by Gary Younge
On both sides of the Atlantic, the social ties that bind our
political, legal and corporate forces lie exposed. Shortly after Mitt Romney's
failed 2008 campaign for the Republican nomination his son Tagg set up a
private equity fund with the campaign's top fundraiser. One of the first donors
was his mum, Anne. Next came several of his dad's financial backers. Tagg had
no experience in the world of finance, but after two years in the middle of a
deep recession the company had netted $244m from just 64 investors.
Tagg insists that neither his name nor the fact that his
father had made it clear he would run for the presidency again had anything to
do with his success. "The reason people invested in us is that they liked
our strategies,'' he told the New York Times.
Class privilege, and the power it confers, is often
conveniently misunderstood by its beneficiaries as the product of their own
genius rather than generations of advantage, stoutly defended and faithfully
bequeathed. Evidence of such advantages is not freely available. It is not in
the powerful's interest for the rest of us to know how their influence is
attained or exercised. But every now and then a dam bursts and the facts come
flooding forth.
The Leveson inquiry has provided one such moment. It was set
up last year to look into the specific claims about phone hacking at the News
of the World, alleged police corruption and the general culture and ethics of
the British media. But every time it probes harder into the Murdoch empire it
draws blood from the heart of our body politic, telling us a great deal about
how Britain's political class in particular and ruling class in general
collude, connive and corrupt both systemically and systematically.
Issues of alleged criminality will eventually be determined
in the courts. But while illegality would be more damning, much of what we now
know that is legal is no less corrosive. The evidence has laid bare the
intimate, extensive and insidious web of social, familial and personal ties
between the political, corporate and legal forces that govern a country: a
patchwork of individual and institutional associations so tightly interwoven
that to pick at one part is to watch the whole thing unravel. The "sit
downs", pay-offs and class camaraderie on display owe more to a cross
between Downton Abbey and the Sopranos than the functioning of a 21st-century
democracy.
The details of the main narrative bear repeating. We now
know that James Murdoch met with David Cameron 12 times between January 2006
and January 2010 – eight times for dinner, twice for breakfast, once for lunch
and once for drinks. Between May 2010 and July 2011 there were also more than
60 meetings between ministers and either Rupert Murdoch, his son James, the
then News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks or James Harding, the
editor of the Times. That averages around one a week. We know there were more,
but not all were logged as such by Downing Street.
The subplots are stunning. And the forthcoming attractions
could yet overshadow the lot. Now that Brooks has agreed to hand over her text
messages to Cameron, we are about to learn whether rumours that they exchanged
as many as 12 texts a day are true.
Brooks was arrested both on suspicion of phone hacking and
corruption last year. She was arrested again this year with her husband,
Charlie Brooks, on suspicion of perverting the course of justice. Charlie went
to Eton with Cameron – as did the Tory mayor of London, Boris Johnson.
Such is the incestuous nature of the British ruling class
and the gene puddle from which it draws its stock. Such is their brazen
venality, complicity, contempt and mendacity. Eton, Oxford, Bullingdon,
Westminster – if you're looking for a tiny minority who are struggling to
integrate, look no further than the cabinet.
Two things make this a matter of import as well as intrigue.
The first is the lie it gives to the insistence on meritocracy at a time of
acute economic crisis when benefits are slashed, the poor hammered.
Cameron and his cabinet insist others pull themselves up by their bootstraps even as they themselves swan around in their parents' expensive pairs of loafers. Today almost 40% of MPs went to private school. In 1997 it was just 30%. In terms of social mobility, we are going backwards. The issue here is not class envy but class entrenchment. The fact that they were born rich is irrelevant. They had no choice in the matter. But the fact that they appear to want to give even more to those who already have a great deal while denying much to those who have little is unforgiveable.
Cameron and his cabinet insist others pull themselves up by their bootstraps even as they themselves swan around in their parents' expensive pairs of loafers. Today almost 40% of MPs went to private school. In 1997 it was just 30%. In terms of social mobility, we are going backwards. The issue here is not class envy but class entrenchment. The fact that they were born rich is irrelevant. They had no choice in the matter. But the fact that they appear to want to give even more to those who already have a great deal while denying much to those who have little is unforgiveable.
The one job Cameron landed in the private sector was
arranged by his wife's mother, Lady Astor, who was friends with Michael Green,
then executive chairman of Carlton. Green gave Cameron a starting salary of
£90,000. He has no more had to stand on his merits than James Murdoch had to
interview for a job at News Corp.
Rocked in the cradle of power from birth so that its rhythms
become second nature, these people imbibe their sense of entitlement with their
mother's milk. But the personal tutors, private schools, the most expensive
universities do not, somehow, suffice. As though the benefits of wealth were
not enough, they apparently feel the need to game the very system they already
control.
Which brings us to the manner in which these interactions
mock the very notion of democracy on which the nation's illusions are based.
For the meetings, lunches and visits showcase a parallel, unaccountable
universe where actual decisions are made and deals are done. All these informal
gatherings took place at a time when the government was supposed to be
adjudicating News Corporation's bid to take over BSkyB. With the culture
secretary described by Murdoch's lobbyist as a "cheerleader" for News
International, it seems as if the takeover was to all intents and purposes a
done deal, prevented only by the fallout from the hacking scandal. All the
kinks ironed out on horseback and settled in time for the main course.
Parliament would have been a mere rubber stamp. Oversight reduced to an
afterthought in a House of Commons that may soon more closely resemble a house
of cards.
Gary Younge in the Guardian
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment.