Mark Blyth made the observation how the political class substituted poltical vision with technocrats who then changed the discussion from politics to policy
It would be naïve of me to suggest the Western political class of the last century didn't require the same establishment backing they do today After all as Martin Durkin said in his documentary about Margaret Thatcher - 'Death of a Revolutionary' they took turns in doing what they considered was their divine right in managing the status quo, but arguably came from a worldy wiser background.
That said, comparing the Thatcher Cabinet of 1979 with the Starmer Cabinet now and you'd struggle to find any of the current lot who didn't emerge straight out of a Westminster think tank
Europe's (and the UK) problem is what Christopher Hitchens identified as degraded imperialism. They still yearn for that one world government with them sitting alone at the top table. Ed Miliband's advisor I think was a supporter of that view which has been cultivated over centuries and never really challenged because after all, once they couldn't fight their own battles, Uncle Sam intervened on their behalf, and certainly not by a SPAD who is paid to promulgate that delusion
The problem currently is that the Western financial system is broken after the 1979 reset, and the fight now is whether it is reset to sustain a form of globalism a la the SPAD or whether it is via a multi polar system of national sovereignties.
In 1945 the rest of the world was dollar short which meant the process of US global intervention began straight away from 1945 without challenge flooding Europe and Asia with dollars.
The difference now is the top table has rather more guests sitting at it including China, Russia, India and the Global South all of whom have collateral and skin in the game and all want to end the European mastery of previous centuries
Once Europe realise they are no longer dominant and define what it is they offer
This is nicely put John and I would add only that if Europe does not define what it offers, the world will carry on regardless.
Blyth works closely with Leah Downey, who's work is all about the political consequences of the rise of the technocracy. They both argue for a repoliticisation of money to reassert democratic control and, as in the case of decarbonisation, do what is necessary to make it work.
What intrigues me is that the criticisms of the technocracy come from both left and right. We may be closer to a consensus on how to rebuild institutions in the 2030s than we imagine. George Friedman is another who has argued that the next political era will see the rebirth of the generalist politician at the expense of the expert.
Really good article thank you
Mark Blyth made the observation how the political class substituted poltical vision with technocrats who then changed the discussion from politics to policy
It would be naïve of me to suggest the Western political class of the last century didn't require the same establishment backing they do today After all as Martin Durkin said in his documentary about Margaret Thatcher - 'Death of a Revolutionary' they took turns in doing what they considered was their divine right in managing the status quo, but arguably came from a worldy wiser background.
That said, comparing the Thatcher Cabinet of 1979 with the Starmer Cabinet now and you'd struggle to find any of the current lot who didn't emerge straight out of a Westminster think tank
Europe's (and the UK) problem is what Christopher Hitchens identified as degraded imperialism. They still yearn for that one world government with them sitting alone at the top table. Ed Miliband's advisor I think was a supporter of that view which has been cultivated over centuries and never really challenged because after all, once they couldn't fight their own battles, Uncle Sam intervened on their behalf, and certainly not by a SPAD who is paid to promulgate that delusion
The problem currently is that the Western financial system is broken after the 1979 reset, and the fight now is whether it is reset to sustain a form of globalism a la the SPAD or whether it is via a multi polar system of national sovereignties.
In 1945 the rest of the world was dollar short which meant the process of US global intervention began straight away from 1945 without challenge flooding Europe and Asia with dollars.
The difference now is the top table has rather more guests sitting at it including China, Russia, India and the Global South all of whom have collateral and skin in the game and all want to end the European mastery of previous centuries
Once Europe realise they are no longer dominant and define what it is they offer
as partners, then the world can move forward
This is nicely put John and I would add only that if Europe does not define what it offers, the world will carry on regardless.
Blyth works closely with Leah Downey, who's work is all about the political consequences of the rise of the technocracy. They both argue for a repoliticisation of money to reassert democratic control and, as in the case of decarbonisation, do what is necessary to make it work.
What intrigues me is that the criticisms of the technocracy come from both left and right. We may be closer to a consensus on how to rebuild institutions in the 2030s than we imagine. George Friedman is another who has argued that the next political era will see the rebirth of the generalist politician at the expense of the expert.