Telegraph Mandelson plot 2
Democracy

Peter Mandelson plots to subvert democracy: the arrogance of the political elite

 

When the Italian social scientist Vilfredo Pareto observed the political revolutions and machinations by which presidents are overthrown and regimes fall and rise, he coined a phrase which has entered the lexicon of political sociology. His ‘circulation of elites’ – the notion that, in government, there is a superior ‘class’ of people who ensure the perpetuation of their morality and the propagation of a certain ideology – was not new: it had its philosophical genesis in Plato’s elite guardians of the state which he termed ‘philosopher kings’ – those who govern essentially because they know what’s best for the common people. It is the totalitarian pursuit of social engineering to ensure that government should never be exercised by those who are considered ‘unsuitable’ or in some sense ‘unqualified’.

“By the circulations of elites,” Pareto wrote, “the governing elite is in a state of continuous and slow transformation. It flows like a river, and what it is today is different from what it was yesterday. Every so often, there are sudden and violent disturbances. The river floods and breaks its banks. Then afterwards, the new governing elite resume again and slow process of self-transformation. The river returns to its bed and once more flows freely on.”

Jeremy Corbyn may or may not be about to get has hands on the Labour’s levers of power: voting has only just begun, and we are months or years away from learning what a Corbyn government might look like in terms of its social, economic and political priorities. But one thing has already been decided by the political elite: Jeremy Corbyn is not ‘suitable’ to lead the Labour Party, and not ‘qualified’ to lead the country.

Let us set aside his overtures to Hezbollah and his cultic zeal to establish a New World Order: in intelligence, political skill, social concern and mental capacity, Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, manifestly ‘qualified’ to lead both Labour and the country. You may not agree with some of his policies or approve of some of his friends, but, to quote CJ, he didn’t get where he is today by not spotting an opportunity when one presents itself. The problem, of course, is that he’s “not one of us”. That is, he’s not an enlightened, neo-liberal, Third-Way, ecumenical, pro-EU New-Labourite: he is disjunctive and schismatic. And so, in order to ensure the perpetuation of their superior political philosophy, Labour’s philosopher kings are plotting and scheming to ensure that the residues of Old Labour socialism may not be revived.

Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall are gifted, eloquent, flexible and shrewd, but they lack fidelity to any principle other than the pre-ordained pattern decreed by the elite. Jeremy Corbyn has his own faith and ideology: his loyalty is to his principle; his solidarity is with his people. He cares nothing for hierarchy, establishment privilege or the Euro-elites from whom and by whom all things are made and all progress defined. His mind and heart are with the non-elites, the governed, for whom democracy is the only safety valve between civil peace and social revolution.

Even out of government, Peter Mandelson remains one of the governing elite. He has been in circulation (and re-circulation) for two decades: his teleological task is to resist the undesired infiltration which might lead to philosophical revolution. His psychology is impeccable; his morality unimpeachable; his dogma infallible. To him, Jeremy Corbyn belongs to a lower stratum; not simply one of decaying dogma and the residues of ignorance, but one which offends against all that is good, noble, righteous and pure.

And so the self-perpetuating elite circle around Corbyn like vultures around a corpse. He is not dead, but they will do all that is within their power to smother him and quench the hope that he represents for millions of true, sincere, devout socialists. As Cooper, Burnham and Kendall decline in significance, Baron Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool will conspire with other elites either to nullify the election or reject the result. It is his special cunning and prerogative power, for he is the venerable elite, and so must ensure that the old elite is replaced by a new elite – by force, if his cleverness and cunning come to nothing.

Pareto observed that “History is the graveyard of Aristocracy”. The Athenian aristocrats have nothing on Labour’s oligarchs. The rightful heirs and successors were chosen long ago, and the deluded masses had just better get used to it.

  • Orwell Ian

    We know that the “enlightened”, neo-liberal, pro-EU, NU-Labourite self-perpetuating elite think and act with the conviction that they know what’s best for the common people. The imposition of their social engineering has been quite bad enough but wouldn’t Corbyn’s Labour be worse? Mouthing empty promises of social revolution; better wages, more jobs, and soaking the rich, while all the time developing greater totalitarian muscle? Once elected, emerging as a Party seeking power entirely for its own sake, disinterested in the good of others, interested solely in power over everyone and everything?

    No wonder the likes of Blair, Mandelson and the leadership candidates are in a flap. They know who would be the first victims after the revolution.

  • The Explorer

    “The unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable. (The English country gentleman in pursuit of the fox.)” Oscar Wilde.
    Modify that. The unspeakable in full pursuit of the unelectable.

  • IanCad

    Jeremy Corbyn is a left-winger. We know that. What we do not know, and never will know are the principles under which Mandelson, Blair etc. operate.
    It would seem they have none.

    • CliveM

      Power and wealth.

  • Don Benson

    The great thing about any private organisation or business is that it can fail; and sooner or later that will always be the outcome. But the business of politics and government can not be allowed to cease and so those who decide to involve themselves in it have one overriding priority: to ensure their own survival at the top table. Yes, they may start with a few good hopes and principles but these must inevitably take second place to the business of survival.

    Of course this sounds dreadfully cynical but, if you accept the notion that man is a fallen creature, it is inescapably logical. Democracy is the great fig leaf which shields us from the embarrassment of facing up to the imperfection of ourselves and our governments; its real purpose is to create the illusion that the collective judgement of the people will, by some magical electoral process, be distilled into a benign and selfless government of the highest intellectual calibre and the wisest
    practical judgement. And because ‘power is in the hands of the people’ it will
    always be the people who are to blame for any failures of government – after all,
    they put them there.

    And yet we all know that our country is run and survives not by governments but by the creative efforts of people in factories, on farms, down mines, people who work on transport and energy distribution systems, in hospitals, schools and financial services. The true business of government should be to serve these people – all of us – defending our shores, preserving our environment, upholding a fair and just legal system, and showing a particular concern that our children be securely nurtured in stable families.

    Well we get a bit of this but it comes a poor second to the self preservation priority; and if we ordinary people should dare to think or say the wrong thing, to be radical or imaginative or to vote the wrong way, well we’ll just have to realise that the elite know better and behave like good subservient citizens.

    • David

      Hear hear !

  • Inspector General

    The ‘circulation of elites’ is what lies behind what the House of Lords has become. That it has served us well of late is not down to any particular design advantage. It is just that there isn’t anything better to put in its place. We have been governed for centuries by patricians. That we mere plebeians think we are in control just shows how good the aforementioned are at governing. Well done them!

    These elites act as parents, don’t you find. And when their darling son Labour has a new best friend, that awful Jeremy, then as a parent, they must object. With as much impact as real parents with a real son in this world.

    Heh Heh!

  • David

    The best people to govern are those who do not seek power.
    Given the toxicity of the political environment, plus the relentless media seizing upon your every word, it is not surprising that few good, normal people seek high office.

    • What politicians do you support?

      “None. They are all psychopaths and whores. ALL OF THEM. The culture has degraded such that seeking and/or holding office, especially national-level office, is, in and of itself, proof that a given person is psychologically and morally unfit to hold public office.”

      (Ann Barnhardt)

      • David

        That’s logical and justifiable, but should a Christian be that disengaged ? The position seems a little too lacking in hope for me. I’ve always supported what I saw as the least-worst option.

        • Really not sure anymore. If you want personal integrity then it’s probably nutters and fringe players in the minority parties. That’s why Corbyn stands out. He’s ‘old school’. The main parties are all neatly trimmed and so, so presentable in clothing, word and deed. The one’s climbing to the top are way too polished and slick. Come polling day, it’s a matter of holding one’s nose and doing the necessary.

          • David

            I agree with that – all very understandable 1
            But I am glad that you are indeed “holding one’s nose and doing the necessary”. For a moment I thought that you were a non-voter – horrors !

      • Anton

        Ah, you read Ann Barnhardt too. She understands economics better than most.

        • She can be scary at times, Anton. What’s a good protestant lad like you doing reading her?

          • chiefofsinners

            She’s not bad for a Catholic. Dead right about Euler’s identity being the thumbprint of God, anyway.

          • She is some writer and commenter.

            Jack read the article “Reconciling Rand with the Gospel” in The American Thinker (is that an oxymoron?) and this passage is worth quoting:

            “In John’s creation narrative, he immediately identifies and establishes Jesus Christ as divine, co-eternal with God the Father, begotten, not made. Today, we simply say that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. But what we must focus on in terms of this discussion is the word that John uses to name and identify Jesus: John calls Him “the Word.” In the original Greek, the word John uses is “Logos.”

            The word “logos” in Greek is the same word used for the concepts of logic and reason. This Greek root is indeed the etymological source for the modern English word “logic.” What John did in the very first sentence of his Gospel is to specifically identify Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, as Logic and Reason Itself. Logic and reason are intrinsic, constitutive qualities of God. They are His essence. They are who He is. This is why Christ identified Himself as “The Truth.” Logic and reason are the process and mechanism by which statements are determined to be either true or false.

            A true statement is simply a statement that is aligned with God. 1+1=2. True. Why is this true? Because it is in alignment with the existential reality that is God Himself. Or, for you math buffs, consider Euler’s Identity, which I and many, many others consider to be the very thumbprint of God:

            e i π +1=0

            Here are the five great constants of mathematics: e, the base of natural logarithms; i, the imaginary number which is the square root of negative 1; pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter; the number one — the multiplicative identity; and the number zero, the additive identity. Now look at how simply and beautifully these numbers combine to form a true statement. That, dear readers, is God winking at us.

            Rand was right — reason is our only absolute, because Reason is God Himself. If one re-reads Rand making this simple, conceptual substitution, it will literally knock you to the floor.”

            Jack is most certainly not a maths buff, so he’ll have to take others at their word on this equation. However, God is Perfection and one would expect beauty and consistency to be apparent in His Creation when man uses the reason and logic (Logos) to comprehend it and in so doing discovers God looking back at one.

          • chiefofsinners

            Worth quoting indeed.

            When I first encountered Euler’s identity as an undergraduate I simply couldn’t believe it.

            Video proofs are available on Youtube for anyone who’s interested. This one is about the clearest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r2qGONXTa4

          • Thank you, C of S. Most appreciated.

  • Phil R

    If I worked for Sports direct or similar I would vote for him.

    I can see the potential and real support. He has ideas that are appeal to the left and are not the same as Con/(New)Lab/Lib. As a zero hours contract worker I would want a ray of hope for the future and make no mistake, to my mind he offers it. People who are poor will go for it, they are fed up with a Labour Party that is no different or perhaps more conservative than the Conservatives. (I am not sure that nationalisation of Utilities and Rail is such a bad idea either.) His policies offer some sort of promise, excitement even for the low paid. He will win the leadership contest and if Cameron does not take the initiative he will easily win the next election.

    Cameroon will have to respond with some sort of vision of his own.

    If he has any vision that is…..

    He is not alone of course, the Cons have not had a vision for a better Britain for years.

    They will need to find one and quickly or we will get Corbyn as PM, then perhaps a Conservative party will actually emerge with real ideas for once.

    Too late of course by then, to implement any of them.

    • Anton

      I’d settle for a Conservative Party that is conservative.

      • Phil R

        One of the women candidates was interviewed. (I forget which..does it matter?) She must have said equality 30 times in 10 minutes.

        All I learned was she did not like Corbyn and wanted equality…..

        I thought if I was low paid in an insecure job, with young kids in day care because we needed two incomes and the Gov pay for the Day Orphanage, so it makes financial sense, but I hate it. Equality would not be on my top 20.

        A decent house, with the chance to buy perhaps. A proper job with holidays, pension and regular hours.

        Corbyn understands the less well off it seems to me. The others have absolutely no idea or ideas.

        If Labour gets Corbyn the Cons then have a choice it seems. go further to the left or back to the right.

        However, they will go nowhere, without a return to vision, values integrity and service.

        • Anton

          I can imagine both main parties splitting and the outcome being a leftist party, a rightist party and a centrist party recruited from both of its ancestors that will dominate.

  • Martin

    Do not for a moment imagine that the ‘self-perpetuating elite’ have any understanding of who is really in control:

    The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD;
    he turns it wherever he will.
    (Proverbs 21:1 [ESV]

    They may imagine that they are in control, but like Nebuchadnezzar, their whole life is in the hand of God. What we are seeing in the West today is the outworking of God’s hand in Romans 1:18-32 judgement.

    So Christian, do not worry about them. Consider instead what your Lord may do.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Absolutely so.

  • So what’s wrong with Peter Mandelson?

  • Owl

    Fabians are the Labour elite. They created it. They control it.
    Jeremy Corbyn is also a Fabian. He is just doing what he is told.
    The third way is Fabian. Blair is Fabian. Cameron is the heir to Blair.
    Lib/Lab/Con is Fab…….. oh, what am I saying……….

  • Inspector General

    One notes that Corbyn’s supporters have been playing a dirty game of late. Mandelson had better watch out, and he will. As a homosexual, he knows he is vulnerable to ‘speculative gossip’ and the recent headlines of suspected homosexual paedophilia among senior statesmen cannot have come at a worse time for him if he was planning intervention in the leadership contest. If a hitherto scandal unstained deceased former prime minister can be fingered, Mandelson knows he won’t be immune. And there are countless numbers of dubious and unstable falsifiers out there ready to go to the press with their lies.

    What a stinking mess politics has become in this era when even a dignified personage like Mandelson, and he is that, has to look over his shoulder.

    • “… a dignified personage like Mandelson, and he is that .. “
      On the sauce, Inspector?

      • chiefofsinners

        Possessed by the spirit of Linus, more like.

        • Ummm … know a good exorcist?

          • chiefofsinners

            I believe the magic word is possessoir(e).

          • Most excellent, kind Sir.

          • The Explorer

            I know where there’s a herd of pigs.

          • A certain neighbourhood in Paris?

          • The Explorer

            Marshy.

          • Eh?

          • The Explorer

            Look up the meaning of Le Marais.

          • Ah ……

          • Ah …

      • Inspector General

        One loathes his politics, Jack, but is he not an honourable man?

        • Lol …. Jack could not possibly comment on a public forum.

          If you are ever bothered by a bout constipation, just repeat the following phrase three times:

          “Mine and the countries financial and social well being are totally in the hands of Peter Mandelson.”

          If that doesn’t scare the crap out of you, nothing will..

        • Pissoir … Pissoir …. Pissoir
          (With a Canadian, East European, Jewish accent)

          • The Explorer

            OInk! (Multiplied a few times.)

        • chiefofsinners

          Yes – he is a deeply honourable man who simply happens to not understand the term ‘conflict of interest’.

          • Inspector General

            We should be more respective of those we do not agree with. This reply was meant for Jack but one fears it would be somewhat wasted on him…

          • chiefofsinners

            Pissoir

          • chiefofsinners

            Seriously, though. Scan his Wikipedia profile and decide whether you’d buy a used car off the man.

        • ‘…and so are they all, all honourable men!!!’

          Shakespeare, Julius Caesar.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Some Indian business men seem to come to mind, along with dodgy passports and the like. Not terribly honourable in my book. Twice resigned from the cabinet? Not impressive.

    • Phil R

      From the Telegraph

      “Lord Mandelson, one of the architects of “new” Labour, privately
      appealed last week to the Kendall, Cooper and Burnham camps to quit the
      contest before ballot papers were sent out, according to sources.

      One said: “Lord Mandelson and other Blairites were saying – this is a
      disgrace, let’s get this thing pulled. But it was not going to happen.”

      The peer is understood to have believed that the party might suspend
      the contest if there was only one candidate, but he had to back down
      when officials said it would mean Mr Corbyn won.”

      Honourable?

      Maybe.

      Seems like his advice is still on form.

  • chiefofsinners

    Re-read Animal Farm and see if you can spot any differences between this and the Labour party.
    All leadership candidates are equal…

  • Q: Why is Peter Mandelson unable to join the Labour Shadow Cabinet?
    A: He doesn’t cast a shadow.

    • Pubcrawler

      Only a metaphorical one, anyway.

  • Plasterer

    There are people (Conservative and Labour) who are convinced that he would be the death of the Labour party. And others who are convinced that the only hope for the Labour party is to veer drastically to the left. So to be honest, I’d rather like Corbyn to win, just to find out who’s right.

    However I suspect that even though Brits naturally warm to someone who is ‘normal’ and doesn’t seem to be ‘spun’, there may be a significant difference between who they would ‘like’ and who they actually end up voting for.

    It would also be quite ironic if a lefter-leaning Labour party caused the Conservatives to scrabble to the left, just as New Labour scrabbled to the right to occupy ‘the middle’.

  • bluedog

    Those succumbing to Corbymania should be careful what they wish for, Your Grace.

    We know Corbyn is a republican and guess that he is a secularist too. While there can be few communicants who do not regard the unrepresentative swill of the current House of Lords as eminently disposable, what would follow? Dis-establishment of the established church by the secularist hordes of a Corbyn government would seem inevitable. Unfrocking of innumerable life peers and peeresses would be a joy. But what of the monarchy? Could St Jeremy the Jacobin restrain his enthusiasm for a peoples democratic republic? A ghastly vision of Glenda Jackson as president for life of the British Republic swims into view, head shaved and bewigged again as she was in her greatest TV roles.

    Her son, Dan Hodges, could possibly write something hagiographic in the Daily Telegraph to soothe the masses.

  • len

    It seems there is much going on in ‘ the corridors of power ‘ of which there is no public knowledge at all. Who are these elites these puppet masters, this shadow government, who makes decisions which affect us all but are accountable to no one?.
    Where have they gained the power to do so?.
    Heath took us into the ‘Common Market ‘ by deception what was the reason?.
    Cameron defended gay marriage despite more than half his party failing to support him on the landmark reform why would a professing ‘Christian’ do this?
    Who is’ pulling the strings’ behind the scenes?.
    We the public are fed what these elites want us to know through the media, we are ‘educated’ through the soaps, and our children are conditioned through the education system.Orwell`s’ 1984′ was a warning not a blueprint.

    • bluedog

      ‘Who are these elites’?
      It’s the Bilderbergers, Len, and Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t pass their dress code.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Is Cameron a professing Christian? Or, more accurately, does he merely lay some sort of soft claim to being a Christian?

      • Jonty Cecil

        He worships Nero, not Christ. But yeah, he goes to the odd Anglican service.

  • ““the governing elite is in a state of continuous and slow transformation”. Perhaps another way to see this is to understand that “the governing elite” is intrinsically amorphous; and it generally only coalesces into something more identifiable in times of crisis. In other words, when the shit hits the fan, they crawl out of the woodwork.

    This is most apparent when the proles look as if they are going to ditch the EU.

    Corbyn stands in symbolic relation to the same thing that Nigel Farage does. It is anti-politics – the triumph of mere mortals over the Gods.

    Of course, it cannot happen. This triumph will be either short lived or never lived. As Mandelson said elsewhere, we live in a post democratic age. The forces of money and power and aggrandisement will for the foreseeable future remain with those who currently use it, because the levers of democracy as we know it have been and are being eroded.

    The next struggle for power will not be between the forces of Left and Right, for even these terms are anachronistic and only currently exist to facilitate a lot of shoutiness.

    The next struggle for power will be between the culture of the West – Christian culture, and the culture of Islam.

    Corbyn, is by comparison, an irritation smaller than a tic bite. The true test of this theory will be when the likes of Mandelson begin to understand that being thrown from the top of a high rise is no longer a theoretical possibility. And ironically, we may then have cause to be grateful for him.

  • stephengreen

    You had me at Pareto, but there’s no meat on the bone of this “Mandelson subverts democracy” click bait.