In recent times, there has been a notable change in how state visits are conducted, a fact highlighted by Richard Murphy in his observations about Donald Trump’s visit to the UK. This event took place without the traditional public displays of pomp and ceremony, showcasing a clear recognition that the elite no longer feel comfortable in the presence of the public unless under tightly controlled conditions.
This situation is a manifestation of soaring inequality, evident as the ultra-wealthy increasingly invest in panic rooms within their vast estates and acquire fortified retreats in distant locales such as New Zealand. The underlying concern appears to be how to ensure the loyalty of their pilots for emergency evacuations when civil order deteriorates.
I experienced a similar sense of unease during a trip to Mexico City in 1984 for a McKinsey project. Traveling from my centrally located hotel to an affluent suburb, I noticed several snipers stationed on rooftops. Even at that young age, it was apparent to me that the wealthy and powerful felt vulnerable.
Since the inception of this site, we have asserted that extreme inequality has a detrimental effect on everyone, including the wealthiest groups. This stems not only from diminished social cohesion but also from fear. The presence of bodyguards and heavily fortified homes indicates a shift in priorities; these precautions are primarily about safeguarding their lives, not their assets.
And let’s not forget those remote sanctuaries. They resemble a “going to Mars” fantasy. How sustainable are medical supplies like drugs and solar technology? Will they have fully equipped emergency rooms for severe illnesses or injuries? How do they plan to maintain a roster of skilled surgeons and imaging technology? What about blood supplies for transfusions?
By Richard Murphy, Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School and a director of the Corporate Accountability Network. Originally published at Funding the Future
Something remarkable occurred recently: a state visit filled with the usual ceremonious trappings took place, yet no one was allowed to witness it — no flags waved, no cheers erupted, and no members of the public were present to appreciate the pomp typically associated with such events.
Why this exclusion? The answer lies in the evident lack of trust our leaders have in the public. They seem to believe that introducing someone like Donald Trump to the populace would not elicit the submissiveness expected during such occasions. Consequently, those in power have retreated behind closed doors, symbolizing a widening chasm between authority figures and the general public.
Over time, this divide between the ruling elite and the wider population has grown alarmingly. This is partly driven by enduring wealth disparities and partly due to the elite’s ideological perspective that prioritizes the interests of the country’s richest individuals—whether those fortunes come from established wealth or sharp practices that leave many behind.
As a result, the gulf between the elite and everyone else has widened to a point where coexistence feels impossible; mutual trust appears to have evaporated.
It is now evident that the ruling elite find it increasingly difficult to exhibit their wealth and power without facing dissent. These displays must now happen in controlled settings, with sanitized media images that shield them from the very people they hold power over.
No society that has reached this critical juncture can sustain itself for long. When a disconnect emerges between those in power and those they govern, it signals a potential breakdown, likely leading to societal collapse.
I typically have little sympathy for far-right ideologies, yet I recognize why there is discontent towards a powerful elite that keeps the populace in a constant state of precariousness, particularly vulnerable to the economic whims of those who believe austerity is necessary for misguided political goals.
It’s crucial to highlight, and perhaps repetitively so, the dangers that Labour is creating by continuing the policies instituted by the Conservatives over the last 14 years. The consequences of Labour’s chosen economic path are too severe to ignore.
The burden of neoliberal economic practices has become too heavy for citizens to bear, and those in power are increasingly aware of this, prompting their retreat.
While there is no fascist alternative that can genuinely cater to the needs of the populace (as evidenced by the nature of those in the Reform party, who share the same priorities as the Tory elite leading us into this crisis), the absence of viable economic narratives from major political parties can drive people towards far-right solutions. This phenomenon makes the current state of Labour particularly perilous.
The power elite has metaphorically drawn up the drawbridge at their castle, and we find ourselves in dire straits unless:
- Labour abandons neoliberalism and redirects resources to address the issues facing this country
- We actively confront inequality
- We cultivate hope for the present and future, which necessitates addressing climate change.
This is a straightforward solution, but it may be the only one that can genuinely work.
