Friends in High Places [Paperback]

Jeremy Paxman (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: November 28, 1991

This title presents a though-provoking and engaging search for the true sources of power in Britain today. Paxman examines the pillars of the Establishment - their origin, influence and future. An unbiased journey down the corridors of power, "Friends in High Places" provides an incisive and insightful view of who really runs Britain.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Jeremy Paxman is a journalist, best-known for his work presenting Newsnight and University Challenge. His books include THE ENGLISH and IT ALWAYS ENDS IN TEARS. He lives in Oxfordshire.

Product Details

• Paperback: 400 pages
• Publisher: Penguin Books (November 28, 1991)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0140156003
• ISBN-13: 978-0140156003
• Product Dimensions: 7.7 x 5 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 7.8 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,855,853 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars HUNTING THE SNARK, November 9, 2005

By 

DAVID BRYSON (Glossop Derbyshire England) - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Friends in High Places (Paperback)

The Fristindula of Biccle and the Clintistorit of Wintistering seem to have been inventions of the late Peter Cook, but there really is, in the third millennium after Christ, a British functionary known as the Fitzalan Pursuivant Extraordinary; and as recently as the 1960's Major-General Lord Michael Fitzalan Howard found the idea that a black man could be admitted to a Guards fighting unit simply incomprehensible.

When Jeremy Paxman of the BBC's Newsnight set about writing a book that tried to define the British `establishment' his task was described to him by Enoch Powell as `hunting the snark'. For my part, I'd say he has made a very good fist of it. He is not naïve and he doesn't underestimate the complexity of the issues involved. He is not arguing from any particular political standpoint, which in my view would have invalidated his arguments a priori. Above all, his great strength is that nobody impresses him and he is not prone to `showing respect'. The test of any `establishment', I suppose, is what happens when it is exposed to the glare of daylight. Traditions of any kind thrive not so much through avoiding or rebuffing attack as through avoiding scrutiny. The British way of appointing judges and bishops goes on much as before mainly because nobody is much bothered how it is done, and reformers tend to be preaching to the apathetic. There is no public demand for change to the antiquated style of the Bank of England either, and such innovations as have occurred within royalty itself really seem to me only fine-tuning, a skilful response to TV arc-lights. These are cases where the establishment has come through exposure unscathed or nearly. In other instances, such as the unspeakable clubs at which the great and good come together to reinforce their sense of greatness and goodness, careful vetting of membership ensures discreet continuity, the public in general having better things to worry about.

In the long history of Britain certain families dominated the scene. They owned the land and the wealth, they provided the employment and it was their job to lead armies and the church. Come industrialisation new wealth was generated by a different kind of person, and the old establishment naturally closed ranks, but the new money could afford the best education, and gradually the older attitudes and manners were imbued into the families of the arrivistes. The 20th century saw the Labour party form governments under five prime ministers, but there was no serious attack by these on the establishment. That came from Margaret Thatcher, whose dislike of the entrenched class was as vehement as her sense of her own rightness. She was a Samuel Smiles in skirts, all self-help and `merit', but even her onslaught on the tradition of civil service mandarins had only limited effect. The truth, I believe, is that the various pillars of the establishment genuinely did and do possess merit. This is not to say that modernisation and opening out to the community as a whole were not needed, and Paxman's account leads me to think that it is precisely in the armed forces that the more ridiculous forms of conservatism have been the most tenacious. Where Thatcher's ideas of modernisation did the established families a real favour was in cutting the heavy taxation they had been subjected to under Attlee. This was an incidental benefit - Thatcher's target beneficiaries were her own new breed of entrepreneurs, but in the meantime the grandees had been learning to adapt for themselves, and those stately homes of England that had not fallen down or been converted into barracks, nursing-homes, hotels or conference centres to pay their taxes now often function cheerfully as theme-parks and wildlife reserves accessible to the multitudes at reasonable commercial rates.

Thatcher's Britain, however necessary her economic reforms may have been, was a ghastly place. The inherent snobbishness of the British people, plus its voyeuristic interest in the nobility, has actually given the latter a new lease of life. Self-help and merit had gone far enough, and the selfishness, tattiness and vulgarity had gone too far. Where the establishment was not a matter of either lineage or professional ability but of money, the matter has been gradually passing out of Britain's hands as the world economy has become globalised (a word that I don't recall Paxman using: his book dates from 1991 and the expression may be more recent). In general I find his conclusion persuasive that the establishment is real and many-headed, that it has shown considerable powers of adaptation and survival, but that it is static and not consolidating itself as the steady encroachment of more democratic attitudes takes its toll. It will not be wiped out in any revolution simply because it is in many ways too valuable, and the sides of it that are at best of historical value, occasionally just ornamental and sometimes downright parasitic will be tolerated because there is no political will not to tolerate them.

Fourteen or fifteen years on this book still reads well. Paxman writes in much the way he talks, always with a slight tendency to discursiveness but always with a good clear focus too and of course his well-known intolerance of pretence. I suppose the best tribute to his analysis is the conclusion that by investigating a seemingly important subject he has left that subject rather less important than he found it.