The History Podcast Invisible Hands 2. The Mad Monk
A man throws up in a taxi on his way to an interview. He is nervous because he is about to make an argument. It's an argument that would change politics forever.
His name was Keith Joseph. And this would be the start of a radical journey - from conventional conservative politician to ideological warrior and guru for Margaret Thatcher. Joseph set out on a tour of the country. He had eggs thrown at him, Marxist flags waved in his face. He was spat at. Heckled. All because he was arguing for one thing - the free markets.
David Dimbleby traces the history of an idea that spans his life. It started on a chicken farm in Sussex, gained traction in the shadows of post-war London and rose to heights of excess in the new champagne bars of the City. It's 2025 and this once radical idea now defines every aspect of life in Britain. An idea that transformed the economy, politics and, ultimately, society itself.
But how did it happen? Who are the little-known people behind it? What did they want? And - as Donald Trump threatens to overturn the global economic system - is the free market here to stay? Or are we entering a new era?
Presenter: David Dimbleby
Producer: Jo Barratt
Executive Producers and Story Editors: Joe Sykes and Dasha Lisitsina
Sound design: Peregrine Andrews
Commissioning Editor: Dan Clarke
A Samizdat Audio production for BBC Radio 4
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
In post-Thatcher Britain, Whitehall is a monument to decline
Why is Britain run so badly? Why is the UK economy, and many of its public services, on a seemingly inevitable downward course? Why do our leaders seem so unable to address the great geopolitical challenges to life and liberty, control immigration, or even just get a grip on the Civil Service machine? Where are the novel methods, people and skills that can reframe problems and build solutions coming from? Fifty years ago, I was involved in the first great attempt – and, sadly, the last – to address such questions. The Stepping Stones project, triggered by Keith Joseph and Alfred Sherman at the Centre for Policy Studies, sought to analyse the UK economy as an ecosystem. It produced for Margaret Thatcher a series of joined-up, strategic interventions to resolve Britain's union problems and restore the government's authority, and our nation's economic performance. Thatcher believed, like Louis Pasteur, that chance favours the prepared mind. It was not an accident that made her the UK's longest-serving prime minister. It was her well-prepared mind and its strategic courage. In particular, Stepping Stones worked because it helped to train senior ministers and colleagues to act in unison; two years before they were elected – and afterwards, to gain not just office but 'office with power'. Its prime movers, including me and my co-author John Hoskyns, carried their strategic approach into 10 Downing Street with Thatcher. Today, however, it is not just the unions that are the problem, but our entire system of government. Inside Whitehall, rigid boundaries, silos, baronies, hatreds and dishonesty prevent timely preparation and progress. Individual and group inadequacies and rivalries limit freedoms to explore, study, accept and discover better ways. New prototypes are stifled before they can be born; while self-serving, problem-avoidant behaviours replace altruism and public service. The resulting incoherence ensures that the deadly complacency of conventional governance groupthink dominates politics, and political parties. Even when Whitehall appoints internal 'red teams', to challenge its thinking, it is just groupthink at play: because red teams are selected from the existing people and culture, they will return to their box after their game is over. The result is that policy formulators, task forces, project teams, nations or governing systems fail to achieve what their people need most to survive in our brutal global era. I have named it 'The Traumatics', as impermanence and vulnerabilities are innate risks that threaten human lives world-wide. Imperfect bureaucrats and generalist amateurs imagine they are coping well. They avoid admitting their incompetence and unfitness for ruling. But citizens are not fooled, they know bad governance when they see it. Crucial strategic oversight is deliberately suffocated by wilful omissions in training, duty, intelligence and research. In an ideal world, the regime change we need within government would be pioneered by a truly objective and radically reformed Civil Service; acting as a trail-blazing learning organisation, in the national interest. Alas, a historic, inbred, meritocratic presumption of administrative excellence has resulted in a culture of untutored arrogance, limiting Whitehall's scope to become a knowledge-building and transforming institution. Polished complacency has been set in a concrete shell and preserved – as a national monument to decline. This is not just a new complaint. In many ways, our greatest failure in the Thatcher era was to re-sculpt, or demolish, this great Victorian obelisk. John produced a famous 'wiring diagram', setting out the forces acting on the economy. Evaluating legacy governing ecosystems wasn't highlighted. So, in 1977, I did not envisage the need for an 'unwiring diagram' to diagnose and classify government's emergent existential flaws; geo-populism lit that fuse more recently. So what should be done? Many have called for a Stepping Stones for our brutish era. If its new 'circuit diagram' establishes the eco-systemic causes of today's threats, then suitable policies can be prepared before crises happen. A disjointed, piecemeal approach, is unlikely to identify and align the interlocking systems and innovations that could best enhance performance, stability and growth. Indeed, while good ideas can always improve current performance a smidgeon, tactics alone can never address or fix the defects in our existing governance, with its habitual positions, runaway egos, self-centred operating cultures and ongoing battles for power. Innovative working paradigms of system-wide strategic leadership, devised to improve citizens' lives and future security, are absent. Well-designed reforms, must upgrade or replace unsafe governing systems: but how? Nasa's founding leader – the first among three equals – was James Webb, whose huge, eponymous, infrared telescope now orbits our planet. I learnt much from him in 1982, when he lectured on our first Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme. I designed and launched it for and with Douglas Hague. He was Margaret Thatcher's original economic adviser in opposition and consulted with the No 10 Policy Unit once she won office. Under Webb, Nasa trail-blazed an open, original approach built around new blood, great minds, mixtures of various disciplines, competing teams and rocket science. The result was Nasa's environment of radical inventiveness which prepared them to address complex problems and find original solutions. Such tasks are best done well before seismic disruptions – like Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic and Trump's 'cards' – destroy the old world order. Webb showed that high-level patronage and support are essential to provide the freedom and space to study, develop and alter legacy governing systems; and then plan for far-reaching change. Escaping existing conventions, rituals and cultures creates the chance for independent, outlier minds to provide the governance improvements we and the world lack. Professional humility, collaboration and objectivity are all critical capabilities. Without these elements, any new team may turn out to be incapable of becoming the thinkers, talents, advisers, catalysts and leaders we need. And of course, any governing ecosystem must work before political parties can succeed. But it is not just the Civil Service that needs reform. It would be wise, before the next election, for all candidates to have been taken through training syllabuses; custom-designed to reflect the complexities and challenges that they will face. Without such a 'regime change', it is hard to believe that any new leader or election manifesto will earn the chance of putting their party and nation back on track, with the expertise to govern well. Yet voters must believe this next generation of leaders can succeed; or else their despair will only get worse.
Powys County Times
3 days ago
- Powys County Times
Ask women if burka is genuinely their choice, says Reform UK's Richard Tice
Women who wear burkas should be asked if it is 'genuinely their choice', Reform UK's deputy leader has said amid a row over calls to ban the garment. Richard Tice said the issue should be subject to a 'national debate' as he entered the count for a Holyrood by-election on Thursday night. His comments followed the sudden resignation of Reform's chairman Zia Yusuf, who had described a call from the party's newest MP to ban the burka as 'dumb'. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Friday, Mr Tice said: 'I think it is right that we should have a debate about whether or not the burka is appropriate for a nation that's founded in Christianity, where women are equal citizens and should not be viewed as second class citizens.' Asked whether he supported a ban, he said he was 'pretty concerned' about whether the burka was a 'repressive item of clothing', adding: 'Let's ask women who wear the burka, is that genuinely their choice?' Wearing face-covering clothes is currently banned in seven European countries – France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria and Bulgaria – while other countries have enacted partial bans. On Wednesday, Reform's newest MP Sarah Pochin asked Sir Keir Starmer during Prime Minister's Questions whether he would support such a ban. A day later, Mr Yusuf said on social media that it had been 'dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn't do'. Shortly after that, he announced that he was quitting as Reform's chairman, saying that working to get the party elected was no longer 'a good use of my time'. Party leader Nigel Farage said he had had only 10 minutes' notice that Mr Yusuf was going to resign, adding he was 'genuinely sorry' that his chairman had decided to stand down. Mr Yusuf's resignation was accompanied by that of Nathaniel Fried, who was announced earlier this week as the head of a party team examining spending at Reform-controlled Kent County Council. Mr Fried said that as Mr Yusuf had 'got me in' it was 'appropriate for me to leave with him'. The resignations came as Reform UK hoped to win or come a close second in a by-election for the Holyrood seat of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. In the end, the party came third with 7,088 votes, 869 votes behind the SNP and 1,471 behind the winning Labour candidate.
Evening Standard
3 days ago
- Evening Standard
Who are the 'Brexit badboys' tipped to replace Zia Yusuf as Reform UK turmoil deepens
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Friday, Mr Tice said: "I think it is right that we should have a debate about whether or not the burka is appropriate for a nation that's founded in Christianity, where women are equal citizens and should not be viewed as second class citizens."
