Over the years, British seaside resorts have devised plenty of light entertainment to entice holiday-makers. Lots of ice-cream salesmen: Punch and Judy shows, though they might offend political correctness; what the butler saw machines, ditto, but a thrill for 9 or 10 year old small boys. Stand-up comedians for grown-ups: delightfully risque, but pretty innocent really.
This summer at Clacton-on-Sea, a somewhat decayed resort these days, a new spectacle is on offer. Nigel Farage has launched a crusade against the so-called Establishment. But he has a problem, which he should have anticipated. If this Establishment was anything like as cunning as he assumes, they would see him coming and take evasive action. They did. They have. Instead of a chance to confront senior figures from the established parties, he finds himself up against Dogberry's watch (see that enchanting play As You Like it). They will try to take the piss. He will not enjoy it.
While the low comedy is taking place, it is worth addressing a serious question. Is there an Establishment? If so, who are its members and is this good for the country? As for the supposed membership, there is one obvious conclusion. It presumably includes, ex officio, the King, Dame Antonia Romeo, who is the Head of the Civil Service, Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch. So those who are in favour of diversity should surely relax. Yet this hardly constitutes a homogeneous group capable of conniving to impose their will.
Even so, that does not mean that the Establishment is a figment of Nigel Farage's self-pity. Britain has always had a strong civil service, a powerful judiciary and able figures at the head of the armed forces. Does this constitute a potential deep state, capable of frustrating the will of democratic politicians? Only a political paranoiac would think so, but those who are wary have two points in their favour. In recent years, there has been a conjunction of two destabilising developments: withdrawal from Europe, and political weakness.
Brexit came as a rude shock to most of those involved in running the country. Even though not all of them were especially enthusiastic about Europe, they took it for granted and believed that our departure would be economically damaging.
To mitigate this, we needed a strong government. Instead, we had Theresa May, who could not take decisions, followed by Boris 'have cake: eat cake' Johnson, who gave frivolity a bad name. It should have been impossible to find a worse Leader than him, but the Tory party succeeded, with Liz Truss. As PM she would have been an adequate vice-chairman of a girls' school debating society. Had he enjoyed a longer innings, Rishi Sunak would have been at least competent, but too much damage had been done.
Keir Starmer was the beneficiary. He had a massive majority, though it was a loveless landslide. Even so, a lot of people assumed that Sir Keir would do a half-way decent job. But there was a problem: Keir Starmer. I quickly gave him a soubriquet: Sir Stumbler. A couple of leftie friends said that this was wrong. They were right. It was too polite.
While all this was happening, civil servants often played a role for which they are unsuited. The army have an acronym: FFR - fitness for role. Because of the weakness of their political masters, civil servants often had to fill the vacuum, without being FFR. This is unsatisfactory. By temperament and habit, civil servants tend to be risk-averse and in thrall to the conventional wisdom, including Europhilia. In the famous TV series, Yes, Minister, Sir Humphrey, the Permanent Secretary, a cynical and cunning fellow, usually manipulates his notional boss, Jim Hacker. But if the minister is as hopeless as the hapless Hacker - and in recent years a fair few of them have been - someone has to take over and prevent chaos.
That does not lead to good government. Nor does it mean that civil servants are constantly plotting to subvert their masters. I remember talking about this to John Nott, by no means prone to worship the bureaucracy. He confirmed my view. An able and strong-minded minister, who knows what he wants and has No.10's backing - crucial - will have no difficulty in bending the department's will. On the contrary: civil servants have one thing in common with horses. They appreciate a good rider.
Equally, civil servants do have one vital FFR. They will spot difficulties. One minister said that sometimes, dealing with senior officials could resemble trying to stuff newsprint through wire mesh. But that should be a valuable process. By the end, the minister's plan will be ready for launching into rough seas. The creative tension between ministerial will and civil service caution should make for effective government.
Over the next few weeks and months, the public will be able to judge what role Messrs Farage and Burnham could play in providing that commodity. Is Nigel more than a cheeky chappie? Andy has oodles of charm, but so did Boris. What about the depth?
Meanwhile young Kemi has climbed in the ratings, like Arthur Fery. Let us hope that they both prove to have staying power.
As for the Establishment, there is one useful definition. A member of the Establishment is someone who reads the newspapers to find out what they have found out.