From Syson's review it appears that in this collection of articles the authors rather carefully circumscribe their analyses. I am referring here to references to Britain, "neoliberalism", "structure of impunity", the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and of course all the government corruption. What the authors apparently carefully avoid discussing is that the adverse symptoms are not limited to Britain, that neoliberalism is merely the end stage of capitalism, and that all of these problems are symptoms of this end stage.
Referring to all the British banking and government scandals in the past decade, Syson writes:
Such scandals have mainstream commentators seemingly puzzled and outraged in equal measure. One common response is to argue that individuals are inherently greedy, or that corrupt individuals are surrounded by those acting in the same way which normalises the situation. Either way, corruption tends to be psychologised and seen as an aberration in a liberal democracy, one that can be and must be rooted out.Okay, this conventional view might be challenged by the authors, but their view replacing it also limits our understanding of the underlying problem. According to Syson, the authors' analyses of all the corruption (apparently only found in Britain) point to neoliberalism as the cause. This fits in nicely with the circumscribed view of Naomi Klein that "unregulated capitalism" is the problem. Fixing this with enforced regulations will restore a mythical "liberal democracy", a major propaganda concept of capitalism which they apparently support.
That view is challenged in How Corrupt is Britain?....
Judging by a Bloomberg article quoted in a critical article in The Automatic Earth, it seems that our masters aren't always that supportive of "liberal democracy" when it gets in the way of their interests.