Over at his Public Interest blog, Peter Briffa quotes this comment from an article in the Daily Telegraph about Britain’s new political elite:
“They are moderate and decent. Most of the members of these sets are young family men (usually called David, Ed or Nick), who are happy changing nappies and taking their children to swimming classes. They wear jeans rather than ties, listen to their iPods as they cycle to work and have working wives who are violinists, play in bands or are fashion designers.
Their heroes are Bob Geldof and Richard Curtis as well as Nye Bevan and Winston Churchill. They are all well educated, with beautiful manners, and are always articulate”.
And then explains:
“In other words, they are scum.”
Ha ha ha
At the London Times meanwhile, Anatole Kaletsky takes a dim view of what rule by these David, Eds and Nicks might mean:
“Suppose first that the Tories are genuine in their sudden enthusiasm for high taxes, rising public spending, anti-elitist education and a totally government-financed health service. Britain then faces European-style paralysis in the years ahead. Not only can we rule out any radical change in the structure or the quality of the public sector, we can also rule out even the possibility of a serious debate on the role or the size of the State. Just as European voters today are offered no real choice by their parties on issues such as EU integration, economic liberalism and the burden of taxes, the only choice for Britain will be big or bigger government, high or higher taxes and public service bureaucracies managed by Tweedle-Dum or Tweedle-Dee. The three most important growth industries of the 21st-century economy — health, education and pensions — will continue to be monopolised by the public sector. In short, the commanding heights of the economy will be dominated by the Government to an extent that Herbert Morrison could only have dreamt of in 1945.
“The long-term results are likely to be the same as they were in the 1950s and 1960s: the British economy will move back into long-term decline, not only because government spending and taxes will rise relentlessly as a share of national income, but even more because what should be the most dynamic industries powering Britain’s future will be run by the State. And whatever the born-again social democrats surrounding Mr Cameron may say about the alleged efficiency of a tax-financed NHS in comparison with the insurance-based models employed in other countries, experience suggests that competition among profit-motivated producers for the custom of price-sensitive consumers always beats the “efficiency” of central planning over time. The Tory conversion to European-style Christian Democracy, if genuine, would transform politics even if Mr Cameron never won power. The Tory abandonment of Thatcherism would change the Labour Party’s internal dynamics, shifting its centre of gravity to the Left. The result would be a new consensus, demanding ever-higher government spending and negating pressures for privatisation and public service reform.”
He’s right.