At the beginning of the 20th century, our political lords and masters dressed as if they had just been on a grouse moor. By the end of the century, they looked like they worked in a hedge fund.
The left has sometimes been confused by this change. When the grouse moor much were in power, the battle lines were clear. The class war has had its recognizable uniform, from tweed cloth caps. But this old war has been rendered obsolete by the forward march of modern capitalism, with the power supply, the escape of those who were able to manipulate the functioning of the market, leaving a few harmless toffs deadheading their roses. Financial deregulation â€“ liberalization of the rules governing the City â€“ has been a coup against the traditional interests of the decal should be of brigade. As the Essex boys have taken over, the public school traders were left chuntering in their golf club gins.
The liberal right of Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher has been able to represent this change as one of democratization. The money didn’t have any sort of accent. Even the working class could be the owners of their own shares and, therefore, to stick their fingers in the cherry pie of the economic growth â€“ and they could buy their own council house. As some on the left has remained obsessed with fighting old battles against beat the enemies, the power was reconcentrated in the hands of the few. As Jeremy Corbyn has, rightly, the system is rigged. But, tragically, under the New Labour-the progressive left decided that the best thing he could do was to encourage the long. Tony Blair differs from Thatcher that with a little more redistribution nudge bar. The left had actually delivered.
And this is how many of us have thought that the policy was going to last. But a small point of light appeared, for this election pits against each other two leaders who were both broken by the Thatcher/Blair consensus. OK, Theresa may, is not quite the politician of the old squirearchy, but it retains enough of its traditional values to despise the super-slick Blatcher poster-boy George Osborne and to understand the attractiveness of “brexit” â€“ notwithstanding the fact that it may well make us slightly poorer in the country. She is a former politician who (rightly) wants to talk about our moral responsibilities and not only our legal rights.
And Jeremy Corbyn, intuitively a Brexiter, is the only political leader since Michael Foot to understand how the power of money comes to be concentrated in the hands of a minority. For those who have, more will be given. For those who have little, even what they have will be taken away. It is the logic of modern capitalism.
Corbyn is right to call it. He’s going to do better in this election than the search for consensus of the experts all say â€“ at least, I hope so. Therefore, it is not Mr. Charisma? Because, contra brilliant New Work, it really is such a thing as being too rich. Ordinary people know it and Corbyn gets it. We have a moral problem in this country with something that we used to be comfortable calling the greed, which is both bad for the poor and, yes, it is a shame for the rich, too. It rots people from the inside â€“ Philip Green, Mike Ashley. And if you think you can detect a little bit of my religion to come here, you’re damned right. A Â£70,000 annual salary is equal to being rich? Sounds pretty close to me.
The problem with the liberal capitalism of both the Thatcher and New varieties, is that he went to the morality of the invisible hand. Adam Smith justified the greed by making the driver of the other persons in his employment. This means that even the so-called progressives could worship the money god with a pure conscience. This will be a long way back from the Blair/Thatcher consensus which has tarnished our soul so deeply. But a first step has been made with us to leave the European Union. Yes, brexit threat to many interests, and the muscle of the City of London can derail even. But maybe, just maybe, the dismantling of the Thatcher liberal legacy has finally started.