Attacking corporate fat cats has plenty of voter appeal,
particularly when few people have yet to feel much benefit from Britain's
economic recovery. But there is no reason to suppose that the bulk of
Labour politicians are only pretending to hold these views. And, on
their merits, none of these attacks on profitable firms is sustainable.
The IPPR study, for instance, criticises the
external costs and regional concentrations of supermarket chains using
criteria so unreasonable that they would condemn most large industries.
The Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission
studied supermarkets several times but found no proof of serious market
failure or lack of competition.
Once upon a time New York's bankers drank lunch-time
martinis; blue-collar Texans drank beer as they cruised the highway;
and sophisticates everywhere could tell the difference between bourbon
and rye. So much for lost hedonism. Alcohol consumption in America has
been declining for the past 17 years, and today no figure with a claim
to respectability—politician, businessman or banker—can risk
even a single drink at lunch-time. Alcohol is a poison or a distraction;
and its use is to be shunned, or indeed restricted.
Last week, for example, President Clinton stood
beside Brenda Frazier, whose daughter Ashley had been killed by a drunk
driver, and announced plans, to apply first on federal property and
then across the whole country, to lower the alcohol level at which a
driver can still legally drive. "There is hardly a family or community
in America," said the president, "that hasn't been touched
by drunk driving."
