So says Janet Daley in the Telegraph. Or, in her words, 'the coming reduction of affluence (what economists call a "readjustment" in disposable income) might not necessarily be such a terrible thing'. It's not that she's against prosperity, of course not. But certain things have been lost on account of it - for example, that people used to help each other more, via extended families and mutual support practices among neighbours. It's 'what is known in political circles as "solidarity"', Daley says.
Is it mere pedantry to point out that in order to come to a balanced, a compelling, judgement about how good or bad a thing reduced affluence is, one should consider the plight of those who will be hardest hit by it - as Daley in this column does not? One exercise in solidarity she might like to contemplate is sharing the lives of some of the poorer people in this country. I'm fairly confident that for her this would be an act of solidarity too far.