BY STEWART SLATER

Money is, according to those sage observers of the public finances Simply Red, too tight to mention. Inflation stalks the land, the tax take is at multi-decade highs and the public debt is, more or less, enough to buy the entire annual output of India, the world’s fifth biggest economy. It was, therefore, odd for the Prime Minister, never slow to flaunt his fiscal prudence, to announce with a certain amount of glee that he was personally increasing the burden on the common weal by registering with an NHS GP.

Adding to the calls on the state is not, however, a partisan issue. For at roughly the same time, Labour were holding a vote on making school fees subject to VAT, a proposal which, if enacted, is likely to drive some struggling parents to fall back on the public sector to educate their little darlings. With the fiscal rectitude one might expect from a party which tried to install John McDonnell in No. 11, they claim the plan is fully costed, the increased tax take paying for the greater demands on the public purse. Possibly. In truth, it is impossible to tell, no-one ever having sought to whack up school fees in the middle of a cost of living crisis, as mortgage rises are beginning to feed through. What cannot be doubted is the disruption the plan would cause, both to children, untimely ripped from their almae matres and to schools themselves – extra funding is nice, but unlikely instantaneously to translate into fully qualified teachers and expanded premises. Labour is, of course, the nice party.

That the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden may be a cross-party mantra, but these recent news items cast doubt on the strength of their convictions. For one good way of taking money from the wealthier sections of society is to get them to pay for services which they do not use. Mr Sunak will pay no more towards the NHS than he did when he was frequenting Harley Street’s finest, but, for the first time probably since he started working, he will be extracting resources from the system. The education budget will see no uplift from Mr and Mrs Smith’s much regretted decision to send Tarquin to the local comp, but it will now have to pay for him. Some of the broadest shoulders (and in Mr Sunak’s case, they are quite broad) will, paradoxically, see their burden reduced. Given the progressive nature of the taxation system, whereby the top 10% of earners pay over 60% of the income tax in the country, some might call this fair, but not using any definition of that famously difficult word likely to be accepted by those who push such schemes.

In the case of Mr Sunak’s medical care, the argument is made that those in charge of the NHS must use it, they must have skin in the game so they suffer from their own failures. But this is surely a misunderstanding of the political animal. As Tom Clancy has one of his characters say, “They want what all first-term administrations want. A second term.” Re-election and legacy are the fons et origo of politicians’ choices and neither will be improved by allowing the NHS to die. A certain former PM was right that we do not erect statues to journalists, but neither do we to politicians who blow up beloved national institutions. As our American cousins might put it, “That dog don’t hunt.”

To some, of course, the very existence of parallel private sectors is offensive, their hackles raised by the notion that some may have access to different experiences. If puritans were terrified that someone, somewhere might have been having fun, our modern day egalitarians shudder at the thought that someone may receive different treatment. In a judo flip of epic proportions, it is now more morally praiseworthy to make a call on the state than to reap the rewards of your own efforts.

For it was not always thus. Societies throughout history have been happy for those blessed by providence to make additional contributions and have given them rewards for doing so. In ancient Athens, the basic level of military service, a duty for all citizens, was serving in the triremes. However, those who were wealthier were expected to equip themselves to serve as hoplites or for the very wealthiest, cavalrymen (including the purchase and maintenance of the horse). Serving on land was, almost certainly, more pleasant than rowing in cramped, hot conditions with 200 sweaty bodies (Socrates’ friends paid for his armour so he did not need to do so) but that privilege came at a cost. Everyone served, but only the wealthy had to pay to serve.

In ancient Rome, the poorest citizens could avail themselves of a grain dole, but eligibility was strictly controlled by income. The wealthier were expected to feed themselves, but also, through the patron/client relationship, to feed others. Not only would it have been illegal for a wealthy Roman to attempt to access the public supply, it was shameful for him not to do enough for those who relied on him. The poet Juvenal roundly rebukes one such who served his clients different food to his other guests at a banquet. Being a patron had advantages, such as a ready made clique of canvassers at election-time, but it also brought duties.

For in Rome, it was not being privileged which was a problem, it was being so but trying to act as if one were not and this has been a common theme throughout history. The reason casualty rates for junior officers were so high in the First World War (only 2 of Harold Macmillan’s year of 28 at Balliol made it to 1919) was that their position made them honour-bound to be the first over the top. Holding the privilege of rank but not leading from the front might have improved one’s life chances but would have been deeply shameful.

These cultures managed to harness individuals’ desire for recognition in a way which benefited society as a whole. Today’s attempts to vilify those who go private, by contrast, damage the collective in an effort to salve the feelings of a portion of it. For the loudest voices against such privilege come from the overproduced elite, that section which has the claims to elite status such as degrees and professional jobs but struggles to live an elite lifestyle. What better way to square the circle than to declare such illegitimate?

But if there is no virtue in poverty, equally there is no virtue in forcing the state to pay for things it does not need to in an effort to acquire the warm glow of moral self-satisfaction. Rather than shame those who go private, better, like the Romans would have, to shame those who could but don’t.

Stewart Slater works in Finance. He invites you to join him at his website.