What’s good for business is not good for Britain

In a major article in the Spectator, Gordon Brown is praised for having transformed his government's chances of winning the next election by recruiting two dynamic talents, one of whom is a former managing director of Goldman Sachs and the other the co-author of a well received book, The Best of Brands.

If only David Cameron could do something equally transformational, sighs the highly regarded pundit, Fraser Nelson. What is he telling us?

He is telling us, I believe, that among today's intelligentsia, as much on the left as on the right, it is now taken for granted that the same skills which can 'turn around' a finance house or an advertising agency can 'turn around' a political party.

Possibly this was simply to state what is now conventional wisdom. If that is so, however, surely we should begin to ask ourselves whether our parliamentary system

of government is any longer appropriate, because the skills, talents and, above all, morals, required of a parliamentarian are quite different from those required of a financier or advertising executive.

While the latter are meant to be driven by greed and acquisitiveness the former are meant to be driven by public service and the power of reason.

More than half a century ago I remember hearing Charlie Wilson, then chairman of General Motors, tell Congress ­ which was vetting him for cabinet office ­ "that what is good for General Motors is good for America".

Uproar ensued, and he was forced to eat his words, because in those days even the capitalism- loving American public were adamant statesmanship and money- making, while not inimical, were quite certainly not the same thing. Now, sadly, in Britain they obviously are.