The success of London 2012 and Britain's Olympic competitors has inevitably allowed politicians, sponsors and the media to bask temporarily in the glory of a role to which this country's elite most aspire: gold membership of a nation with pre-eminent mini-superpower status. However, this role, like hosting the Olympic Games, comes with a heavy price tag and questionable legacy.
One of the defining characteristics of super-power nations, arguably now the United States, China, Russia and India - based on country-size and/or population as well as economic resources - is increasing polarisation between rich and poor, something Britain, and particularly England, also shares. We also share with the US an increasingly multi-ethic society.
In a Telegraph article of 5 August, the historian David Starkey repeats his thesis of last year that 2011's civil unrest in English urban areas, especially London and other major cities, were predominantly "race riots". Although this contention has been hotly challenged, and the general consensus is that there were a number of contributory factors, Starkey's view is significant, as reflected in the volume of comments on his article.
Coming from a decidedly under-privileged background, as well as being homosexual (rather than gay), Starkey is perhaps better equipped than many to reflect on how poverty and minority-status can make life difficult, and how a good education, at least for his generation and the one which immediately followed it, can help overcome such difficulty.
The problem is that a good education, arguably still freely available up to level 3 (A level equivalent) for the majority of Britons under 20, is no longer regarded as a guarantor of the ability to succeed in life by significant sections of young people in our country. This is perhaps especially true of black adolescent males, and also many white working class ones, the primary targets of Starkey's diatribe.
Yet it may be that these young people, coming from the sharp end of Britain's increasing social inequality and feeling this most acutely, are simply presenting some of the clearest symptoms of the underlying disease. Moreover, it could also be that in an unreconstructed intellectual like Starkey, who is unencumbered by political correctness, that the disease may find some hope of a cure.
For the fine thing about Starkey, in my view, is that, like all traditional pedagogues, he appears to talk down to everyone, great and good included; and whilst castigating some lesser groups as misguided, and others criminal, he does not charge them with stupidity, a criticism he reserves for much of the elite and those intent on dumbing down social discourse.
It is for this reason, I would suggest, that David Starkey may be the ideal person to lead a national debate, which should take place at every level of society, on the advantages and disadvantages of Britain's aspirations - or rather those of our country's elite - for gold position in the global league of mini-superpowers. This might start with an appraisal of the main competitor nations, if there are any.
