Bill Carmichael: Healthy lesson from America

Although the arguments have been partisan, and sometimes bitter, President Barack Obama's proposals, approved by the Senate last Sunday, have prompted a profound examination by ordinary people of the sort of country they wish to live in.

It is the sort of in-depth scrutiny of political fundamentals – and the impact they have on the lives of ordinary citizens – that has largely disappeared from public discourse on this side of the Atlantic.

Instead, our wretched elected representatives stumble from one dreadful, sleaze-filled scandal to the next, bewildered and uncomprehending at the public fury their greed and corruption has unleashed.

Meanwhile, there is little to differentiate our main political parties from each other – they all offer slightly different shades of ideological beige, while trying to out do each other by promising to spend money the country simply doesn't have any more.

It is a shaming spectacle – yet in a few weeks' time when the General Election is over, there will be a lot of head scratching over why so few people bothered to vote.

In sharp contrast to the apathetic response in the UK, the US is already enthused over the mid-term elections, which are not due to take place until November, when voters get the chance to give their verdict on Obama's health reforms.

The issue has polarised the country, with Obama's supporters arguing that health care should be expanded to cover the poor, while opponents say a government takeover of health provision will push up taxes and result in poorer standards of care.

At the heart of the dispute is a philosophical difference over the role of government and the relationship between state and citizen.

America prides itself on its "can do" attitude of self-reliance that has transformed it into the most successful country on earth.

Many fear this spirit of entrepreneurship and self-sufficiency will be diluted if the state takes too much control over people's lives. Certainly that's the message from this side of the pond. After the war, the state promised to look after us from "cradle to grave". As a result, we've gone, in 70 years, from a fiercely independent nation that stood alone against Hitler, to an enervated, effete outpost of a new European empire.

We are no longer active, engaged citizens but feeble clients of the state, dependent on our political masters for all our needs.

Many in our country have concluded that there's no point trying to provide for their families, when the state can do it for them.

The lesson America should learn from modern British history is that the more the state does, the more people will expect it to do – and that way lies inevitable economic and political decline.

Pubs in sorry state

If you need any proof of the malign influence of the state look no further than the pub trade.

Not so long ago, British pubs were thriving, employing thousands of people, contributing millions to the Treasury and offering a valuable community resource that was enjoyed by many.

It was a great British success story – then the state intervened. Pub landlords not only found themselves struggling against the ever-increasing amount of red tape, but also had to deal with punitive taxes on beer.

The Government encouraged a 24-hour drinking culture, which saw giant drinking sheds open in many city centres, and supermarkets were allowed to sell alcohol at less than cost. The final nail in the coffin of the "local" was the ban on smoking.

The result has been catastrophic. Last year, 2,365 pubs were forced to close – that's 45 a week – with the loss of 24,000 jobs.

So what does the Government do? It announces to great fanfare a 3.3m scheme to rescue the British pub.Communities are to be offered grants to buy and run those threatened with closure.

Of course, if meddling politicians had left well alone in the first place, the pub trade would never have needed such handouts.