This is one of those things where you really can't fit a knife blade between any of the main parties - indeed it was Nu Labour under Blair that really pioneered this in its modern form, AFAIR. (Although perhaps it was already underway during the Thatcher/Major years and I was too young to pick up on it, I dunno.)
Yah, before Blair. But he continued the ideology in many ways.
Stewart Lee points this thought out nicely here -
Although I don't agree with him totally.
His use of 'trickle down' is wrong for me. Because today there is a decreasing amount of inter-demographic influence (the internet forum cliquery is an exemplary register of this).
He also suggests that artists and thinkers pose some sort of political or social threat and that they have been repressed via a conscious political motive. I think this is far too positive. I don't think there was any robbing or repression of political agency, I question if it ever existed in the first instance. The withdrawal of funds from the arts and education was never about politics, I think it was just first on the chopping block as an economical necessity. The arts and education were always a luxury (a luxury necessary for an equal and rounded society of course - I agree with Lee here though he may not like to think of it as a luxury) - that sad prospect is that the UK is a small becoming poorer european island that is increasingly dependent on wealth from other countries. We see this in the shift of the art market from being a London hub of creativity to being just a detail on the global art buyers itinerary. We will never have our own salons again, we'll just hold warehouses full of other's art for other's to buy (to put it in quite nationalistic terms). We see the same poverty of culture in pop. Gone are the days of local scenes, we just have a few high value brands whose only reason for finding success in the UK is to be a primer for breaking the US market. TV is not in quite as dire a state to be fair.
Going back to Ed. I'm surprised he hasn't refuted the Labour/Brown over borrow criticism more - or in a different way than the way he did on question time. Yes Brown over borrowed. But the crash was a global economic phenomena, not some domestically created problem. It started in the US and hit the UK the next day. It is quite separate from Brown's borrowing in many ways. Though it could be argued that Brown should've done the opposite in the wake of the crash. The Tories have continued to increase borrowing too (iirc, correct me if im wrong) but with a severe austerity plan too. Of course growth targets for the Tories have not been hit. So, Ed should argue that the Tories are borrowing, making a similar mistake as Brown to some degree, but with a too severe austerity plan that is not being rewarded because their own growth plan is failing. Brown had little chance of relying on growth (which is why his borrowing was so absurd). The tories had a chance and they mis-planned it. Get the growth right and borrowing is less of an issue - PLUS credit rating could've been maintained if growth was managed better.