Long before that, I suspect. The problem with the sense of being born to rule that Cameron's upbringing has given him is that it seems to have convinced him that he has an instinctive understanding of the best course of action in every situation. For Cameron, there is no need for evidence-based policy making, only to act quickly on his intuition. The contrast could be seen clearly in the differing approaches to the Libor fixing scandal, with the Prime Minister wanting a quick Parliamentary inquiry to enable swift action, while Miliband wanted a much broader judge-led inquiry.

The evidence for this belief in entitlement-driven expertise is also present in the frequent references to (what the Tories consider to be) "the mess we inherited from Labour". I found this in the 'Laying the Foundation' Housing Strategy the other day; surely not a document in which such partisan statements should be found. Note in the phrase both the sense of birthright that the word "inherited" conveys, as well as the near disdain for the outcome ("mess") that the previous government's policies could have delivered, almost as if it were inconceivable that anyone would want to pursue non-Tory policies.

It is this seeming inability to grasp the decision making process and the political calculations through which New Labour went that I find most disturbing in our current government. Whether or not one agrees with the aims of, or approach to, policy under the previous administration, it is surely necessary to recognise that social policy produce a balance between a diverse range of often contradictory outcomes. Change one thing for the better and something else is made worse. In the area of housing, for example, the government has expressed the wish to build significantly more houses than Labour did, while giving less money to the housing associations, and while reducing housing benefit. Their solution is to permit higher levels social rents to be charged. For many people, this may be workable, but for the least well off in some of the more expensive areas, housing will become unaffordable. Is this a better outcome than under the previous policy? Possibly so, but how much confidence can we have that such decisions have been made using the detailed, considered evidence that they deserve?

Sadly, Mr Cameron is not the only minister who suffers from this sense of ideological righteousness. Two ministers stand out, each in charge of a major policy area: George Osborne and Michael Gove. In terms of economic policy, the damaging effect of failure to appreciate the opposite position are already clear. In the sphere of education, the effects of Gove's ideological blinkeredness may take years to emerge, but have the potential to inflict no less harm.