This article of mine appears on the Guardian's Comment is Free website.
It was no surprise to read that Munich (above) was recently named the city which enjoyed the "best quality of life" in the world.
If you've never been there, believe me: the capital of Bavaria is a truly wonderful place, as the Telegraph's Michael Henderson recently found out.
"What a joy to spend time among people who are absolutely at ease with one another, in a city that holds itself with dignity. We have always known that the French and the Italians live more graciously than we do. It has something to do with the close relationship between humankind and the land, and the deeper family ties that exist in those conservative societies. But to see Germans eating, drinking and dressing so much better than we do is rather embarrassing."
I'm not too keen on the last sentence of Henderson's paragraph (why should it be a surprise to see Germans eating, drinking and dressing well?), but he's right to applaud the way life is lived in the Bavarian capital. However, Munich's charm is not just about the deeper family ties that exist there, or the greater respect for customs and traditions that have sustained local culture, (important as they are), but also has a lot to do with the type of capitalism which operates there.
In Bavaria, as in the rest of continental Europe, the economy serves the people, not the other way round. Unlike in Britain, "market forces" are not allowed to intrude into every aspect of people's lives; the most socially destructive aspects of global capitalism have, up to now, been held at bay. Many businesses, particularly shops, restaurants and cafes, are still family/locally owned and this has a great impact on enhancing the sense of community.
It seems paradoxical that the Telegraph should run a piece like Henderson's, which quite rightly lauds the way things are done in continental Europe; yet in its editorials advocate that Europe follows the same economic path that has turned so many of our towns and cities into soulless, depressing places, lacking the individuality and vibrancy, which makes Europe's cities so enticing. For make no mistake, the "economic reform", which neoliberals are keen to see the rest of the continent adopt, would only help to destroy much of what makes Europe so attractive to British visitors: the individually-owned shops, the affordable and efficient public transport, bars and cafes, which, because they are not owned by profit-hungry plcs, cater for all ages, not just the young.
"Returning from the continent, one can't help feeling that, for all our prosperity, our lives are incomplete," concludes Henderson. Quite. But why, if Telegraph writers like the life in Europe so much, does the paper they write for want the continent to copy Britain?