Yes, it does.

The phrase "living among people he wouldn't ordinarily notice" is particularly striking, as it sounds like some Victorian aristocrat talking about his servants. It's another reminder that the elitism of the liberal elite is far stronger than their liberalism.

But the speed with which the new liberal elite became just like the old establishment that it supplanted requires explanation. It could indicate that they were always just a bunch of grasping hypocrites. Yet it could also demonstrate the extent to which elitist attitudes are created by the experience of belonging to a social or political elite - or at least, thinking that one does - rather than by venality or ideology.

Holding a high position encourages a person to think that he or she is better than those lower down the hierarchy, as most successful people prefer to ascribe their success to ability rather than such things as luck, shameless self-promotion, corruption or inherited privilege (especially if it is due to one of those things). They cannot feel comfortable with their position unless they can feel that they merit it. For intellectuals, that means feeling that they really are mentally superior to the common man.

This in turn leads to a hierarchical view of society, in which those at the bottom are assumed to be there because of their personal deficiencies. It also leads to paternalism, because the inferior masses are presumed to be incapable of improving their own situation without the help of their betters. For the Victorian gentleman, that meant private charity and setting a good example. For our nominally-liberal elite, it means government intervention.

So the experience of being in an elite creates certain attitudes, and the venality and ideology follow.

Venality, because the elite - particularly the political elite - are exposed to many more temptations than the rest of society and their sense of superiority allows them to feel that they don't have to follow the same moral or ethical standards as everyone else.

Ideology, because once an elite is established it quickly adopts beliefs that justify its continued existence. The Divine Right of Kings and all that New Labour managerialist waffle about "leadership" are ultimately the same thing. They are a way of claiming that the current elite are the only ones who are fit to rule because they possess some ineffable quality that other people lack.

This is a particularly pressing need for the nominally-liberal elite. The old establishment shared many of the values of the working class, such as patriotism, Christianity, and a belief in doing one's duty, which gave it a degree of legitimacy that the new elite lack. So they need to promote the idea that the working class are all lumpen hate-filled Neanderthals in order to justify their own position.