ThunderDragon Blog

You mean, apart from his Foreign Secretary and most of his Cabinet and parliamentary party?

Iain Dale is chairing a discussion on “how we view history in this country, how it is taught in schools and how to engage people with the subject” so I thought I’d share a few of my thoughts on the subject.

History is very important. It defines who we are and how we view the world. We should celebrate our history, from as far back as we can determine with any accuracy, right up to modern times.

British history is our history. The history of our nation. What made us who we are. We played our role in making the world what it is, and we should ensure that we pass the knowledge on to our children. Of course not all of our history is great but I think that, overall, Britain’s role in world history has been positive.

The teaching of history - British and otherwise - should be taught not from our present-day perspectives, but in context. The world situation, beliefs, economy, perceptions, politics, and community all need to be explianed when teaching about an era in history. If we just cast our own, current, perceptions and prejudices back, we get a massively distorted picture - such as how many view the brief period when the British Empire took part in the slave trade.

Our education system should teach our history poperly in this way. Children should be encouraged to understand why things happened as much - if not more - than what happened. If you don’t ask “why?” when you study history, then you’re not really studying history at all. The teaching of history in schools is essential, and must be done with the understanding that what it is taught effects perceptions on the present. They shouldn’t be spoon-fed the perception that all british history is that of an evil nation - or that Britain has always been the guiding light of civilisation. Instead, both sides should be presented. Because history is alwaays multi-sided.

Of course, there is the famous quote that “history is written by the winners”. Yes, but historians have the responsibility to be as unbiased as they can when studying and writing about it. But no-one can ever be unbiased. If you read any history book/watch any history documentary, you are seeing it through the perspectives of the historian - who are always biased.

History has happened, and cannot be changed. The past has been and gone. But we must ensure it is not forgotten, or ignored.

Completely and utterly deluded. Especially when polls are suggesting that after the next election, there may be a Conservative Commons majority of 260. That Brown thinks that Labour will win the next election really shows how separated he is from the real world.

I agree with Eric Pickles, who says:

The analysis is that it is now impossible for [Labour] to win the election, but it’s perfectly possible for [the Conservatives] to lose it… We can’t take a 20 per cent lead in the polls for granted.

Labour certainly appear finished, and it is unlikely that a change of leader will make any real difference at all. The Conservatives, however, certainly can’t take any poll lead for granted. We an’t be complacent. We need to keep on working to get a raft of policies and a united vision for what a Conservative government will do, and communicate that to the people between now and the next election.

“Spy-in-the-sky” road pricing is wrong. Not because we should have to pay for what we use, but because it gives the government unprecedented access to where we have gone.

There is no way around this. Spy-in-the-sky just opens so many possibilities for governmental intrusion into our lives.

The ASI supports road pricing, but they’re wrong to do so. Whilst the idea of road pricing is not one to which I object, there is currently no practical way that it can be accomplished without causing massive civil liberties issues.

Until this has been resolved, there is no way that I can support road pricing itself.

The Jeremy Clarkson video has caused quite a stir. But, seriously! I mean, it’s not “genius“, but it is pretty clever. There is no way it cost very much to make, even it wasn’t made during a “spare half hour”.

There are many examples of far greater amounts of government waste that doesn’t end up with an amusing video. I just don’t get this whole joyless “omg downing street made a pointless video” crap.

Apparently our road sign depicting the elderly is “insulting ” because it “doesn’t represent older people as they are today”.

So what?

It is a stereotype. It is a image that can be instantly recognised by a motorist. It doesn’t mean or even suggest that all elderly people are hunched over and walk with a stick, in the same way that cars, buses, lorries and motorbikes etc don’t look like their pictorial representations.

There is simply no point wasting effort and money re-designing this sign. Age Concern and Help the Aged will just have to accept that it is a less-than-flattering depiction, but one that will not change.

Alan Duncan is wrong when he claims that protesters camped outside Westminster have “no justifiable democratic purpose” and says that they should be moved on permanently. What they are doing has plenty of democratic purpose - they are making their opinions known to those who have been elected to represent them. That is their - and our - right.

There is absolutely no case for having the protestors moved on. Alan Duncan says that it is “nothing to do with freedom of speech or the right to protest.” Bollocks. It has everything to do with free speech and the right to protest. We must have the right to protest how we like and where we like, within obvious reasons.

When Duncan says that the camp is a “vulgar and pointless display”, he has half a point. It is vulgar and so very un-British to directly protest and demonstrate our elected representatives, rather than accepting whatever they decree as is our usual modus operandi. It is also a pretty damn ugly set-up.

Whilst this protest may not actually achieve anything, that doesn’t make it “pointless”. It has a huge - and hugely important - point, to make it clear that we the people do not always agree with what the politicians decide for us.

For crying out loud:

Analysis shows that beyond the child benefit fiasco, Government departments were last year losing data at the rate of more than 300,000 people’s details a month in the year to April it emerged last night.

Among the losses were the National Insurance numbers of 17,000 people and the theft of a laptop with encrypted details of 17,000 Sats markers… (The Telegraph)

By department:

• Foreign Office: 190 people
• Department for Transport: 3 million (+)
• Ministry of Defence: 1 million (+)
• Ministry of Justice: 45,000
• Home Office: 3,000

Yes, we can trust the government with our personal data… Not.

David Cameron:

I’m going to be as radical a social reformer as Mrs Thatcher was an economic reformer, and radical social reform is what this country needs right now.

Margaret Thatcher in her time realised that the big challenge was reviving Britain’s economy, and we should recognise that the challenge for the modern Conservatives is reviving our society.

It’s dealing with the issues of family breakdown, welfare dependency, failing schools, crime, and the problems that we see in too many of our communities.

As much as I applaud the sentiment, as social reform is definitely the challenge for any incoming Conservative government, comparing himself with Margaret Thatcher seems a bit like blowing the dog whistle.

It also, really, seems a bit silly. Thatcher was - and is - an incredibly divisive figure. Claiming the be the “new Thatcher” will alienate a great many people. That Cameron is making such comparisons demonstrates that he is confident of having a greater claim on the votes of the majority than Brown and is instead intending to ensure that he keeps his core voters on side.

With the use of the ‘T-word’, Cameron is laying a claim to being both a Conservative and a social reformer with it. He’s using his dog whistle to try and have his cake and eat it. If he’s lucky, he may well succeed.

Image: The Sun