Blog powered by Typepad

« On "the point of precedency between a louse and a flea". | Main | The Deadly Duo! »

Thursday, 08 October 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm with you on the history actually, that gives a good account of how our country came to be as it is.
I'd query the content of the last two. What's the New Britain, and what's Modern History to the present?
I'd probably do 1945-1979 and 1979 onwards. I pick 1979 because of the real seachang that that election brough and the subsequent changes still felt today. I was trying to think about another event around that time of 60s-70s, but that seems the most important to me.

Also, what about the rest of the world? Birth of civilisation, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Europe etc. etc.

On the speech, I agree that he tried to tell a traditional Conservative story, but I think he kept straying. I think, personally, he needs to try to alienate some people in order to firm up support. I'm one of those who believes in not trying to please everyone all the time, but that means trying to alientate people too.
While he was largely putting together a Tory Story, he didn't quite reach the heights he was after. I think Osborne has come out of this conference better and looking far more serious

Yes, there is always the difficulty of where to draw the line between history and contemporary affairs. Bring it too up to date and you land il-trained teachers with a real problem of avoiding their own prejudices. Mind you, one of the objects of teaching history is to explain the route by which we reached our present location and condition, and the rate of change over the last 60 years has simply accelerated beyond imagining. It makes sense, I think, to explain quite why British society is so multi-ethnic now.

I'm pretty sure he alienated some people not a million miles from 10 Downing St.! For me, it is not so much a question of trust, more that I remain to be fully convinced by either of them, although I do think that on the whole it was an honest-ish speech and an intelligent one, too. We shall see.

Perhaps because i'm a geek who loves his head in books and history, politics, and anything else that involves lots of essays, but i think these events very important. I'd probably try to squeeze too much in because i thought it too important to leave out.

I would put in recent history as it shows where we are, but i would not focus too much on our own other than Huge things (detail to follow)
But i certainly think there needs to me a more world-centric view. I loved things like Egypt at school, and the Roman empire.

He alientated some, of course. He did try to tell a Tory story.
On trust, i try to set my bias aside (very difficult) and on that I'm all in favour of Osborne's approach.
On competance (if i may address your being convinced in those terms) I personally favour Darling as i think he's a good, steady pair of hands. Osborne, to me, is a very skilled politican who i think will be Tory PM one day. But on economic matters i don't trust him, partly because i disagree with his philosophy and partly because imporant serious comentators like Blanchflower and Martin Wolf (never thought i'd agree with him) think he's bonkers in the same way i do.
I believe people should be trusted to do something well, even if it's something i agree with. I should disagree with ends, not the means in some ways. But if those who should agree with Osborne on philosophy AND means think he's off track, then that worried me about his handling

That's OK for primary school children. What's he planning for the Secondaries?

Oh dearie me, you're definitely back, 'Dearieme'!

The comments to this entry are closed.