Positive ideas of empire which in recent decades almost no one dared to express are emerging once more into public discourse.
On the 13th of January 1913, the last formal private army in the history of the United Kingdom was established.
There’s a perverse tendency for doomed governments to play it safe. This approach didn’t save Stanley Baldwin or John Major, and won’t work now.
No nation has a spotless record, but attempts to focus on one side of history will continue to divide the country.
Those who believe the world’s heritage should be curated by universal museums hold hardcore ideologised radical views.
General Galtieri’s was a wicked regime. But his armies, unlike Vladimir Putin’s, at least respected the rules of war.
Revulsion at the thought of slavery should be something to unite, not divide, the whole of mankind.
No private individual should be financially ruined by seeking access to material which was purchased with taxpayers’ money on the basis that it would be open to the public.
The moral of this story is that these models provide interesting context – a little like horoscopes. But when it comes to decision-making, give me an economic historian in preference to a model any day.
We can avoid getting into an argument about whether or not the Government’s plan is an industrial strategy. The Conservative Party has got rather hung up on that term.
Media portrayals of ex-servicemen and women as PTSD-riven criminals shapes public perceptions and hurts the prospects of those leaving the Armed Forces.
The measures would signal that we are a national community, membership of which brings particular rights and also obligations. It sounds pretty Conservative to me.
Rather than an ideological approach, these four ideals – pragmatism, stewardship, One Nation and empowerment – should be the foundations of Conservative economic policy.
That he will be in post during the Coronation in May tells an important story about change in Britain across the generations.
His achievements as a journalist, historian, and broadcaster were immense. He should be read by all those seeking to challenge the wrongful dogmatisms of the “progressive” Left.