The article is interesting but extremely flawed, it certainly reflects how Tories see themselves. However, it doesn't necessarily provide you any clue about political or socio-cultural realities. Neither in UK at large nor in England or Wales. /1 https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1285931117305110529

Let's start with the premise of the article. The author argues that a cultural war would be good for Tories but bad for UK. Primarily he thinks that people, on balance, want to be proud of their country's history and will reject 'far left' shaming of it. /2

While he highlights that there is always change and changes at not per se bad, changes need to be somewhat resonate with world views and the conservative outlook on e.g. Churchill (which is first and foremost positive) would have the upper hand. /3

In essence he highlights that Corbyn would have stocked a cultural war and this would have backfired spectacularly. /4

So why I think this is wrong across several dimensions? First and foremost, UK is not a unit and there is no single identity. How you see Britishness and interpret your past probably depends on your particular background. /5

Fair enough, there is always common ground but not so much that the article could rely on gross generalisation. /6

In particular this becomes apparent among younger generations. Their view on Britains past, it's salience and its value probably differs from older folk. The authors was e.g. referring to the desire of being proud of Britain's past in the context of school curricula. /7

The question is whether milieus who recruit most teachers and parents agree with a particular conservative reading of history and its teachings in school. If not, you can bet that a 'balanced teaching' (balanced for conservatives) gets nowhere - especially not in a classroom. /8

Which leads us to the next issue: Elections and culture. One of the key problems is that cultural and social power is not the same as political power and vice versa. So even if Conservatives try by political mandate to shape the content and the teaching, it is likely to fail. /9

Main reason: You would need people who actually teach it and share the value of the content you value (problem No 1). And the audience or relevant social actors shaping the audience perceptions need to be helpful that this content gets absorbed (problem No 2). /10

Long story in short, just because you are democratically elected doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. You need to have the support of your key stakeholders who are affected by policy changes (which may not be your voters). /11

Another problem is that the article is beautifully vague. Which changes the author is talking about, is not really clear. It's not even clear whether there is space for nuance: You can argue that Churchill is an important figure in UK's history deserving respect. /12

You can at the same time think that b/c of his views he shouldn't be used as a role model. You can argue that people in all country'd like to be proud of 'their' past but that doesn't mean that they don't think that illustrating your country as 'force for good' makes sense. /13

In this context you can even refer to Germany with a particularly critical view of it's past but that doesn't mean that people have 'pride' or respect for German identity. In other word: I don't see much of nuance on dealing with the past in this article. /14

And neither do I see that the author is able to distinguish different sources of power. Last but not least it's quite revealing that the author thinks Corbyn would have stirred a cultural war without understanding that conservatives are in the midst of it. /15

Broadly speaking the article reads like "We are on the side of people, who reject far-left attacks on those views." Obviously without qualifying who are those people and what he means with 'far-left'. 16/16

PS: I wonder how people see it.Maybe I even read too much in the article, it's too vague and too general to pinpoint the problems with this. @APHClarkson @HzBrandenburg @sundersays

PPS: Regarding Churchill, a position referring to respectful treatment of the historical figure while not thinking that he is an appropriate role model would probably also match the rejecting of removing his statue but perfectly support a far more critical reading of his actions.