Sir Robert Peel also beleived in keeping domestic taxes, government spending and regualtions down – indeed in reducing them over time.

He was in the tradition of Edumund Burke and then Canning, Huskinson and Robinson before him, and Glandstone after him.

However, he was also rather effective a using government as well as rolling it back.

For example Peel’s relief exercise in Ireland (in response to the emergency caused by the blight) was far better organized than that of Russell.

The fall of Peel was unforntunate for England – but terrible for Ireland.

Like war – if the government undertakes fammine relief it had better do it as least badly as possible.

As for the Andrew Neil show – so it was yet another hit job on Tea Party people. Like everything else on the BBC and the rest of the MSM.

Oh well – good I missed it.

I remember Mr Neil as one of the “new economy” people who said it did not matter if a “dot.com” company had ever made profits one should invest in it anyway (even if its stock market price was hundreds of times earnings – let alone profits).

That the man is still taken seriously after the bursting of the dot.com bubble (back in 2000) shows what short memories people have.

Still Obama’s days of having to only worry about his own party’s defectors preventing him from having his way should be over. Exit polls so far are showing voters are not voting for Republicans but against Democrats particularly the President. Hopefully by tomorrow morn the numbers will give us a clue to how much he will likely be restricted for the next 2 years.

The man certainly deserves me not making that sort of careless error.

Best regards

… or in accepting the irrelevant political demands of the Chartists.

Wikipedia, on that::

Chartism was a movement for political and social reform in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland during the mid-19th century, between 1838 and 1850. It takes its name from the People’s Charter of 1838, which stipulated the six main aims of the movement as:

My brief summary:

We now have:
1. Universal franchise for adults: even more-so than their demand for 21+ males.
2. Secret ballot in parliamentary elections.
3. No property requirements on candidates for parliament.
4. MPs to be paid (so more than the rich could afford to stand).
5. Equally sized constituencies (now broadly achieved).

And we do not (yet) have:
6. Annual Elections.

Now those are the sort of irrelevant political demands that I really go for.

IMHO, Peel did have many good policies. Again IMHO, Hurd has my attention only to the same extent as Richard Dawkins: a high risk of wasted money and wasted shelf-space.

Back to Johnathan:

And that, of course, is why the accurate teaching of history, such as around such episodes as the Industrial Revolution, is so important.

I agree, but even natural science now seems to be a matter of opinion (maybe it always was). What chance, therefore, has history?

Best regards