History ‘could have saved us from fiasco of mini-Budget’

Princeton professor calls for ministers to have their own historical advisers to learn lessons of the past

EVERY Cabinet minister should have a historical adviser, Sir David Cannadine, the author and historian, has said.

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Sir David, a professor at Princeton University, said he believed that if Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng had consulted a historian they could have avoided their disastrous mini-Budget.

He pointed out Britain’s growth problems had been seven decades in the making – and many of the measures advocated by the Prime Minister and the former chancellor had been tried before.

“It might have been a good idea to have phoned up [historian of government] Peter Hennessy and say, Peter, is this a good idea? And Peter would have told them [it wouldn’t work].”

While academic historians were often tempted to hide beyond the response of “it’s very complicated”, Sir David said: “The fact remains many of them are in a position to give serious informed advice on the historical background to current issues.

“And I think that that’s a job which I think more historians are actually willing to do than governments tend to be willing to want them to do.”

Sir David said that historical advisers would also help ministers to have a better grasp of how Britain is seen abroad, such as when negotiating trade deals or engaging in diplomacy. Views of Britain across the world vary immensely, he explained.

He pointed out that when he spoke in the Czech Republic on the subject of Margaret Thatcher, he found that “she played fabulously well, they saw her as the avatar, the harbinger of democracy, of freedom, of capitalism and they thought she was wonderful”.

Yet in Argentina, for example, she was unlikely to be seen in the same light at all.

Sir David, who is a judge for the Wolfson History Prize, which promotes academically rigorous but accessible history, told The Telegraph that there was a greater place than ever for public discussion of history.

Despite simplistic and extreme views of history stirring up debate, there was, he said, clearly a demand for nuanced and serious historical work.

“There may be people at each end getting very cross about things, and making the claim that there are only a limited number of ways of doing history, but actually great works of history that are both of high scholarly standards and public accessibility keep getting written,” he added.

As to the debates on statues of controversial figures, Sir David said that it was a good thing that people were getting worked up over them.

“While at one level, the extremities of the culture wars may seem exaggerated, the fact that history is controversial, the fact that history is news, that we care about these things [like statues], is good,” he said.

While he avoided taking a stance on the removal of statues, saying they should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, Sir David did suggest that a Royal Commission be set up to look at London’s statuary.

“Although I don’t think anybody would be wise to take that job on because I think whatever they concluded, would not be universally applauded,” he said.

‘It might have been a good idea to phone up Peter Hennessy. He would have told them it wouldn’t work’