In the last edition of The Economist, the Bagehot column suggests that British history is viewed very differently by adherents of the left and right. While the”Waterloo” side sees it as glorious, the “Peterloo” side sees it as nothing more than a series of attempts by a bloodthirsty ruling class to impose its will on the masses, both at home and abroad. This division was, of course, reflected in the Brexit vote, and bedevils the British political system today.
The column is generally consistent with several of my posts from a few weeks ago in which I discussed how identity politics have come to the UK, and how the left-wing position is being manifested in “millennial neo-classical” architecture and the theater. I disagree on one point, however; while it is certainly true that Jeremy Corbyn (a reactionary in his own way) sees the dispute as being grounded in the class struggle, I think the wider British public sees it more in terms of national identity. The essence of the issue is imperialism, not the class struggle, which is less prominent in British politics than it was in Margaret Thatcher’s day. If I were writing the column, therefore, it would have been entitled “Amritsar v. Waterloo,” not “Peterloo v. Waterloo.”
Different massacre, less catchy title, but similar idea.