In response to an FT article by Claer Barrett and Adam Thomson on 4th August 2014, entitled 'First world war centenary marked by ceremonies in UK and Europe'
He couldn't resist it could he? David Cameron is doing his Anthony Blair karaoke act again. Taking a totally avoidable event that wiped out half a generation, ruined the lives of the other half, and destroyed the prosperity of a continent, and instead of using the memory as a caution against repeating the folly, he says things like:
"There shouldn’t be the domination of Europe by one power, that small countries had a right to their independence and their existence, and these are problems that still confronts us today'. Of course they shouldn't, but you couldn't resist your little tough guy trailer could you Mr Cameron?
Then he goes on to wax lyrical about the benefits of war:
“The emancipation of women, the fact that women then got the vote, participated more in the workplace, there were changes in medicine, massive improvements in our world – all those things are worth remembering and that’s why, as a government and as a country, we should be refurbishing our war memorials, and we are,”
These were all good things, but here's a newsflash for you Mr Cameron - women shouldn't have needed a war to be 'emancipated', they needed the contemporary versions of people like you to wake up and change the law without needing slaughter as an excuse.
In everything I've read about the first world war, I've heard that the veterans who came through it never wanted to talk about it much, never sought to glorify it, and frequently had nightmares for the rest of their lives. I wonder what they'd say listening to a little whipper snapper like Mr Cameron, who's never had a real job and never been in harms way. I wonder what they'd say when they heard him use their memory to promote tough talk around the possibility for another totally avoidable slaughter?
I don't know for sure what they'd say, but I'd like to say, in a reprise of Captain Mainwaring…'stupid boy!'