Christ this guy was really a right wing tory imperialist moron
He has few cracks at the Coop at the end of the book and then mentions the Left book club which apparently bears responsibility for the rise of Herr AH in Germany because they weren't egger war mongers
The roundheads were a northern phenomena of industrialised cities and towns, so nothing to do with East Anglia. The Great Reform Acts were an selfless generous act of the forward looking gentry, never heard of the Chartists then? The loss of India to independence is the fault of Labour and buggerall to do with the Indians preferences.

Mostly humourless (unlike some of his other efforts), though Parkinson makes some interesting observations regarding the development of socialist thought (yes, there is such a thing) in England. Parkinson takes the view that socialism, as an ideal, was mostly dry by the 1930s, and that little development had occurred since then to the point of writing (the late 1960s). Some of Parkinson's comments on industrial unions are by now obsolete, though less so with civil service unions. There's a quite interesting analysis of the co-operative movement as well. I don't think a book this hostile to socialism would be published by a mainline publisher today. ( )

Parkinson always felt hard done by by the UK's taxation system, and his mildly hostile review of Socialism, is cleverly written, if not to my overall liking. ( )

Parkinson was one of the most perceptive and skillful writers about management and organizations. Thus, I jumped at the chance of rescuing this cheap old Penguin booklet from the obscurity of a used book store. Management writers and consultants often have rather shockingly conservative political views. Parkinson, however, letting his metaphorical hair down, comes from a whole other planet. Harold Wilson's electoral success in 1964 must have sent him over the edge.

This is the story of the Labour party as told by its enemies. If Parkinson had kept his text fair and balanced, this might have worked. He does not seek a fair assessment, however. He airbrushes out both the situation of Labour and the country and belittles its achievement in order to trumpet his grudges, two of which seem to be his main grievances. Firstly, he accuses Labour of having lost the Empire. Secondly, he faults Labour for the near extinction of Parkinson's favored party, the Liberals. One just has to look at Parkinson's own views why an alliance between the Liberals and Labour was unlikely. In foreign policy, he sees the American Civil War as a big mistake, as it crushed the planter class. Irish independence, he also finds a grave mistake, as it robs the British rentier class of income. In domestic policy, he pleads to increase the misery of the poor in order to have them strife more. In sum, a highly unsympathetic British mix between Marie-Antoinette and Barbara Bush.

The booklet is an anti-Popper pamphlet pleading for inequality and monarchy. A naval historian of bourgeois origin, he fears the classless society, the destruction of the very fabric of British society. for which he is willing to sacrifice most of his liberal positions. Fortunately, history turned out to be different both from what he feared and what he wished for. Reading this, I don't expect Parkinson to have enjoyed the 1970s much. ( )

Not as uproariously funny as Parkinson's Law, but it does dissect the left of the early and mid-20th century in Britain fairly well.