It is the Western intellectual tradition and particularly the values of the Enlightment that enable us to consider issues of truth and falsehood. Truth is discovered through the exercise of human reason, informed by a careful weighing of the available evidence and a belief that improvement in the human condition is not only possible but desirable. It is only when we succumb to the tyranny of utopian social and political theories - religious, environmental or deterministic - that we stumble.

Market based economies evolved over several centuries, emerging from mercantilism and the protectionism typified by the Corn Laws into regulated - not free -market economies. Markets have always been regulated. The question is the degree to which regulation is efficient and effective.

It's hard, on the basis of this article, not to point out the contradiction in the notion of a Zero Carbon Network that is supposed to promote clear thinking. Perhaos a lesson or two in deductive reasoning might be in order?

"the historical narrative our politicians were exposed to in their schooling is unlikely to have equipped them to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and even less likely to be able to pass an informed opinion about the content of the school curricula."
I agree completely John Tons and it is because the majority of our politicians did not study history! Perhaps you can direct me and other readers to somebody, other than yourself, who can pass an informed opinion on the content of the school curricula.
"Will a history that ignores the intellectual contributions of the Arabic and Asian world to our contemporary civilisation equip us for the future? Will a history that ignores the way Africa and South America were systematically dismembered and exploited by the west be a foundation for understanding the problems of world poverty?"
You pose the question John; perhaps you can convincingly supply some answers in your next article.
By the way we could do with some "zero carbon boarding kennels" in Queensland. The fate of the planet depends on it.

History however imparitial is always someone's opinion.

The author's opinion has some merit, but is obviously tainted by his political leanings and therefore is probably less impartial than most.

People always want to rewrite history to reflect their views, and I am grateful that the curriculum is not dictated by popular consensus.

I'm not fond of the use of theory in history, because it can shape, restrict or
warp a view of the evidence. On the other hand, whether a theory is used or
not, everyone does interpret evidence from a perspective of some sort or
other, even if subconsciously. Now, since that is inevitable, I can't
see it does much good to complain about it. Better to accept it and
work along with it. We just do what we can, with the evidence available
to us, and we can learn to read other people's perspectives, as well as
their conclusions.

But it annoys me when people casually suggest that historians are all using
the past to push some current agenda or other. Amongst the professional
historians I know of, there is not 'a universal tendency to airbrush
history to suit current political sensibilities', or 'to view the past
in a way to give credibility to the present'. I think the vast majority
of historians aim, by whatever means, whether with a theoretical
approach or empirically, to understand the past on its own terms. It's
in that way that history is interesting in its own right, helps us to
understand where we've come from, and teaches us to question the ways we
go about our own existence.

As for school curricula - the ideal is one thing, practice is another.
School students don't start their maths with advanced calculus. They
start with 2 + 2 and work their way up to more complex understanding.
It's the same with history. History at university is much more
inclusive of the chronological and global complexities, and also much
more open to students' independent investigations. But a school
curriculum does have to start somewhere, leave some things out for
later, and provide students with some sort of basic framework for
understanding basic information; otherwise, the students can get
overwhelmed and confused. It doesn't mean that what is focussed on has
to be culturally insensitive or ignorant.

“It is the Western intellectual tradition and particularly the values of the Enlightment that enable us to consider issues of truth and falsehood.” Senior Victorian,

This is of course the burden of my argument and indeed the purpose of the Graves quotation; especially in history there are many representations of the truth. French school text books rarely mention the Battle of Agincourt. When the film Waterloo was released there were protest in both Germany and Holland because the film did not depict that it was the Germans or the Dutch (depending on where the protest was staged) who were the real victors.
As with the Persian Version it is largely a question of emphasis. For the Spartans it was a notable, heroic victory for the Persians it was a flea bite.
Blairbar:

Perhaps you can direct me and other readers to somebody, other than yourself, who can pass an informed opinion on the content of the school curricula.

Good point – the real problem is that there are very few people with a disinterested position on the school curriculum. Part of my work entailed working with subject specialists in developing their curricula for the class room. If there was one thing they all agreed on was that there were insufficient resources for their particular subject area.

Shadow Minister, “People always want to rewrite history … popular consensus”

If only that were true; school history is very much the victim of fashion. My personal view has always been that the actual content is irrelevant; it is the way we interrogate that content. I used to encourage my students to ask questions like “what choices were open to these people at that point in time?” That is the sort of question that can be asked at any level and in any epoch.

cressida, “I'm not fond of the use of theory in history,” you then go on to give your theory!

“everyone does interpret evidence from a perspective of some sort or other” True and that is not the complaint. The real problem comes when the evidence is selected so that it fits in with one’s preconceptions.

“Amongst the professional historians I know of, there is not 'a universal tendency to airbrush history to suit current political sensibilities', or 'to view the past in a way to give credibility to the present'. “
Keith Windshuttle?
But to be fair I was writing about school curricula not academic history. The standards that are employed by academic historians are very different. Few people are aware of the long battles that professional history teachers had to fight to ensure that we did not airbrush the post 1788 history of indigenous Australia. For example look at the Jubilee Social History of South Australians. As one of the contributors I am only too well aware that some of the politicians were not happy that some skeletons were let out of the cupboard. We, on the other hand, were disappointed that we could not let them all out.
But judging by the number of posts it does seem as if whether or not history is taught and how it is taught is very much a non issue. It could be of course that the original article was so awful no-one could be bothered reading it.
John Töns