Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana Paperback – February 15, 2002
- Print length330 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherEncounter Books
- Publication dateFebruary 15, 2002
- Dimensions6 x 1 x 8.75 inches
- ISBN-101893554392
- ISBN-13978-1893554399
Product details
- Publisher : Encounter Books (February 15, 2002)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 330 pages
- ISBN-10 : 1893554392
- ISBN-13 : 978-1893554399
- Item Weight : 1.19 ounces
- Dimensions : 6 x 1 x 8.75 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #2,547,276 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #14,789 in Great Britain History (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The framework he uses for his analysis is certainly medium term, if I can be excused such a clumsy phrase. He is interested in the decline of Britain from the 50s onwards, although he occasionally mentions deeper roots for these trends. He does not usually set his sights beyond the pre-60s culture of Britain; there is no talk of the insights of Burke or Disraeli into the nature of the British constitution and nation here. Obviously this limits his vision somewhat but for his purpose it works and even grants his analysis strength by preventing an overreach in vision.
His style is that evocative and clear variety of the best journalistic work. It amply fits the situation, being able to clearly and imaginatively convey Britain past and present without being too academic or poetic. In my opinion he is a superior prose stylist to his brother, as well as being decidedly more clear and focused in his argumentation(at least compared to God is not Great.).
There are some problems with some of his arguments however. In particular I thought parts of his discussion of the Church of England were misguided. For example I thought his reasons behind his preference for 'Protestant' services rather than 'Catholic' communion lacked a certain depth, more focused as it seemed to be on worldly matters rather than the theological and spiritual. The relationship of 'Protestantism' and 'Catholicism'(and perhaps 'Orthodoxy' and Celtic Christianity.) in the Church of England is a quagmire that requires a deeper analysis in my opinion and is perhaps without a real solution short of a radical redefinition of the church. But such problems were relatively rare in an otherwise thoughtful exploration of numerous areas of British culture and society.
Additional: This work was first published in 1999, it still has great value for explaining current British cultural and social problems, though of course the same trends Peter noted 12 years or so ago have largely continued and even more developments could be added to most sections. Importantly though in this work Peter mentions the still not insignificant minority, perhaps on some issues a majority, of people(particularly those born before 1950.) who had something like traditional values and beliefs, but were not far-right, in Britain of the late 1990s. He notes these people have been scattered by changes largely led, or at rather unleashed, from above and lack leadership or a voice and therefore are treated as though they basically don't exist(how many young people are quick to state Britain is a socially liberal or 'progressive' nation after only having been in touch with it through their immediate acquittance and the BBC and commercial TV networks and state schools and so forth!). This section of the British community did not find a voice in the last dozen years and has declined in numbers and in cohesion. It isn't gone but it can no longer been seen as simply on the back foot, waiting for leadership and organisation.
There is a brilliance to much of Hitchens' lamentations in this work that makes for a sadness when one is made to realize all that has been forgotten and wrecked that was good about Britain.
That said, there is much I do not miss that he waxes nostalgic for. Society and culture rarely remain static, and the old adage about hindsight being twenty twenty applies to this book in many ways.
We had a TV commercial back in the 70's that pitched a brand of "brown bread" (it was colored that way, it was not whole grain)called Hovis. It depicted a young working class boy and his dad walking up a steep hill in the early part of the 20th century in a North England town. When they arrive home, cheerful mum has plenty of Hovis on hand. The music in the background, a traditional English brass band, plays a solemn yet cozy tune. By implication it was great back then, everyone was chipper, life was wholesome and of course, so is Hovis bread. A comedian, Tony Capstick, soon recorded a send up song to that tune speaking in voice over as the lad now all grown up that went something like this: I'll never forget that first day down pit(coal mine), me father and me worked a 72 hour shift, then walked 43 miles home in the freezing snow wearing sacks for clothing...we had a lot of good things in them days, rickets, diphtheria.
The book at times does come off as a little like the Hovis ad, and perhaps Hitchens' misty eyes for the past are at points clouded more by sentimentalism than reality. He is a conservative but a statist conservative. He wants the government to nanny society just as liberals do; just in opposite ways. It is perhaps this facet of his thinking that I find most disagreeable. If there are now schools in Britain that are essentially Islamic madrassas that he dislikes, it is a consequence of the state sponsoring Christian schools earlier on that he liked. If homes have become cookie-cutter and characterless it is a consequence of government provided housing. The decline of the church, perhaps a response to having religion as an arm of the state. Hitchens' dislikes the virtual disappearance of the British Union Flag in preference to the specifically English St. George Cross. I consider myself English and not British, because like many of my countrymen I realize that Britain is a political contrivance not an identity.
Hitchens' makes his case eloquently even if not in my opinion always accurately, but we both agree that what Britain is now is a pitiful spectre of it's past great attributes.