History shows that you should never sound the last post on an idea until you are sure that it is dead and buried. And so it is with the much-discussed Museum of British History. The idea, the lovechild of former Tory MP Kenneth Baker and the Daily Telegraph, seemed to have slipped off the agenda, with few people mourning its passing.
But now it appears that the notion has got a second wind and Andy Burnham, the culture secretary, has written to the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) asking it to convene a working group to look at the feasibility of such a museum.
It is worth reiterating the reasons why it is not a good idea. Although the lack of funding and location shouldn't be a total deterrent, the working group needs to think long and hard about both.
A set-up cost of £100m has been floated, and while it might be possible to raise this, as all museum directors know, it is finding the year-on-year revenue that's a killer. And neither the national museums nor the MLA would want to share any of their already squeezed budgets with the project.
But the most pressing concern is who will decide what stories it would tell, who it would be for and what objects would be in it.
No matter how much ministers say there would be no interference with the content and narrative of a new museum, events in schools offer a salutatory warning.
The National Union of Teachers protested last month about a worksheet drawn up by the ministry of defence to stimulate discussion about the Iraq war. The problem is that it amounted to a political justification for the invasion - and was described as an attempt to rewrite history.
And if anyone is still harbouring warm thoughts about the idea, it won't be long before some bright spark suggests that the Museum of British History would be the ideal venue for that other bad idea - citizenship pledges.
Is an audience of reluctant proto-citizens being frogmarched around a sterile version of history and swearing allegiance to queen or country at the end what we want from a new museum?
Sharon Heal, editor
sharon@museumsassociation.org
But now it appears that the notion has got a second wind and Andy Burnham, the culture secretary, has written to the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) asking it to convene a working group to look at the feasibility of such a museum.
It is worth reiterating the reasons why it is not a good idea. Although the lack of funding and location shouldn't be a total deterrent, the working group needs to think long and hard about both.
A set-up cost of £100m has been floated, and while it might be possible to raise this, as all museum directors know, it is finding the year-on-year revenue that's a killer. And neither the national museums nor the MLA would want to share any of their already squeezed budgets with the project.
But the most pressing concern is who will decide what stories it would tell, who it would be for and what objects would be in it.
No matter how much ministers say there would be no interference with the content and narrative of a new museum, events in schools offer a salutatory warning.
The National Union of Teachers protested last month about a worksheet drawn up by the ministry of defence to stimulate discussion about the Iraq war. The problem is that it amounted to a political justification for the invasion - and was described as an attempt to rewrite history.
And if anyone is still harbouring warm thoughts about the idea, it won't be long before some bright spark suggests that the Museum of British History would be the ideal venue for that other bad idea - citizenship pledges.
Is an audience of reluctant proto-citizens being frogmarched around a sterile version of history and swearing allegiance to queen or country at the end what we want from a new museum?
Sharon Heal, editor
sharon@museumsassociation.org
