As for scarcely different - Churchill is an idol to the current government, and their regressive policies, their proposal to reintroduce the death penalty, their isolationist nationalism - all of these are things I’m sure he would support.
Like a corporation, that government definitely feels bound by the obligations made by its predecessors, and, likewise, feels entitled to receive any obligations owed to it.
To argue otherwise would be to argue that debts, treaties, as well as all prior legislative and executive decisions all disappear every time you hold an election.
Governments are composed of people: people inherit money and associated debt but they don't inherit guilt.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/12/12/boris-johnson-tank-top...
The UK's recent actions towards Turing were very much not an apology, however.
Nearly all repression was the law of the land at the time it was carried out. If the German or Russian, or American government 'forgave' the ethnic groups it's predecessor mistreated, there would be an incredibly justified uproar about it (Because as the transgressor, the government should be the one asking for forgiveness, not giving it. And for two of them, it would not even a direct successor of the government responsible!)
