England's late 20th century good old days - reality or rose-tinted?

[Bletchleyite]

People were terrified by the prospect of a nuclear war in the 1960s, there were a number of films/programmes about the consequences of such a war that were banned by the BBC at the time. In the 1970s the government were sending copies of "Protect and survive" to every home saying what you should do in the case of a nuclear war. Car crime was rampant, every hoodlum knew how to hot wire a car, sexual and racial harassment was endemic.

Crime is in general a bit lower now I think. People fear it being higher because things like social media spread fear of it.

 

[nw1]

One definitely major shift in my lifetime has been the birth of online and internet culture. I am 36 and can remember not having a mobile phone until I was 14. A few friends didn't have them until they were 16.

14 sounds really quite young to me! I can't imagine kids getting phones much below the age of 14, too many risks involved I'd have thought.

It depends on what you want. If you want an enormous choice of entertainments and leisure activities, all sorts of ways of communicating and keeping up with things, a wide variety of devices that make daily life simpler, etc., then maybe you are better off now. If you don’t want to constantly worry how you are going to pay for everything, whether the world is going to self-destruct in your childrens’ (or even your) lifetime, fear being victim of a far wider variety of crime than used to exist, etc., well maybe the last century was better. It is a personal choice, but not an easy one.

I once mentioned to my father (born 1928, died 2011) that he was lucky to have lived through the best period to be alive (World War II taken into consideration). For the rest of us it is downhill.

I'd actually say most of the really interesting (to me, personally) advances in technology had happened by around 2015, with the 1995-2015 period being the most interesting (to me personally) for technological advancement. Smartphones and wifi were widespread by then, for example - and home broadband was well-established. The intervening years, for me personally at least, have been less interesting.

The 00s were arguably the "sweet spot" with a combination of interesting technology and the old, traditional things (more pubs, rural buses, etc) still being present. I'd be quite happy to live in the world of 2009, I think.

That said, we're now seeing AI start to disrupt things and produce the biggest technological advances for quite a while, though whether that'll be for good or bad, I don't know. A mix of both, I suspect.

 

[AlterEgo]

14 sounds really quite young to me! I can't imagine kids getting phones much below the age of 14, too many risks involved I'd have thought.

Loads of kids have phones under the age of 14 now. Although mine wasn’t a smartphone of course, it was just capable of SMS and calling. I used to go to school 10 miles from home in a different town and relied on buses, which is why I had one.

 

[nw1]

Loads of kids have phones under the age of 14 now. Although mine wasn’t a smartphone of course, it was just capable of SMS and calling. I used to go to school 10 miles from home in a different town and relied on buses, which is why I had one.

I don't have children (and likely never will) but I think I would be seriously worried about giving a smartphone to a pre-teenage child certainly, because of the well-documented risks. Not to mention the monetary cost to the parent. A basic mobile phone (if such things exist anymore) could well make sense though, for the reasons you give.

But perhaps, on this matter at least, I'm just a bit old-fashioned.

 

[Techniquest]

Non-smartphones certainly exist, there's a surprising amount of them sold in my workplace on an average week.

A regular customer had their daughter turn 10 recently, and for her birthday she received an iPhone. Now whether or not that's a wise investment I don't know, personally I'd not want a child of mine armed with a smartphone at that age. Equally, in the modern era, it would be difficult to deny them such a thing when almost every youngster has a smartphone and pretty much has their entire social life run through it. For me, I'll not have this conundrum as I'm not ever having children.

 

[nw1]

As a 2001 baby, I'd have been curious to live through the 90s. Any earlier than that, nah. Too much oppression in too many countries. I'm not really envious of previous generations' lives.

Certainly I do have nostalgia for the 2000s before social media and technology really took over things though that may be because I was a child then.

Interesting you remember the 2000s much at all. The 1970s would be the rough equivalent in my lifetime, and I barely remember the 70s at all apart from the past 2 years or so. Certainly don't have nostalgia for it - nothing meaningful enough happened to me - my childhood nostalgia is really for the decade containing my 10th birthday and most of my teenage years, ie. the 1980s.

 

[12LDA28C]

As a 2001 baby, I'd have been curious to live through the 90s. Any earlier than that, nah. Too much oppression in too many countries. I'm not really envious of previous generations' lives.

If you were a child growing up in the 1980s I doubt you'd have been aware of 'oppression in too many countries'. You'd have been more concerned with what most kids were at a young age - how much pocket money you were getting, if you wanted a can of fizzy pop or a bag of sweets or if your mates were coming out to play, depending on your age. I'd certainly question whether human rights concerns would feature heavily in your world.

 

[PeterC]

My teens were in the 60s. The thing that I am nostalgic about is being able to get around easily by public transport. Not just the availability especially in the evenings bit also the cost. Doing university visits when I was 17 was no big deal, walk up rail fares were affordable.

The main thing was the autonomy that we had and that we were expected to exercise. All the visits to universities on my UCCA form were not only made alone but planned and booked by me. Parental involvement never went beyond coughing up the money for the fares. I never saw anybody making these trips in the company of an adult.

I was I Oxford during a Brookes open day and it seemed that the parents were doing the visit with the prospective students in tow almost as an afterthought.

(OK I am exaggerating a little ......... but only a little)

 

[yorksrob]

My teens were in the 60s. The thing that I am nostalgic about is being able to get around easily by public transport. Not just the availability especially in the evenings bit also the cost. Doing university visits when I was 17 was no big deal, walk up rail fares were affordable.

The main thing was the autonomy that we had and that we were expected to exercise. All the visits to universities on my UCCA form were not only made alone but planned and booked by me. Parental involvement never went beyond coughing up the money for the fares. I never saw anybody making these trips in the company of an adult.

I was I Oxford during a Brookes open day and it seemed that the parents were doing the visit with the prospective students in tow almost as an afterthought.

(OK I am exaggerating a little ......... but only a little)

Yes, I remember going to university open days on my own (and with school friends) in the 90's. A great sense of adventure and independence (and my first trip on the IC125 !

 

[Ianigsy]

If you’re a white, middle or working class heterosexual male, up until the 1990s you would have lived in a society designed by and for people like you and more or less able to do and say much as you wanted without challenge.

If you aren’t all of the above, then 21st century Britain is still a better place to inhabit - we’re less of a monoculture, minority voices are regularly heard and its accepted that there’s no one right way of being a British person.

 

[Bantamzen]

If you’re a white, middle or working class heterosexual male, up until the 1990s you would have lived in a society designed by and for people like you and more or less able to do and say much as you wanted without challenge.

If you aren’t all of the above, then 21st century Britain is still a better place to inhabit - we’re less of a monoculture, minority voices are regularly heard and its accepted that there’s no one right way of being a British person.

There's so much wrong with this post I barely know where to begin. But as a starter for 10, I can assure you that being white, male and working class gave no such freedoms. I can't speak for the middle class, but all working class men could look forward to working into their 60s then dying shortly after. Much of the labour was hard, involved long hours and very low wages. Family life was very limited, home ownership was just an impossible dream, education was basic & limited, holidays were few and far between, political views were almost baked in through previous generations as were martial & sexual matters. So whilst it is true this demographic suffered far less discrimination due to ethnicity, it was by no means a world set up nicely for them to do and say as they pleased. Quite the opposite actually.

I do find it interesting though, we are in a society that congratulates itself on becoming more tolerant yet laments older generations, polarises politics like never before, has generated a culture where other people's views are not to be tolerated if they don't comply with a certain narrative, and even went so far as to treat all other human beings as being an immediate risk to them and literally allowed governments to tell them when & where they could conduct in basic tasks like shopping and exercising. Society is still as intolerant as ever, perhaps more so these days. Its just that the intolerance is directed in different directions.

 

[Philip]

If you’re a white, middle or working class heterosexual male, up until the 1990s you would have lived in a society designed by and for people like you and more or less able to do and say much as you wanted without challenge.

If you aren’t all of the above, then 21st century Britain is still a better place to inhabit - we’re less of a monoculture, minority voices are regularly heard and its accepted that there’s no one right way of being a British person.

You could argue the sweet spot for this was between about 1994 and 2012; the modern and forward-looking Labour party under John Smith and then Tony Blair providing a genuine alternative to the Tories which the majority of the electorate got onboard with; the lead up to and signing of the Good Friday Agreement. It was in 2013 when David Cameron promised an EU referendum as part of the manifesto for the next election and since then the country has become more inward-looking with monocultural 1960s/70s attitudes creeping back in. At the other end of the scale, we've seen 'woke culture' become a thing within the last decade, not sure if this has anything to do with Brexit or whether it's the continuing building up of social media.

 

[Scotrail12]

If you were a child growing up in the 1980s I doubt you'd have been aware of 'oppression in too many countries'. You'd have been more concerned with what most kids were at a young age - how much pocket money you were getting, if you wanted a can of fizzy pop or a bag of sweets or if your mates were coming out to play, depending on your age. I'd certainly question whether human rights concerns would feature heavily in your world.

As a gay person, I would have hated living in 1980s Scotland and certainly think it would have been a miserable childhood for someone like me at that time period due to societal expectations. I was never the typical boy and hated stuff like football, I'd have gotten all sorts of crap for that in the 80s.

The school system in those days sounded pretty brutal as well, I'm glad I didn't have to go through that. In the 2000s, we still had a handful of 'old school' teachers around and they were horrid. Thankfully not for long.

And obviously I wouldn't have wanted to have grown up in the 1980s in most other European countries.

 

[Calthrop]

People were terrified by the prospect of a nuclear war in the 1960s, there were a number of films/programmes about the consequences of such a war that were banned by the BBC at the time. In the 1970s the government were sending copies of "Protect and survive" to every home saying what you should do in the case of a nuclear war.

Belated thoughts -- I feel that the above, over-states how things were then, about this particular matter. Refraining from getting into melodrama about suicides by the million, and kindred doings: I feel that essentially, people "carried on as usual, regardless" -- not spending a lot of time being terrified. Humans have always been good at "cognitive dissonance": over approx. period 1950 -- 90, enormous numbers of folk managed simultaneously to entertain the likelihood of nuclear war putting an end to everything; and to carry on with all the normal things of life and expectation of a future, as though the nuclear-war threat didn't exist. Largely, I'd reckon, if people hadn't done that; they would have gone insane. I, born in 1948, grew up in that era -- I perhaps worried more than many, about the nuclear apocalypse, but that didn't cause me to give up on life and the world: I largely rationalised matters via the thing of "mutual assured destruction", whereby both sides needed to go cautiously and, relatively, mutually "make nice" and not do anything rash.

I find it a little odd, that this stuff seems now in most folks' minds, to be relegated to the past: the "ideological facing-off" element is gone, but the gear is basically still there -- witness Mr. Putin's periodic pronouncements. Maybe half a century or so of concentrated "angst" was as much as our species could take -- we've chosen largely, now, to put this thing out of mind; whether doing so makes sense, or not.

 

[eldomtom2]

At the other end of the scale, we've seen 'woke culture' become a thing within the last decade, not sure if this has anything to do with Brexit or whether it's the continuing building up of social media.

Nothing to do with Brexit as it's not a UK specific phenomenon - rather it's the inevitable end result of academia's self-radicalization.

I would also point out that while a monoculture may not be desirable (at least where it is deliberately maintained), nor is a society lacking shared values...

 

[PTR 444]

As somebody born in 1998, I tend to feel nostalgic about the period from 1997-2001. While I don't remember it that much, I tend to think life might have been better had I been the age I was now (25) during that period. Back then, the country was in a good place economically, the music was much better and people went out to socialise more often. I'd say the downsides of that era compared to today are that we didn't have as much awareness of environmental issues and smoking was still common. Smartphones have transformed our ability to plan journeys using journey planning and mapping apps, but as a lifelong map enthusiast I think I would have coped fine with a bag full of timetables and OS Landrangers

There is also the lifelong saying that "Hard times create strong men, Good times create weak men" etc, which I think is relevant here when it comes to evaluating the past and its influence on future eras. Assuming the country goes through a cycle of Hard Times > Strong Men > Good Times > Weak Men, I'd wager a guess that the period from 1983-1997 was a Strong time (Thatcher's legacy), 1997-2008 a Good time (New Labour), 2008-2020 a Weak time (Financial crash, Austerity and Brexit) and 2020-present day a Hard time (Covid-19 and Cost of living crisis).

 

[richa2002]

There's so much wrong with this post I barely know where to begin. But as a starter for 10, I can assure you that being white, male and working class gave no such freedoms. I can't speak for the middle class, but all working class men could look forward to working into their 60s then dying shortly after. Much of the labour was hard, involved long hours and very low wages. Family life was very limited, home ownership was just an impossible dream, education was basic & limited, holidays were few and far between, political views were almost baked in through previous generations as were martial & sexual matters. So whilst it is true this demographic suffered far less discrimination due to ethnicity, it was by no means a world set up nicely for them to do and say as they pleased. Quite the opposite actually.

I do find it interesting though, we are in a society that congratulates itself on becoming more tolerant yet laments older generations, polarises politics like never before, has generated a culture where other people's views are not to be tolerated if they don't comply with a certain narrative, and even went so far as to treat all other human beings as being an immediate risk to them and literally allowed governments to tell them when & where they could conduct in basic tasks like shopping and exercising. Society is still as intolerant as ever, perhaps more so these days. Its just that the intolerance is directed in different directions.

+1. Excellent post.

 

[DustyBin]

+1. Excellent post.

Agreed, it was a very good post.

 

[alex397]

If you’re a white, middle or working class heterosexual male, up until the 1990s you would have lived in a society designed by and for people like you and more or less able to do and say much as you wanted without challenge.

If you aren’t all of the above, then 21st century Britain is still a better place to inhabit - we’re less of a monoculture, minority voices are regularly heard and its accepted that there’s no one right way of being a British person.

There’s nothing wrong with your post at all.

Society, in general, is a lot fairer than it was up until the 1990s. Some may dislike that and call it ‘woke’ but it’s a good thing for society as a whole.

 

[Lost property]

The rose tinted view of previous decades suggests Specsavers are missing an untapped market...the only roseate perception is one concocted by marketing and advertising Dept's to sell a product

The 50's, as a kid, bleak, drab, cold, regimented and still a very stratified society. Public Transport (all forms) was more expansive, but, not the most enticing and cycling was even more prominent than it is today. The Police were still "a law unto themselves "

The 60's, a glimmer of society changing, more colour in fashions and people expanding their horizons, slowly. The " H " television aerial was a status symbol...Education...continued to be a socio / psychopaths chosen profession but, it was noticeable, that, new teachers were more progressive and didn't conform to the "churn out the same information, wait for pension, make no other effort " demographic.

The 70's, true, there were a few political glitches, but, overall, a distinctly more expansive and progressive society.

The 80's....Thatcher !!!!!!!....but again, even she couldn't repress the now emerging changes in society. Not too bad overall.

The 90's...nothing special really,

Anything beyond 2000 is current so doesn't need to be reviewed.

Two big advances however from the 50's....the developments in medical care and treatment along with those in dentistry.

 

[Broucek]

In general, things are WAY better than they've ever been for all the reasons listed. I really don't see things going backwards in terms of how minority and vulnerable groups are treated. My main concern is the polarisation of views and the demonisation of counter views - "decapitate TERFs" being just one example.

 

[alex397]

Early 90s child here.

I don’t think things were ‘better in the old days’. Especially when it comes to equality.
A few things certainly were, such as rural buses and pubs (as already mentioned), although some aspects of rural buses and pubs have improved (some inter-urban buses are better in frequency and quality than they were which benefits the rural areas between and many pubs have a better selection of beers, and there are less ‘dodgy’ pubs) but I will think I will always be nostalgic to the era around 2012 in the UK. It seemed like the peak to me. We were on the world stage with the Olympics and Paralympics, which went incredibly well despite scepticism before it. There weren’t so many of these silly culture wars (or was there? Has nostalgia already kicked in?).
it’s worth mentioning that the era around 2012 wasn’t great for me personally, with struggles with university, family and friendships, but I still feel British society felt better as a whole.

Personally I think a lot of things that are good about this country have gone backwards since the idiotic decision to go through with Brexit, and then we had the pandemic. A lot of the things I enjoy are being eroded I feel.
I certainly think overall things are way better than the 50s-80s (often considered the ‘good old days’) but personally I do think we have gone downhill if compared with 10 years ago (I could be wrong of course, it’s just what I feel)

 

[Bantamzen]

My main concern is the polarisation of views and the demonisation of counter views - "decapitate TERFs" being just one example.

These are some of the reasons I think things are getting worse, not better. Brexit was a political example of this polarisation, one of the most important and impactful of decisions made by this country in decades descended into little more than a playground spat as the extremists on both sides shouted over any attempt to have a debate and find a solution that might actually work for all. Then along came covid with all the politically driven restrictions loudly cheered on by some even as people's jobs, businesses, livelihoods went up in smoke whilst the virus went along its merry way regardless. Worse still in the latter scenario if you didn't tow the party line, you could find yourself berated by family & friends, some people even finding themselves dis-communicated completely. Some people even wanted more, leaning towards a Chinese style indefinite lockdown.

And alongside the increasingly incomprehensible example about feminists being physically threatened for wanting to be, well female, is the very worrying practice of re-writing, ignoring and even shutting down history wherever it is deemed to be uncomfortable or inconvenient. Whilst all the time false narratives are spread and consumed across social media platforms without even a hint of being challenged.

This is not a more a more progressive society, we have simply shifted bias and hatred from one area to another.

 

[yorksrob]

I feel quite relieved to have grown up before the internet age.

The other bonuses of the 1980's/90's were free tertiary education and slam door trains.

Radio 4 was a lot better back then as well.

 

[Bantamzen]

I feel quite relieved to have grown up before the internet age.

The other bonuses of the 1980's/90's were free tertiary education and slam door trains.

Radio 4 was a lot better back then as well.

I remember the very early days of the interweb. Such hope and optimism that it would be used as a tool for knowledge, learning and the coming together of humanity. Now look at it, and they say this is progression...

 

[yorksrob]

I remember the very early days of the interweb. Such hope and optimism that it would be used as a tool for knowledge, learning and the coming together of humanity. Now look at it, and they say this is progression...

I think it's fair to day that t'interweb has been a double edged sword !

 

[Bantamzen]

I think it's fair to day that t'interweb has been a double edged sword !

Very much so.

 

[XAM2175]

My main concern is the polarisation of views and the demonisation of counter views - "decapitate TERFs" being just one example.

It's one example from a few very loud members of a group at the far end of the spectrum, so much so that bringing it up as anything other than an example of "extremists exist" is vastly disproportionate.

 

[eldomtom2]

It's one example from a few very loud members of a group at the far end of the spectrum, so much so that bringing it up as anything other than an example of "extremists exist" is vastly disproportionate.

I'm always wary of arguments that claim "it's just a few people" without providing any evidence.

 

[XAM2175]

I'm always wary of arguments that claim "it's just a few people" without providing any evidence.

I'm always wary of arguments that claim "it's a widespread and pervasive opinion frankly and sincerely held by many people" without providing any evidence.