1968 and all that

It is interesting how society forms a popular view of recent history which is constantly reinforced by talking heads in the media, many of whom were not even born when the events in question took place. For example, many people look back to the 1950s with great nostalgia. Perhaps for Americans, looking back to a time when the country was relatively untroubled by military failure and the Great Depression was a rapidly fading memory, this may be understandable. But we tend to gloss over the fact that the country was riven by racism, particularly in the Deep South, which a decade later was to give such force to the Civil Rights movement. Continental Europeans do not have the same yearning for the 1950s, largely because their economies were being rebuilt after the shattering experience of World War II.

There seems little reason to look back to the 1950s with any great fondness in Britain either. Admittedly, the country was living in the afterglow of having been on the “right” side of history in the post-1945 era and living standards were rising rapidly. But the economy was in effect bankrupt, struggling to earn enough to pay the interest on its wartime debt, whilst food rationing continued until the middle of the decade and the Empire was being dismantled. Although people did not realise it at the time, Britain was vacating its position at the top table.

I can well recall the 1970s, which are today characterised by their uniform awfulness when workers in “broken Britain” seemed to be permanently on strike and the country was apparently convulsed by social unrest. The Conservatives have spent 40 years playing on this image to remind everybody about the terrors of electing a left-leaning Labour Party. But it was nowhere near as bad as the popular imagination now believes. Britain at the time was still a major industrial power, albeit losing ground to Japan and Germany, jobs were fairly plentiful and for most of the decade unemployment remained relatively low - at its peak it was less than half the level of the early 1980s. Inflation was a problem but wages kept pace. The downside was that the economy’s global competitiveness suffered, but this was not evident in people’s day-to-day lives.

But it is the way that the 1960s are portrayed which I find most fascinating. The enduring image is one of cultural change – a decade characterised by an explosion in music and fashion, hippies and the Summer of Love. Not so long ago I recall watching a documentary in which an American academic described 1960s Britain as a time when “everyone” was living up to the idealised picture of the time, enjoying the music and taking the drugs. That was certainly not true of the childhood Britain that I remember, many of whose social structures were more closely related to the Victorian era than those of today are to the 1960s. For anyone who doubts that view, I would recommend dipping into the book by historian Dominic Sandbrook Never Had it so Good. One fascinating fact which summarises the difference between reality and recollection is that the album which spent the longest period at number one in the UK charts came not from The Beatles or Rolling Stones but was the soundtrack to the film The Sound of Music, which spent 69 weeks in the top spot compared with 30 for the Beatles 1963 debut album Please Please Me and 23 for Sergeant Pepper’s.This was a very conservative society.

It is the events of 1968 which resound so heavily today. My own memories of that year are pretty hazy, largely because I was only five years old, though two things stand out: my first day at school early in the year and the first manned orbit of the Moon by the crew of Apollo 8 just before Christmas. Sandwiched in between, and largely passing me by, were the ongoing war in Vietnam, the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King and the student uprisings across Europe and the United States. In short it was a tumultuous period when governance appeared to be breaking down. 

I often wonder how I would have perceived that period had I viewed it through the eyes of an adult. Would I have been as bemused by the events of 1968 as I am by those of today, characterised by an American President who has been accused of “glorifying violence” as the city of Minneapolis erupted in protest at the death of yet another black man at the hands of the police? Would I have felt as outraged as those members of society protesting against social injustice in 1968 as those who are affronted by a British government which appears to believe that it can adhere to one set of rules whilst the rest abide by a different rulebook? And that is without considering the divisive effects of Brexit which, as I pointed out last year, is merely one front in a bigger culture war.

Perhaps what 1968 represented above all was the revolt of youth against a system which they perceived to be biased against them. This was the first roar of the baby boomers who have been running the show for the last 30 years. But maybe their time is drawing to a close. Although US voters may yet grant Donald Trump another four years in November, the boomers will soon have to cede to a younger generation with a different world outlook and different aspirations. As easy as it is to get carried away with recent events and conclude that we are on the slippery slope to a dystopian society, the lesson of 1968 is that positive change can come from apparent chaos.

Current events come against the backdrop of the Covid-19 crisis – an unprecedented event which is going to transform the structure and operation of our economies. Add in the desire for political change and the stage is set for a radical process of restructuring. We may not notice the difference tomorrow, or even next year. But it is a fair bet that in 50 years’ time, 2020 will go down as the year everything changed.

London calling

As I write this, it is exactly four years since I was sitting in a restaurant watching the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics in London. It seems like an awful long time ago. Although there is a sense looking back that things were improving, following the savage recession of 2008-09, the economic data released at the time suggested that the UK economy was struggling to gain traction, although a more solid recovery was just around the corner. That said, there was a feelgood factor in the air, at least in London, and surveys conducted at the time pointed to a more general feeling of national wellbeing. 

Fast forward four years and things feel rather different. The national mood remains sullen in the wake of the EU referendum, although perhaps not quite as fractious as a month ago, whilst regional disparities have widened if anything. Economically, at least, London’s relative importance continues to rise, with a recent report suggesting that it contributes almost one-third of the UK’s tax receipts. It is to the UK what Germany is to the euro zone – it accounts for roughly the same share of output and is the UK’s paymaster in the same way that Germany is for the single currency region. 

Back when I was a lad, as they say, it all felt rather different. I was reminded of this by a number of films, which can be found on the British Film Institute website and on the North East Film Archive site which extolled the virtues of living in the thriving north east of England. The films were shot in the 1960s and were designed to convey the impression that the old days of flat caps and whippets were no more, and that the region was looking ahead to focus on the high tech and light engineering industries of tomorrow. It all seemed so optimistic and modern. As someone who grew up in the region around that time, I can relate to the sentiments portrayed. 

But I was also struck by the fact that within a decade, much of that optimism had crumbled as the heavy industries on which the region relied were wiped out, taking away the bedrock of support for the newer industries. Indeed it is from around the early-1980s that we became ever more aware of the inexorable drift southwards in the UK’s centre of economic gravity. 

Some 35 years on, even senior civil servants now admit that the UK is one of the most centralised economies in the developed world. And this is a problem since, as the Institute for Economic Affairs has pointed out, “decentralisation promotes … better matching of services to local preferences.” To the extent that many people outside the London bubble feel that they have increasingly been marginalised by their own government, which focuses ever more on the needs of the capital, this degree of centralisation may have been one of the contributory factors encouraging the electorate to stick two fingers up to the government last month. In fairness, there have been efforts to devolve powers back to the regions, with the creation of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority in 2011 the first attempt to give more control over planning and spending decisions. But the scheme is not without its critics and it is unclear to what extent it will be rolled out elsewhere, partly because not all cities want to follow the same model. 

It is thus ironic that during an EU referendum campaign in which one of the key slogans was “taking back control,” the government recognised the UK regional control problem, tried to do something about it (albeit perhaps too little too late) yet many were hesitant to grasp the opportunity when it was offered to them. It does make me wonder how we will be able to resolve many of the contradictions which dot the policy landscape. For an escapist reminder of how we see ourselves, you could do worse than go to Youtube and relive that Olympic opening ceremony. Indeed, maybe the Remain campaign would have done better to entrust their strategy to Danny Boyle. He certainly convinced me that things are better than they are.