A broken country?

I believe that there has been two changes in the fundamental thinking of this country since the end of the second world war.

The first of those changes were brought about by the returning armed forces personnel in 1945. The survivors of that near seven-year struggle were well aware that the returning troops of the first world war came home to unemployment, poor housing, poor health care and poor education. Those returning from the second world war were determined to come home to something very different. Therefore the Clement Atlee Labour government was elected and through a huge public spending program brought forward much of what those who had given so much desired.

The above became the underlying social infrastructure of Britain for more than thirty years. However, following the so-called "winter of discontent," the Thacher government cleverly changed the enthesis from one of relative equality taking the nation forward, to one of an emphasis on individual endeavour taking the nation forward.

That policy prosecution relied on skilled manual workers believing that individuality rather than joint action through their trade unions was the way forward for them and their families. Thacher promoted that thinking further through such things as the sale of Council Houses which the skilled workers were at the forefront of buying. Legislation against trade unions brought to an end group action in the workplace and further promoted individuality rather than persons acting in coordination with, and for the benefit of a broader group.

Over the last thirty years, such thinking has developed to the extent that few now can even conceive of any meaningful consensus bringing forward action. What is best for me is at the forefront of almost all thinking, rather than what would be to the benefit of a wider group or even what would be to the advantage of the nation as a whole.

In the above, I believe is to be found the basis of the divisions in this country at the present time. Those that returned from the second world war and those who had worked so hard in supporting those under arms from within these shores had learned that real success is only achieved when people work together and in that become reliant in support of each other.

That generation I am sure would be appalled at the sight of food banks, rough sleeping the housing crisis and much more that the "me first" thinking has made so prolific and accepted within our society.

There was in the years between 1945 and 1980 I believe an underlying consensus of what was to the benefit of the nation as a whole, and all political parties strove to towards maintaining those goals as the basis of their policies. However, that consensus no longer exists, replaced instead by what is best for the individual, and in that any alternative argument to "what I believe is right for me" thinking is totally unacceptable in the minds of very many.

In the above, I feel are the foundations of the present national crisis.

Absolutely fantastic post Grandad but very sad.

Anecdotally, I was living in Barnsley when Thatcher starved the miners back to work. I remember passing a small parade complete with banners and band as they returned to work. A poignant and defining moment.

You have expressed just what I was trying to say about the Thatcher era, Grandad.

So, naturally, I say that's great post, thank you ?

I was living in Doncaster during the miners' strike, grapefruitpip. A troubling time. Proud and loyal men shafted by Thatcher and Scargill. They couldn't win. So sad.

Forgive the trip down memory lane, but I remember a pie shop,sold excellent fresh produce. It was very popular with the locals. Of course it shut within weeks if not days after the strike.

A silly little memory but a whole community destroyed.

Very well said, Grandad1943

I agree with Mazie, Grandad, you have expressed what I feel. I would add another to your list of things that had to be dealt with after '45 and that was the stratification of society. There was an antagonism to this after the first WW but it increased much more in the 50s and 60s when 'meritocracy' became a byword.

The change which we can roughly flag around the selling of council houses was that 'merit' started to cease to be what mattered and 'money' in the form of excess income and the wealth it created became the by-word. This led, I believe, to people ceasing to realise or accept that they could end up homeless, impoverished and without healthcare. A much larger proportion of society than previously, in my view, now judge others by their wealth. For some now, without that sense of "it could be me", treat others people as disposable.

The 70’s were so great, unions running the government that brought us a Tory government from 1979 to 1997

Exactly Anniebach the union leaders became self serving fanatics who went too far . Thatcher and Scargill head to head, neither were going to back down. In the mean time thousands of families went hungry and relied on handouts. I live in a once proud mining town, sadly all gone.

gilly coming from a mining village I was very involved in
the miners strike, many miners didn’t want to strike but honoured their union and the toad Scargill.

Corbyn has said as soon as he is PM he will give back to the unions the power they had in the 60’s and 70’s, McClusky gives more interviews than Corbyn now.

A lot of mention on the selling of council houses by the tories which were the housing stock for lower paid people but how many staunch Labour supporters bought theirs at a discount and then sold up making a tidy profit?

We go from the sublime to the ridiculous in responses to this thread.

So we've always been a divided nation with no common goals, then?

McClusky is running the LP Annie even the die hard Labour supporters like my dad can see this.

I remember collections being made for the miners on every street corner, soup kitchens and my neighbours taking down their fences to burn on the fires. Relatives and friends pitted against each other never to speak again when a "scab" gave in and went back. Buses with shielded windows being pelted with rocks . Terrible, terrible times.

My parents bought theirs Pantglas sadly no tidy profit though, just a few years without paying rent. They sold up for the grand total of £63,000 when my mum took seriously ill and could no longer get up the stairs. Sadly every penny now gone on my dads £128 per week rent for his adapted bungalow. This is Tyneside after all. Houses rarely make profit in these parts. Ex council or otherwise. In fact if you look at the estate where my dad still lives the ex council houses that were bought are clearly the most run down of them all as no-one has any money to improve and repair. The ones still in LA ownership are by far the best.

Harking back to a post from late last night (after I had given up and gone to bed) I would add a little to the claim that "It's the job of . . lawyers to argue in favour of their clients whether one believes or not, in their innocence or guilt." If those lawyers know that their client is guilty, they are expected to try to soften their just punishment by pointing out mitigating circumstances, previous good character and so on, but they are still obliged to tell the truth. They are NOT expected to lie in their teeth and claim that the client is snow-white and innocent and was a thousand miles away at the time of the crime, guv. If they tell lies on oath they are perverting the course of justice as much as any witness who does the same.

Grandad Excellent post this morning. You have articulated beautifully the thoughts of many of us on here. Thank you.

Turning to Thatcher, it was during the time she was in power that parents started to verbally (and sometimes physically) attack school teachers for reprimanding their children. When we were young, if we came home from school saying we'd be told off our parents would also tell us off for being naughty. Now, the immediate response is for parents to support their children.

When we lived in Brixton a stone was thrown through our neighbours' window. I happened to see where the stone at come from and told the boys who then went round to complain. The father then came round to my house to inform me that his son had said he didn't do it. My response to that was "he would, wouldn't he" because most children would deny such an action.

Interesting article in the Guardian yesterday by David Edgerton (prof of Modern British history at Kings College London). Titled "Brexit is a necessary crisis" it exposes the nature of the economy, the new relationship between capitalism to politics and the weakness of the state.

Grandad missed out one very big influence post war , the influence of women that had lived with rationing and deprivation, the order of the day was make do and mend, use up all the leftovers, fill the family up with what you could find. Water was from a well in the yard until 1960 and privy down the garden
My mother carried that routine all her life, her expectations were low, meals out were rare, a bottle of wine sat on the shelf for months.

Another big influence on society was the police, most villages of any size had a resident Bobby and our local town had a sergeant and 5 constables , they knew exactly who was doing what in town, and the kids respected the police even if they didnt like them.
Now, we have one car at night to cover 40 miles x 15miles, County lines drugs and thieves that know the chance of getting caught is remote

I don't quite understand which way that influence worked, David.

Was it in support of consensus about the 'common good', or supportive of the individualistic, self sufficiency narrative which developed in the 80s and beyond?

I suspect the second, and we hear echoes of it quite often here on Gnet...

It influenced the whole social structure everyone expected less, the things we expect routinely today were unattainable, the choices women have today were not dreamt of.

A very interesting discussion. Although Thatcher was mentioned early on, the discussion has veered off into bigger themes.

I don't think anybody was saying the 70's were brilliant and of course we must never miss an opportunity to mention Corbyn and how horrible he is.

I do believe/feel there was more sense of collective responsibility, and more connection. Also there was for less choice. Life was fairly regimented, meal times,set TV programmes,less alcohol, less mindless hedonism and sense of entitlement. The Church was still a feature for many.

" Having it all" is a myth. Sad really.

I think, Davidhs, you are coming at this from the personal while what some of us are talking about are the drivers of society at that time.

Your mother's life, as were the lives of many, was still dictated by the strata of society to which you belonged. This was the point I was trying to make. The war brought about a big change in the acceptance of this both from women and from men.

We all know that Elegran but any lawyer worth their salt knows that it's as much what you don't say as what you do say.
One can only put forward the information disclosed by the client.
I know of many people in the various layers and branches of the legal profession who actively discourage clients from saying too much.
What is not heard cannot be disputed. A lawyer relies on honesty from clients but we all know that clever words can flummox poor counsel and jurors alike.
I rest my case...??