The opening gambit of the state of England today, in the negative sense, to me is such a generic term it could apply to practically anywhere. Of course there are aspects of our society that are deeply depressing but could that not be said of most countries.
The racism towards the three young black footballers who took the penalties was reprehensible, but it does seem that the perpetrators who tweeted what they did are gradually being exposed and see how they like it when they get shed loads of abuse shoved their way. Why can't social media companies do more to filter this hatred? Cowards will always say what they like, because they feel they can under the cover of anonymity. A review of "The Ugly Side of Facebook" a fly on the wall expose, shows a company that often looks the other way and I imagine that could also be said of other social media platforms such as Twitter. It was heartening to see that Marcus Rashford's defaced picture was soon covered with letters and tributes offering support, most people, I believe are decent and want to demonstrate that. There will always be an element who let us down, I particularly hate the way some of our fellow country people show their worst side abroad, it does in a way shame as all, but it shouldn't because the vast majority will be appalled by it too.
For all the negatives in this country and undoubtedly they exist, they are there in practically every global society. This weekend I have read about:
The looting and corruption that has destroyed Mandela's dream, decades of crony capitalism and misrule by the ANC, a country that is gradually sliding into anarchy. So far 117 people have died, many hundreds injured and shopping malls, supermarkets, warehouses and factories have been burnt to the ground. A country where the 11.4 million unemployed have no income and have on average two or three dependents, so households comprising of 30 million, half the population going hungry!
Meanwhile in the communist utopia that is Cuba, sadly it seems the Cubans themselves don't feel that they are living in an idyll because they have been taking to the streets demonstrating about food shortages, power cuts and decades of oppression. They do it at their peril as they are likely to be incarcerated along with gay people and trade unionists already behind bars. Not far away, in Venezuela on the mainland of South America, a mere 1 million people have fled that country.
"Racism" which allegedly as pointed out by the OP, is one of the depressing aspects we have here in England, although my French cousin tells me their country hasn't done a magnificent job in assimilating their long established Algerian population that fought alongside the French in The Algerian War, nevertheless the unrest in the banlieues shouldn't be brought up otherwise that familiar, "whataboutery" so beloved on GN I know will be coming my way!
Denmark meanwhile under the auspices of the prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, Social Democrat, has won approval for legislation to allow asylum seekers to be settled in third countries, probably Africa and yes I know that idea appeals to Pritti Patel, but I doubt whether she'd describe herself as part of a centre left coalition. Other draconian measures have been the threat of confiscating asylum seekers' jewellery and other valuables, labelling areas with high numbers of immigrants "ghettos" and limiting the number of non westerners who can live there. All in all there's a kind of deja vu there and who'd have thought it, liberal Denmark, no so liberal now 
The terrible loss of life in the German floods does make us realise that like our own successive governments other countries make dreadful mistakes, they knew the floods were coming but allegedly the warnings didn't work and residents weren't evacuated so it seems sometimes even the "Germans Don't Always Do It Better"
Meanwhile, America, it seems have more homeless people than ever, tents cities all over the place.
......and well lets not even get started on China, where to begin?
Going back to the 1950s, it probably was easier to get a council house, maybe because more of them were being built, weren't 400,000 constructed under the McMillan government? and the population, haven't got a clue, but considerably smaller than it was now. People stayed together through thick and thin, divorce and separation was nothing like as commonplace, many unhappy unions I imagine. From what I've seen photographed slum dwellings existed that looked positively Dickensian.
I grew up in a town where there were numerous mental hospitals and I know for a fact, my friend's mother was a nurse in one, a girl could be incarcerated in such a place for years for having a baby out of wedlock.........and then there were all the mothers who were forced to give up their babies.
That's not say that I agree a lot of people are living in sub standard housing but on balance I think life was a lot worse then.
