tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post1710734682911348786..comments2024-03-17T00:10:44.022+00:00Comments on From Arse To Elbow: The Dear LeaderDavid Timoneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-26819749705831487222013-04-12T23:09:49.003+01:002013-04-12T23:09:49.003+01:00I don't really disagree with you, but... I jus...I don't really disagree with you, but... I just have this suspicion that the 70s were like most eras, in that not much really changed, and everything just trundled along much as before. And if things did change, it wasn't<br />due to great (or idiotic) men. And on the new historic concept, the idiotic (as opposed to great men) theory of history, I will go to bed.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14014996272817759191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-29370203253757687922013-04-12T13:35:06.518+01:002013-04-12T13:35:06.518+01:00While time is uniform, "history" tends t...While time is uniform, "history" tends to proceed at a variable pace, speeding up and slowing down as a result of secular trends (this is the premise behind Kondratiev waves and other socio-economic supercycles). <br /><br />Historians and economists recognise the 70s as a pivotal era, not least as the end of the 30-year cycle of investment and wage growth that commenced in the aftermath of WW2 (the destruction of capital goods is a great spur to productivity). It was also a transitional era for technology, with the shift from the electro-mechanical era to the IT era, which would be a chief enabler of globalisation. The chief economic changes were the ending of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime by the US, which lit the fuse for the growth of modern financial markets and the shift of income from labour to capital, and the oil shock of 1973, which amplified inflation and triggered demands for wage rises (the infamous union militancy).<br /><br />All Western economies were affected by the same forces, but the UK was perhaps more vulnerable than most. Paradoxically, while the war had provided a clean slate for much of continental European industry, the lesser damage experienced by the UK (and the need to use spare funds to pay back US war debts) resulted in too much old plant still being in use through the 50s. Investment started to inch up in the 60s, but then hit the headwinds noted above. Contrary to the myths, nationalisation was beneficial insofar as it facilitated rationalisation (e.g. the Beeching rail cuts). The problem, apart from under-investment, was that the same old (and unimaginative) bosses were usually left in charge, which helped worsen labour relations.<br /><br />The Tory rewriting of history depends on personalising it, both in terms of the negative (nasty TU bosses) and the postive (Thatcher as saviour). This morality play distracts attention from the structural changes, but it also excuses the very real choices made (e.g. the harshness of deindustrialisation) by claiming that these were also inevitable because of the "intransigent opposition".<br /><br />For the pro-Thatcher case to stack up, we must continue to believe that the 70s were a terrible time. They weren't. They were troubling and volatile, because pivotal moments in history always are, but they were as much an era of good things as of bad (it's often said that most people experienced the 60s in the 70s, and there is much truth in that). <br /><br />I was born in 1960, so I spent my entire teenage years in the 70s, from Ziggy Stardust to London Calling. Without wishing to sound like a lab rat, I managed to experience both grammar and comprehensive schools, and private rented and council housing. The comp and the council house were both superior, but you try telling kids that today ...David Timoneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-49570289734043531762013-04-11T22:05:10.801+01:002013-04-11T22:05:10.801+01:00The 70s. Someone who understands what happened )no...The 70s. Someone who understands what happened )not me) needs to explain them. In particular, was it really that bad? I have no idea (I was 5 when they started). Not to slag off the rest of your post, just that every commentary starts with on the premise "the 70s, something had to change." Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14014996272817759191noreply@blogger.com