BBC Reality TV seems to be better than American Reality TV. This is the first video in a series of videos where British families are put through each decade, playing the roles of some of their ancestors--which is the twist I found interesting, that their circumstances change based on how their own ancestors lived. The show goes from the 1900s to the 1970s, with a specific focus on how FAMILY life changed over the course of that 80 year interval, from Awakening to Awakening.

Do enjoy, I posted the first episode below, and will link subsequent episodes in posts to come.



~Chas'88

I follow the EDL - English Defense League - on facebook (and it is hardly surprising to anyone here that I have an extremely favorable view of that organization), and the things that Muslims are doing over there (and also in France) are truly frightening (remember "freedom fries"? I barely do now).

This matter will be conclusively addressed in the next 10 to 12 years - and not gently, I might add.

For those interested in looking at a documentary about what we can presently piece together about Shakespeare's life, it's a good look at how the latter end of the Elizabethan Generation grew up.

Good quote:

"He and his classmates were the government's target generation. For them, grammar and Protestant godliness would go hand in hand.

...

The government kept a tight control on education, but it was the town council--including William's father--who chose the teachers. And of the six teacher's in William's time, four were sympathizers with the old faith. Hunt became a Jesuit, Cottam later taught Catholic children up in Lancashire. So from the start, William must have seen the split in English society close up."

Turn Back Time: The Interwar Period

I think I liked this episode best of all. It covers 1918 - 1939, and really shows how with the coming of the Depression that there was a breakdown in social class. The most surprising thing was that the Great Depression in England affected the Upper Middle Class and the Working Class much much more than it affected the Middle Class. In fact the Middle Class family in this period almost did better than they did in the Edwardian period.



~Chas'88

Turn Back Time: Second World War

This covers mostly 1939 - 1947; but in terms of lifestyle it's mentioned that there wasn't a change in lifestyle between during the war to post-war, due to privations and rationing continued on into the 1950s--essentially saying that lifestyles didn't change that much until the end of rationing.

Interesting thing I discovered: the Working Class benefited tremendously during this period, a jump in their social conditions, in fact this period practically had almost a complete leveling out of any distinction of social class--about the only real distinction I got was that the Upper Middle Class family could afford to have their own private bomb shelter--which quickly became used by the rest of the "neighborhood".



~Chas'88

Turn Back Time: The Swinging Sixties

What really struck me about this period is that in a lot of ways they talked about this period like the way we talk about the late 1950s--the cult of domesticity for the middle class housewife being just one indicator. They also bring in and talk about Caribbean immigration of the late 1950s and early 1960s which they cover in this period, which was extremely interesting and telling.



~Chas'88

Turn Back Time: The 1970s

Where the last one was rather obviously High/Awakening cusp with more of a lean on High than Awakening, this one was completely ALL out 2T.

They add in the experience of single mothers to the show. What's interesting is to see just how one decade really shows how the immigrant family jumped up in living conditions. It talks about England's own Energy Crisis contributing to the breakdown of strict family dynamics (men either being on strike or on reduced 3 day work week schedule, now staying home--while women were getting or keeping their jobs).



~Chas'88

According to Mikebert's analysis, this BBC teleplay should depict a Civic trying to keep his Artist kids reigned in and in check. Henry II definitely comes across as a Civic, but I leave it to Grey Badger to determine the Artistness of the kids--discounting that the actors portraying them would likely be 68ers.



~Chas'88

I'm sure this has been addressed before, but a search was turning up nothing, so here goes. There's obviously been a lot of debate over the anomalous Civil War 4T. As far as the US goes, my current thought is that S&H got it right in the North but not quite in the South. But given the thread at hand, I'm more curious as to what the explanation for such a short 4T would hold in the UK, far away from the American battlefields. 1860-1865 would be right in the thick of the Victorian era and Pax Britannica. What's the consensus here? The only thing I can think of is that there wasn't any real identifiable Crisis for the UK, but that has plenty of implications.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

I'm sure this has been addressed before, but a search was turning up nothing, so here goes. There's obviously been a lot of debate over the anomalous Civil War 4T. As far as the US goes, my current thought is that S&H got it right in the North but not quite in the South. But given the thread at hand, I'm more curious as to what the explanation for such a short 4T would hold in the UK, far away from the American battlefields. 1860-1865 would be right in the thick of the Victorian era and Pax Britannica. What's the consensus here? The only thing I can think of is that there wasn't any real identifiable Crisis for the UK, but that has plenty of implications.

This has been covered before, but it was along time ago. It may have been part of the old forum, which is a place I don't go very often. Going strictly on memory, the consensus seemed to be that the British position of imperialist hegemon allowed it to export its crisis to (insert the list of countries you prefer).

Of those still in attendance, Mikebert may be your best source for a link.

Some extremely interesting stats here on teen delinquency. From 2007/08 to 2009/10 it fell by nearly 30%, even though this was precisely the time the entire global economy went to pot.

www.civitas.org.uk/crime/factsheet-youthoffending.pdf

The number of under-18s entering the criminal justice system for the first time showed an astonishing drop. It was about 110,000 in 2007, but then began falling dramatically and by 2011 was under 40,000. Youth crime as a whole will carry on falling significantly because most offences are committed by repeat offenders, and fewer first offenders will mean crime becomes much rarer in the future.

I said earlier in the thread that I thought the first cohorts of Britain's answer to the Millennials did not come along until the early 90s. This, along with teen pregnancy stats that showed the drop in pregnancy among under-18s accelerating significantly in 2008-09, back up my previous hunch as the late 2000s would been when the first Millennials were moving into their mid teens. I would say either the 1991/92 or 1992/93 school cohorts were the first.

No one on this side of the Atlantic seems to have heard of Strauss & Howe's work. If they had, it could have improved Westminster policymaking significantly. Labour for example came to power in 1997 with a pledge to cut under-18 pregnancy in half by 2010. Had they read any of Strauss & Howe's work they would have set a more realistic target because they would have understood that trying to stop Gen Xers shagging each other is like shovelling water uphill. The PDF I linked to informs us that in 2008 the Department for Justice wanted to cut the number of under-18 first time offenders by 20% by 2020. It fell by 20% in a year. Had policymakers heard of the Saeculum they would have anticipated this.

If 1992/93 was the first Millennial cohort however, it means that Britain is very likely not yet in the 4T, as the eldest of the Millennials would have only just turned 21 and it could be a couple more years till there are enough of them in young adulthood to provoke a Crisis.

The British government is going open source for IT procurement. This might not seem like much, but I am convinced it will be of great importance in the future, and I think it would be useful for other Western governments to follow their lead on this.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...t-office-suite

Ministers are looking at saving tens of millions of pounds a year by abandoning expensive software produced by firms such as Microsoft.

Some £200m has been spent by the public sector on the computer giant's Office suite alone since 2010.


But the Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude believes a significant proportion of that outlay could be cut by switching to software which can produce open-source files in the "open document format" (ODF), such as OpenOffice and Google Docs.


Document formats are set to be standardised across Whitehall to help break the "oligopoly" of IT suppliers, and improve communications between civil servants.


The proposal is part of the coalition's drive to make its procurement more effective and efficient.


Speaking at a cross-government event showcasing new online services on Wednesday, Maude will say: "The software we use in government is still supplied by just a few large companies. A tiny oligopoly dominates the marketplace.


"I want to see a greater range of software used, so civil servants have access to the information they need and can get their work done without having to buy a particular brand of software.


"In the first instance, this will help departments to do something as simple as share documents with each other more easily. But it will also make it easier for the public to use and share government information.


"So we have been talking to users about the problems they face when they read or work with our documents – and we have been inviting ideas from experts on how to solve these challenges."


Maude will add: "Technical standards for document formats may not sound like the first shot in a revolution.


"But be in no doubt: the adoption of compulsory standards in government threatens to break open Whitehall's lock-in to proprietary formats. In turn we will open the door for a host of other software providers."


Maude will also hail changes designed to increase the number of small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) winning public sector contracts.


He will highlight the creation of CloudStore – an online marketplace for councils and other public bodies to buy software. Up to £10m a month is being spent on the site, with more than half going to SMEs.


Saying the proportion of central government procurement from SMEs has risen from 6% in 2010 to more than 10% now, Maude will add: "We know the best technology and digital ideas often come from small businesses but too often in the past they were excluded from government work.


"In the civil service there was a sense that if you hired a big multi-national, who everyone knew the name of, you'd never be fired.


"We weren't just missing out on innovation, we were paying top dollar for yesterday's technology.


"One great example of the potential from small businesses was when we re-tendered a hosting contract.


"The incumbent big supplier bid £4m; a UK-based small business offered to do it for £60,000.


"We saved taxpayers a whopping 98.5%. I don't think we can make savings of that scale everywhere but hard-working people expect us to try as hard as we possibly can."

Originally Posted by Bronco80

I'm sure this has been addressed before, but a search was turning up nothing, so here goes. There's obviously been a lot of debate over the anomalous Civil War 4T. As far as the US goes, my current thought is that S&H got it right in the North but not quite in the South. But given the thread at hand, I'm more curious as to what the explanation for such a short 4T would hold in the UK, far away from the American battlefields. 1860-1865 would be right in the thick of the Victorian era and Pax Britannica. What's the consensus here? The only thing I can think of is that there wasn't any real identifiable Crisis for the UK, but that has plenty of implications.

As I recall a nineteenth century Reform Crisis was identified. This 4T might be described as "lame" in terms of its intensity. The word that comes to mind is mild, one of a very few unusually mild 4Ts that have been identified.

One might have expected the British political system to have been reformed in the 4T after the American Revolution. But Britain recoiled from the violence of the French Revolution, so instead of reform you got the Napoleonic wars.

Seeing Rick Steves' program on Britain today, I am reminded how much better Europe is than America in many ways. They are willing to pay taxes and regulate themselves. They have public media, public transportation, longer vacations, people-friendly rather than car-friendly zones; lush parks with hiking trails, amazing churches and museums; all the things we wish America had. Sometimes watching his show though, I wonder where all the work is done. All the industrial areas are now tourist zones. And fortunately, all the feuding castles are lovely old ruins.

Of course, we know several other things; the best work is crafted by human hands, and a lot of that still goes on in Europe, where the arts are respected and celebrated; more so than in America. A lot of the work is done by robot and computer now too. But a lot of the industry is done in China, Malaysia, Bangladesh; places like that where labor is now as cheap as it was in England in Dickens' time. And just as poorly-treated. Progress now is to level the playing field, so that workers everywhere earn a decent wage in great working conditions, and as more of the work is done by machines, the benefits will be shared among the people so working hours can be shorter, wages higher, and more real work is pursued.

Europe shows that progress happens, as demonstrated by their enlightened democratic socialist governments organized for the good of all the people, instead of for the privileged few-- as it was there centuries ago in its royal and aristocratic past. And this can be so in other places too, like in America-- once the "tea party" is over. The blue/green states and voters aspire to be more like Europe, while the red states and voters tout the glories of backward America and insult Europe. It will be time soon to make a similar choice that America made two saecula ago, when they chose the blue over the grey. Now they must choose the blue over the red.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Seeing Rick Steves' program on Britain today, I am reminded how much better Europe is than America in many ways. They are willing to pay taxes and regulate themselves. They have public media, public transportation, longer vacations, people-friendly rather than car-friendly zones; lush parks with hiking trails, amazing churches and museums; all the things we wish America had. Sometimes watching his show though, I wonder where all the work is done. All the industrial areas are now tourist zones. And fortunately, all the feuding castles are lovely old ruins.

Of course, we know several other things; the best work is crafted by human hands, and a lot of that still goes on in Europe, where the arts are respected and celebrated; more so than in America. A lot of the work is done by robot and computer now too. But a lot of the industry is done in China, Malaysia, Bangladesh; places like that where labor is now as cheap as it was in England in Dickens' time. And just as poorly-treated. Progress now is to level the playing field, so that workers everywhere earn a decent wage in great working conditions, and as more of the work is done by machines, the benefits will be shared among the people so working hours can be shorter, wages higher, and more real work is pursued.

Europe shows that progress happens, as demonstrated by their enlightened democratic socialist governments organized for the good of all the people, instead of for the privileged few-- as it was there centuries ago in its royal and aristocratic past. And this can be so in other places too, like in America-- once the "tea party" is over. The blue/green states and voters aspire to be more like Europe, while the red states and voters tout the glories of backward America and insult Europe. It will be time soon to make a similar choice that America made two saecula ago, when they chose the blue over the grey. Now they must choose the blue over the red.

When I lived in the UK it was quite a bit different from even the relatively non touristic depictions of Rick Steves. I worked my arse off - long hours, lots of pressure, not very different from the US. It is obvious where we in the US got our particular work ethic from. On the spectrum of "European-ness" the UK is actually closer to the US than to most places on The Continent.

The reality of the NHS is somewhere between the depictions of US conservative talk hosts and various boosters. I thankfully was spared any usage during my time there but I heard plenty of accounts from friends and coworkers.

Transit wise, I would place the UK somewhere between The Continent and BOSWASH here in the US. If you are going from one city centre to another it is good, otherwise ... meh. I mostly drove. When I go on return visits I use a mix of rail and rental cars.

Petrol is horrendously expensive especially considering the UK's status as an oil producer. Taxes are the reason. That brings up another topic. The VAT. VAT funds a lot of activities and honestly I think the US should consider a VAT combined with a much flatter income tax, as well as, as you note, lower corporate tax rates.

What people do for work is not unlike the US. It is a mix of Services and Manufacturing, and the same flight of jobs has happened in both places. There is a bit less high tech than here but more than most people realize.

Interesting developments in northern England.

I'd broadly agree with the poster above, that the UK along with countries we've spawned like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, occupies a kind of middle ground between American rugged individualism and European social democracy, however I think this has only come about the 80s. Prior that, countries like ourselves and New Zealand were actually pioneers of a dirigiste model of how to run the economy. As for the work culture, it's sadly true that some offices have an unhealthy long hours culture, however we differ from the US in that while the average working day is more or less the same in length, most of us get 6 or 7 weeks a year off including bank holidays.

Crime stats out today, from the English & Welsh Crime Survey, which asks something like 40,000 people, shows crime down about 15% in 2013.

A great deal of this is because Britain's answer to the Millennials now occupy the teens/early 20s years that are the most 'productive' when it comes to crime.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...stats-2013.pdf

There are the most recent youth crime stats, and the drop in the last 5 years is quite staggering. The drop began in about 2007/08, so it looks like my hunch that the Xer/Millennial cut-off point in Britain is somewhere around 1992 might have been right, as 2008-ish is also when teen pregnancy stats began to show similar drops.

Experts are apparently 'scratching their heads' as to why crime is going down despite predictions of a post-crash crimewave. Someone needs to direct them to Strauss & Howe's work, which no one this side of the Atlantic seems to have heard of.

Originally Posted by Drunken Scouser

Crime stats out today, from the English & Welsh Crime Survey, which asks something like 40,000 people, shows crime down about 15% in 2013.

A great deal of this is because Britain's answer to the Millennials now occupy the teens/early 20s years that are the most 'productive' when it comes to crime.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...stats-2013.pdf

There are the most recent youth crime stats, and the drop in the last 5 years is quite staggering. The drop began in about 2007/08, so it looks like my hunch that the Xer/Millennial cut-off point in Britain is somewhere around 1992 might have been right, as 2008-ish is also when teen pregnancy stats began to show similar drops.

Wow... I hadn't heard of a 1992 cut-off point. Some people have suggested China has an early 1990s cut-off like that, but usually what I heard for England went as such (or something along these lines):

1888 - 1907 = Contemptible Generation (Agatha Christie, Noel Coward, Dorothy L. Sayers, Queen Mum)
1908 - 1926 = Victory Generation (QEII, Margaret Thatcher)
1927 - 1946 = Air Raid Generation (Princess Margaret, The Beatles, Joe Orton, Harold Pinter)
1947 - 1966 = Boom Generation (Princess Diana, Twiggy, JK Rowling)
1967 - 1987 = Hooligan Generation (Prince Harry, Prince William)
1988 - 20?? = Millennial Generation (...)

.........

In unrelated news,

I heard on the radio that the UK is going to be running some ads aimed at promoting Muslim women to report to the authorities if they suspect that their their husbands/sons/grandsons/brothers/boyfriends might be radicalized or want to go over and fight in the Syrian Civil War.

Hearing that in passing on NPR this evening made me go: yep, that's definitely 4T behavior. Clear and simple.

~Chas'88

Hey Chas, where can I find more info about the Hooligan Generation? I've noticed that English and Irish societies seem to have a lot less focus on generational differences than America does, and most of the generational studies I've found on that side of the pond are actually focused on gerentology and social aspects of aging.

Closest I could find was this article about generational differences in soccer hooligans: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/s...ence.football1

In short, they're saying the older hooligan generation is the organizational aspect of it, and the younger generation just wants to fight. That sounds like a nomad/civic dynamic, with nomads barking orders and civics headed to the front line. The guy they interviewed as an example of the coming "younger generation" was born in 1984.

I've also gone hunting through comments on British newspapers, and I've seen this general breakdown: there are the baby boomers, which people seem to surprisingly NOT have strong feelings about; then there is the middle generation born from about 1964 to 1980 who got really, really lucky financially; then there's the super-screwed generation born after 1980 that is paying way more for college and not finding jobs.

Youth crime conviction is collapsing now that the post-1995 cohorts are in the youth demographic, but some of this may be related to the "not-so-tough on crime" policies that become popular for early, young artists...

The UK lost it's empire. That's the difference.

Their "Boomers" were products of an austerity 1T; they couldn't be accused of blowing the lottery money like our Boom Generation. Their "X" cleaned up on Thatcher, their "Millies" suffered more from the fallout from Thatcher.

Contrast the social backgrounds for movies "The Long Good Friday" for the start of Thatcher, and "Harry Brown" for the aftereffects.

What with the referendum on Scottish independence this year, this will be a critical year. If the No vote should prevail, another possibility will be to turn the UK into a federal state. English nationalism is on the rise, and there is talk of an English parliament.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Hey Chas, where can I find more info about the Hooligan Generation? I've noticed that English and Irish societies seem to have a lot less focus on generational differences than America does, and most of the generational studies I've found on that side of the pond are actually focused on gerentology and social aspects of aging.

Closest I could find was this article about generational differences in soccer hooligans: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/s...ence.football1

In short, they're saying the older hooligan generation is the organizational aspect of it, and the younger generation just wants to fight. That sounds like a nomad/civic dynamic, with nomads barking orders and civics headed to the front line. The guy they interviewed as an example of the coming "younger generation" was born in 1984.

I've also gone hunting through comments on British newspapers, and I've seen this general breakdown: there are the baby boomers, which people seem to surprisingly NOT have strong feelings about; then there is the middle generation born from about 1964 to 1980 who got really, really lucky financially; then there's the super-screwed generation born after 1980 that is paying way more for college and not finding jobs.

Youth crime conviction is collapsing now that the post-1995 cohorts are in the youth demographic, but some of this may be related to the "not-so-tough on crime" policies that become popular for early, young artists...

The dates I pulled from an English article that S&H have somewhere archived on Fourthturning.com. I've tried multiple times to search for it and pull it up (Elizabeth1987 found it and linked to it in a thread, believe it or not), and I can't seem to "re-find it". There also was a long time ago a brief summary that S&H did on each British generation that someone copied from a magazine and also posted on here in a thread somewhere... that I have trouble finding.

There's two tasks for you right there. Good luck finding them.

As for generational studies, England doesn't really care as much. Generational study really peaked because American Boomers threw such a fuss about it. Beyond that, everyone else sorta goes "sure, that sounds about right" and just nods their heads and goes along with whatever the zealots say--that's the general vibe I get from non-Americans about the idea of generational ideas.

And Americans have ensured that our obsession with the concept of generations will be around for as long as there is marketing and advertising.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

As for generational studies, England doesn't really care as much. Generational study really peaked because American Boomers threw such a fuss about it. Beyond that, everyone else sorta goes "sure, that sounds about right" and just nods their heads and goes along with whatever the zealots say--that's the general vibe I get from non-Americans about the idea of generational ideas.

And Americans have ensured that our obsession with the concept of generations will be around for as long as there is marketing and advertising.

I'm thinking Chas may be on to something here.

And, we are the zealots, right here on this board.