The first Boomer equivalents in Britain (I would consider them a part of the European wide Generation 68') were born around 1947. At the start of the decade, Britain was still in a period of austerity with for example; rationing at levels worse than during the war. However by the middle of that decade austerity and rationing had ended and Britain entered a period of relative economic prosperity.

So by 1957 Prime Minister Harold MacMillian could boast, that Britons never had it so good. This period of economic prosperity continued more or less until the end of the 1960's or the early 1970's.

In concluding, I doubt the even the eldest of British Boomer peers would remember very much of the austerity which Britain experienced in the late 1940's and early 1950's. I reckon this is much the same sort of experience that Generation 68’ on the continent experienced as well, being too young to remember much of life before the mid 1950’s when Europe entered a period economic prosperity.

The British peers of the Millennials (whose first cohorts are probably born in 1986) are facing as they come of age, what is a much tougher economic climate than the British Boomer peers faced, when when the British economy soured in the 1970's and early 1980's. In the elsewhere in Europe the Millennial peers are certainly facing an economic climate in some countries about as bad as it was during the Great Depression or at the very least much worse than Generation 68' faced as they came of age between the mid 1960's and mid 1980's.

Tristan,

Good to hear from you; hope things are going well. I notice you've moved to Melbourne.

If S&H themselves have looked at UK generations in depth I'd be very interested to see what they've written, because any suggestions that the UK Millennial Generation began in the late 80s runs completely counter to my experiences as well as the data I've viewed. The teen delinquency & pregnancy stats are pretty unambiguous. They show steep drops beginning in about 2008. I haven't got the data to hand right now, but I viewed historical teen pregnancy stats lately and there was a clear rise from about 83/84 onwards, indicating the Boomer/Xer cusp may have been around '68. This is perfectly compatible with a '92-ish cusp for the Millennials, as generations typically last 21 years give or take a few.

It's also worth pointing out that if S&H have used calendar years to construct cohorts then that is a mistake. It's much better to use academic cohorts, which in Britain run from September to August.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/12/...vened-by-hope/

Some interesting economic optimism stats here (following pages about immigration, EU & tolerance of minorities are also worth reading) backing up my belief that the UK, along with Germany, is still very much in a 3T. Italy, Spain & Greece seem to be in a 4T. In the case of France it's a bit less clear but the mood seems to be darkening.

My belief that the UK is still in a 3T is based on other factors too. After 2008 there was a brief eruption of 4T-style rage at banks & MPs' expenses, but such things can happen during 3Ts. What marks them out is that they don't last. As soon as growth came back we saw a return to normalcy, with bad habits resuming. The housing market has been deliberately reinflated, but the most striking trend of the last 5 years or so has been the collapse of confidence in the welfare state. This has happened because in a 3T we want to go our own way, so when recession hits and the social security bill rockets up, it's an unpleasant reminder of how dependent on each other we all are. In a 3T we don't want to be reminded of that.

The reason the UK reacted to the 2008 crash differently to the US was simply because the generations were not aligned properly for a 4T trigger. However by my calculations the leading edge of the Millennials have just started turning 21, the oldest Xers/Hooligans are now about 45, and the oldest Boomers are now 66. The trigger could happen pretty soon, indeed there have been a few events in recent years, such as the phone hacking scandal, the English riots, the Omnishambles Budget, and the stabbing of soldier Lee Rigby that could have been triggers, but happened a bit too soon.

Originally Posted by Drunken Scouser

This has happened because in a 3T we want to go our own way, so when recession hits and the social security bill rockets up, it's an unpleasant reminder of how dependent on each other we all are. In a 3T we don't want to be reminded of that.

Bravo, Scouser! I'm serious. You've just defined the US problem in a nutshell. We're still in denial.

Damn, I wish we could call X "Hooligans". That was definitely the reaction in the early 90's to X crime and violence (and "dark" culture).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28461530

Only 9% of 11-15 year olds in England told this survey they'd had a drink in the last week. 10 years ago the figure was 25%. I think is more compelling evidence of the Xer/Millennial cusp being sometime in the early 90s.

Originally Posted by Drunken Scouser

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28461530

Only 9% of 11-15 year olds in England told this survey they'd had a drink in the last week. 10 years ago the figure was 25%. I think is more compelling evidence of the Xer/Millennial cusp being sometime in the early 90s.

At that age, it probably indicates increased parental protectiveness, which makes sense as we move into the crisis era.

Was listening to a Podcast about WWI, and as I was listening to how the French were counting on the British securing their left flank, I heard, what I think is the reason why their Losts were chosen to be called the "Contemptibles".

The "Old Contemptibles" was the nickname given to the first British WWI soldiers who went into France.

In 1914,the British army that comprised the BEF sent to France was an all volunteer force, and therefore much smaller than the conscript armies of continental Europe's main powers.

The Kaiser described them as "a contemptible little army" a disparaging term,as he believed the force was too small to cause the 4 million + German troops engaged in carrying out the Schlieffen Plan any real problems.

Taking the slur as a compliment,the BEF adopted the name "the Old Contemptibles" after delaying the much larger German forces at the battle of Mons - the first action fought by British troops on mainland Europe since the Crimean War, and a battle the German troops and commanders regarded as a defeat.

~Chas'88

Self-employment among over-65s has gone from 240,000 to 420,000 in just 5 years, with half that increase happening in just the last 2 years, so we're seeing the same trend the US is seeing with Boomers not wanting to retire. This also may go a long way to explaining why we're seeing sluggish productivity.

This won't necessarily be all for generational reasons. Some of it may be down to people having not saved enough for a comfortable retirement.

Television news.....

Mentioned in passing this morning, that the U.K. may offer Scotland more autonomy if the Scots vote against independence.

I'm really interested in seeing what happens over in Scotland. The UK has been a United Kingdom longer than we've been a United States of America, so if this break-up goes through, it's nothing to scoff at. If the break-up happens, it would be tempting to draw parallels here and ask if the same thing could happen here (it already has once before).

Drunken Scouser, are you saying that the 1T in the UK didn't start until about 1950 or so? That's what it sounds like you're proposing. I know many people feel that the British saeculum is off by a couple of years, but I've never seen a 1T start date later than about 1947-48 or so. I'm not arguing against you, I'm just making sure I understand your point clearly.

If the UK is truly in a late 3T, then perhaps a break-up of Scotland would be just the thing to catalyze a 4T.

Originally Posted by Normal

I'm really interested in seeing what happens over in Scotland. The UK has been a United Kingdom longer than we've been a United States of America, so if this break-up goes through, it's nothing to scoff at. If the break-up happens, it would be tempting to draw parallels here and ask if the same thing could happen here (it already has once before).

Drunken Scouser, are you saying that the 1T in the UK didn't start until about 1950 or so? That's what it sounds like you're proposing. I know many people feel that the British saeculum is off by a couple of years, but I've never seen a 1T start date later than about 1947-48 or so. I'm not arguing against you, I'm just making sure I understand your point clearly.

If the UK is truly in a late 3T, then perhaps a break-up of Scotland would be just the thing to catalyze a 4T.

Nah, they way I see it from the outside, Britain is now in a "fix outer world" era like the rest of the world. It's all Muslims, leaving the EU, and now lately, the secession of Scotland. The inner directed, complacent Britain of the 90's - of Blur, Blair and Oasis - is no more. I might be wrong since I don't live there, but I don't think so.

Moreover, the British rationing in the postwar years doesn't make it a Crisis era in theory terms. The economic pick up delay in Britain was itself triggered by an attempt to build Tomorrowland, courtesy by the Labour government that replaced Churchill's wartime cabinet. This aspiration, building on a wide ranging consensus about the direction Britain was to be heading (extending into the Conservative establishment), is indicative of a 1T mood in my book.

What I notice with the Scottish Independence vote is that Salmond's Yes side makes all prosocial talking points, using oil revenue to create a more equitable society and distance itself from military adventures. A more organic society that is part of a wider community of European nations, in a new multipolar world.

Darling's No side tends to be very condescending. Angry that the old London-Oxbridge finance/imperial elite prerogative is being questioned in the north. Zeitgeist seems to favor Salmond's organic egalitarian ideas more, in the long term.

England has its own social ills to sort out. Not least the inequality of the grandsons and granddaughters of Her Majesty's former imperial subjects now teeming in her cities.

I hope for a Yes vote and an invitation to the current Jacobite rightful heir to return and rule Alba.

Originally Posted by Anc' Mariner

What I notice with the Scottish Independence vote is that Salmond's Yes side makes all prosocial talking points, using oil revenue to create a more equitable society and distance itself from military adventures. A more organic society that is part of a wider community of European nations, in a new multipolar world.

Darling's No side tends to be very condescending. Angry that the old London-Oxbridge finance/imperial elite prerogative is being questioned in the north. Zeitgeist seems to favor Salmond's organic egalitarian ideas more, in the long term.

England has its own social ills to sort out. Not least the inequality of the grandsons and granddaughters of Her Majesty's former imperial subjects now teeming in her cities.

Using oil revenues is clearly not "organic."

I hope Her Majesty prevails and the UK stays together. The Left in the UK needs them.

Originally Posted by Anc' Mariner

What I notice with the Scottish Independence vote is that Salmond's Yes side makes all prosocial talking points, using oil revenue to create a more equitable society and distance itself from military adventures. A more organic society that is part of a wider community of European nations, in a new multipolar world.

Darling's No side tends to be very condescending. Angry that the old London-Oxbridge finance/imperial elite prerogative is being questioned in the north. Zeitgeist seems to favor Salmond's organic egalitarian ideas more, in the long term.

England has its own social ills to sort out. Not least the inequality of the grandsons and granddaughters of Her Majesty's former imperial subjects now teeming in her cities.

What political correctness leads to in relation to Her Majesty's former imperial subjects:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...blind-eye.html

The early part of Britain's last 1T was an Austerity.

Yesterday I read an article online....

The Unionists (those who advocate the status quo) are in panic mode.


Polls had indicated that Scots were split three ways: 1. A small-ish minority accepted the status quo. 2. The largest group embraced "Devo-Max" (maximum devolution) 3. The second largest group embraced independence.

A miscalculation was that if 1. + 2. = a majority, then the status quo could be maintained by offering a choice only between Yes (independence) or No (status quo).

The catch is that 2. was dissatisfied by the status quo-which with 3. makes a majority that is dissatisfied. Taking away the option of Devo Max gives 2. but one option for change.

As I understand it, devolution was originally offered as an attempt to appease Scottish nationalism. Wales and Northern Ireland also received a measure of devolution. London as well.

Please note that this is in the context of a country that was highly centralized.

Other areas interested in devolution:

1. Cornwall. This seems to be partly due to the old Celtic heritage.

2. The North of England. This seems to be due to frustration with a London-centric government.


Another idea floating around is a specifically English parliament.

It may seem that the U.K. is headed towards a federal system, though this is not an option offered to voters. However, one commentator said that it is now too late for federalism, that a confederal system is now the only option left to the U.K.

As I have commented in the past, enlightened self-interest seems to be rare. The powers that be seem to be stuck on stupid, trying to stick to the status quo. Note the old saying-those who make reform impossible make revolution inevitable.

As an example...there was the concept of "Home Rule" for Ireland.

FDR seems to have been a rare exception. He may have come from a privaleged background, but he was an astute politician. And FDR was willing to surf on a wave of reform. And, yes, the New Deal was quite mild compared to what has happened in other countries.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

As I have commented in the past, enlightened self-interest seems to be rare. The powers that be seem to be stuck on stupid, trying to stick to the status quo. Note the old saying-those who make reform impossible make revolution inevitable.

You mean actual capitalism tempered by Sentimentalism?! Why that would be going back to Adam Smith!

Sentimentalism was the ideology that when Market Capitalism was first developing/cementing itself, that was thought to be necessary to keep Capitalism on a leash.

Because when Capitalism was first developed the idea that Capitalism "makes a whore of us all" was very prominent and was a general fear for those setting up the system. As such Sentimentalism was thought to be able to temper and keep Capitalism

What does Sentimentalism include? Adam Smith's writings

Moral sense theory (also known as sentimentalism) is a theory in moral epistemology concerning how one knows moral truths. It is a view in meta-ethics according to which morality is somehow grounded in moral sentiments or emotions. Some take it to be primarily a view about the nature of moral facts or moral beliefs (a primarily metaphysical view)—this form of the view more often goes by the name "sentimentalism".
Others take the view to be primarily about the nature of justifying moral beliefs (a primarily epistemological view)---this form of the view more often goes by the name "moral sense theory". However, some theorists take the view to be one which claims that both moral facts and how one comes to be justified in believing them are necessarily bound up with human emotions.

One sees further development of this argument during the 19th Century a la your typical Dickensian miser who lacks sentimentality being implored to "have a heart".

The New Deal falls into line as being a more modern form of "Sentimentality" but it's really been under attack since then by crony capitalists who would make a whore of us all.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by TimWalker

The early part of Britain's last 1T was an Austerity.

Yes, which is congruent with the fall of the British Empire.

It's going to be fun watching the Tories explain this, whatever happens...

I suspect that if Scotland secedes from the UK, this will pour fire on the flames of those who see possible secession in the USA, or who want it to happen.

I predicted this would happen, though not this soon iirc.

Nations have gotten a lot smaller in recent decades, and many more of these small countries exist than a few decades ago. Sometimes these countries also join confederations, as has happened in Europe. The USA could be a looser confederation after 2027.