logo
There's still one way that Britain can awaken from this nightmare

There's still one way that Britain can awaken from this nightmare

Telegraph26-07-2025
Sorry to keep banging on about how much worse things were in Britain in the 1970s. This must be like being lectured by your grandmother on how their generation survived the Blitz. But for those who lived through that pre-modern era when ordinary people were held hostage by titanic monopoly powers against which elected governments appeared to be helpless, it is difficult to see today's problems as the end of the world. It wasn't just the daily power outages which brought darkness and the shut down of all electrical equipment for hours at a time. There were as well the horrendous economic pressures which put today's difficulties into a sobering perspective.
It may be true – as the young point out with some bitterness – that property was unbelievably cheap. At the end of the 1960s, it was possible to buy a suburban house in London for under £10,000. (TEN THOUSAND POUNDS.) The first great property boom soon quadrupled those prices but even in 1979 you could buy a four bedroomed semi-detached house in a good neighbourhood for around £50,000. But that home owning idyll is deceptive. What followed was a staggering, scarcely credible by today's standards, rise in inflation. At its height in 1975, the inflation rate was 26.9 per cent – which makes the obsessive concern over today's inflation increases look rather silly. What did that mean for all those people who had bought their homes at what we would now consider absurdly low prices? Their mortgages which had originally been linked realistically to their incomes – and all their household bills which were also being hit by the inflationary spiral – became terrifyingly unaffordable.
This was a personal, familial crisis for countless households who suddenly discovered that they could not go on living as they had reasonably expected to do. The cost of their homes was suddenly way beyond the reach of their pay levels. The quality of life and the purchasing power of even well paid people, crashed with a suddenness that was deranging. It was now almost impossible for a mortgaged household to survive on one income so women had no choice but to go out to work. (Even though most mortgage lenders at the time would not take a wife's income into account which made practical planning problematic.)
But it was not only the economics that was going badly wrong. The later 60s and the 70s produced some ugly social dynamics that are scarcely recalled now, perhaps because they are so shaming. There were menacing mobs of skinheads whose racism and anti-social delinquency were blatantly violent. My husband and I once stood over a pair of Asian boys on the tube to shield them from a pack of shaven headed thugs who were threatening to pull them off the train. Somehow London had gone from its world-conquering moment in the Swinging Sixties to this: rubbish piling up in the streets, endless transport strikes and a great many people deciding that it was time to leave the country forever. Those who lament today that 'nothing works' can scarcely imagine the havoc of unreliability that was everyday life in that chaotic decade.
The antagonism toward the trade unions and the closed shop nationalised industries famously dominated the historic account of this awful period but what may be forgotten is the political despair that accompanied it. A succession of governments and party leaders had revealed themselves, to the disgust of the electorate, to be utterly useless. The 60s as we remember them had got under way with Harold Wilson who seemed to have achieved a fairly jolly accommodation with the most powerful trades unions. The 'beer and sandwiches at Number 10' technique of conciliation and kinship – which actually involved caving in to most union demands to avert strike action – seemed to offer some kind of sustainable mode of operation. Until it didn't. The unions would not be bought off indefinitely and their growing militancy was undermining major British industries like car manufacturing.
The country then turned, more in desperation than hope, to the Conservatives under Edward Heath who promised legislation to curb the spread of disruptive union activism. When that proved an ineffectual disaster Harold Wilson was returned to power. He then retired from office (due sadly to the onset of dementia) and was followed by James Callaghan who had the misfortune to preside over the 1979 Winter of Discontent. The deterioration of confidence in the political leadership of the country, by this time, seemed irreversible.
It was genuinely believed by a great many responsible people that national decline was not just inevitable but was already fully under way, and that this was attributable to the low standard of government performance: lack of conviction, failure of nerve and the poverty of ideas for dealing with the modern, post-imperial world. And what is more, this low standard was believed to be incurable. British politics was exhausted intellectually and morally.
You know what happened next. The Callaghan government lost a vote of confidence in the House (dramatically by one vote). A general election followed which was won by Margaret Thatcher's new model Conservative party and – not overnight but over a period of several years – confidence was restored not just in the economic future but in the possibility of effective government. British politics was not dead after all: it had simply sunk into a defeatist depression. The Left which had been broken and demoralised first by its experience in government and then by the public renunciation of its trades union wing which had propelled the Thatcher Tories into power, now had to reinvent itself.
First came the Social Democrats with their extreme Centrism, who were determined to 'break the mould' of party politics – which is to say, replace Labour and challenge the Tories' all out commitment to free markets. A lot of initial excitement was generated by this development, but it subsided into a footnote as the Thatcherite spirit of the 1980s swept it aside. Finally, Tony Blair's plagiarism of the Tory philosophy brought Labour back into the game. And so, confidence in recognisable party politics returned. What it took was nerve and fresh ideas. There must be a lesson there.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

China is being urged to explain 'secret basement' under its London 'mega-embassy'
China is being urged to explain 'secret basement' under its London 'mega-embassy'

Daily Mail​

time5 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

China is being urged to explain 'secret basement' under its London 'mega-embassy'

has ordered China to explain why it has redacted blueprints for its 'mega-embassy' set to be built in London, amid fears the building's basement rooms could be converted into 'spy dungeons'. As Housing Secretary, Rayner has given Beijing two weeks to either provide unredacted plans, according to the FT. If China does not do this, the deputy prime minister has ordered it to 'identify precisely and comprehensively' the withheld parts and explain why the floorplan for the basement and other areas of the Royal Mint Court development have been 'greyed out'. According to Rayner's letter to the Chinese embassy, she highlighted that two suites of anonymous rooms and a tunnel were redacted 'for security reasons'. Other buildings on the plans were also partly greyed out, including the Cultural Exchange Building and Embassy House. It also highlights a Home Office request for a 'hard perimeter' around the embassy that may represent a 'material amendment to the application that would require further consultation'. The letter asked for further information in order for the Housing Secretary to make a 'lawful determination' on whether to allow the site to go up, adding that 'no view has been formed yet.' The new embassy, if built, would sit opposite the Tower of London in the former Royal Mint and would be China's largest in Europe. Critics fear the site will become the centre of increased espionage operations and may be used to harass Chinese dissidents. The US has already expressed 'deep concern' over the project, as it sits close to the City of London, home to some of the world's largest financial institutions. MPs in the Netherlands have also raised similar concerns. The site was sold to China by the UK government in 2018 for £255million. A full decision on whether the embassy will be allowed to be built will be made by September. It comes after diplomatic sources warned the Mail on Sunday that the new embassy will have on-site accommodation for more than 200 intelligence officers. A source said: 'There will effectively be a student-style campus for spies in the heart of the City. 'And those spy dungeons are so deep that the sensitive cables are virtually at head height.' The MoS can also reveal that the embassy plans exempt a 'cultural exchange' section from 'inspection and verification' by UK authorities. A US security source said 'cultural interests/exchange' is a 'euphemism for intelligence and security services', adding: 'It's where they often stuff their security and intelligence staff, among other diplomats. 'And if it's a "cultural" centre/space, why do they always declare it off limits in planning documents?' Ex-Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said: 'Everywhere there is a mega embassy... Chinese state-sponsored, trans-national repression of those who have fled the Chinese state or who criticise it grows dramatically. 'It's simple: a bigger embassy has more spies and more repression.' Shadow Levelling Up Secretary Kevin Hollinrake said Labour had been 'caught red-handed trying to ram through this sinister embassy' in a 'desperate attempt to woo the Chinese Communist Party to bail out their failing economic policies'. He added: 'It is shocking Labour want to sign a legal document that will ban British officials checking what is being built in the embassy building. This is yet another surrender document from a Labour Government that puts foreign interests over British interests.' 'The so-called cultural exchange will clearly be used by Chinese spies and communist bullies to further their political ends.'

Rate fillip for dismal housing: Reeves must ring the changes to get Britain building, says ALEX BRUMMER
Rate fillip for dismal housing: Reeves must ring the changes to get Britain building, says ALEX BRUMMER

Daily Mail​

time5 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Rate fillip for dismal housing: Reeves must ring the changes to get Britain building, says ALEX BRUMMER

During the run-up to the July 2024 election, economic journalists were invited along for an informal chat with the future Chancellor Rachel Reeves. She argued that growth would be a priority for a Labour government and a key part of the programme would be to get Britain building again. The UK has been poor at delivering infrastructure and in the past housing targets have been hard to meet. Tearing up planning rules was always going to be difficult because of Britain's long history of Nimbyism. More than a year into power, and with reforms to planning rules falling into place, brisk progress was to be expected. But the S&P report from UK construction managers for July doesn't offer optimism. It shows the steepest fall in activity since May 2020. The biggest drop came from residential, putting the Government's target of building 1.5m homes in this Parliament in jeopardy. Construction firms cited site delays, fewer new orders and weak consumer confidence as factors. We shouldn't be surprised. Interest rates have proved sticky despite four decreases since Labour took office. The Bank of England is expected to offer a quarter of a percentage point reduction to 4 per cent today. Bad tax policy has played a part. Employment costs are up because of the employers' National Insurance Contributions rise. And the abolition of tax relief on stamp duty at the bottom rung of the ladder makes the aspiration to be part of a property-owning democracy harder. To add to the woes of those seeking a construction revolution, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has joined the Nimbys – he objects to Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner giving permission to four councils to build over allotments. That's bad for working people, for homegrown produce and the nation's health. Another unforced error. America first The fascinating aspect of commodity trader and miner Glencore's decision to stick with a London listing is its reasoning. Moving to New York, the favoured option, involved 'significant costs'. Its chief executive Gary Nagle might also have pointed out that, with some rare exceptions such as smart chip maker Arm and building group CRH, American investors have not greeted the British arrivals with hosannas. Nagle also rued the fact that there was no certainty that £36billion Glencore would be granted entry to the S&P 500 because of coolness to foreigners. The loss of Glencore would have been serious for London, with its strong history of hosting natural resources companies. BHP retreated to Sydney and if activists had their way Rio Tinto might have done the same. Glencore would have been a less significant departure than AstraZeneca or Shell, both of which have flirted with the idea. Not all is green on the other side of the Atlantic, where AstraZeneca is vowing to invest £37billion. Overnight, the US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr halted production of mRNA vaccines on a whim. Indeed, Astra's first-to-market Covid jab was slow to be approved in the US, where 'America first' vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna were preferred. It is not just US President Donald Trump and the Republicans who willingly bash overseas investors. President Barack Obama humiliated oil giant BP over the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 – leading to tens of billions of pounds of losses for UK investors. Glencore's vote of confidence in Britain might be seen by cynics as a distraction from a disappointing performance in the first half. The miner is responding with a pledge to cut $1billion in costs. Never underestimate the odds of it roaring back on robust trading operations. Oven ready It was predictable that supermarket Morrisons would have to jettison assets to pay down the debt it acquired when it fell under the private ownership of Clayton, Dubilier & Rice in 2023. That is unlikely to be enough in a highly competitive grocery market. Prices are generally higher than at rivals and it may require a fresh look at costly specialist counters and whether the vertical model, from farm to customer, is sustainable. That would be a pity.

Pension deals boost profits at Legal & General as employers look to offload defined benefit schemes
Pension deals boost profits at Legal & General as employers look to offload defined benefit schemes

Daily Mail​

time5 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Pension deals boost profits at Legal & General as employers look to offload defined benefit schemes

Britain's biggest money manager Legal & General saw profits jump as it cashed in on a boom in buyouts of UK pension funds. The buyouts, which are also known as pension risk transfers (PRTs), are when businesses pay financial firms to take over the running of legacy pension schemes. It is one of L&G's most lucrative divisions, with the FTSE 100 firm landing £3.4billion worth of PRT deals in the first six months of the year, up from £1.5billion in 2024. It helped the group, which manages over £1 trillion in assets, make a profit of £859million for the period, 6 per cent higher than last year. L&G boss Antonio Simoes said it planned to expand further into PRT, saying it was eyeing £42billion worth of deals. Employers are keen to offload defined benefit pension schemes, most of them long closed to current employees but which still incur costs. The surge in PRT deals also comes despite Chancellor Rachel Reeves introducing measures to try to encourage employers to keep running defined benefit schemes in the hope they will invest in areas that boost the UK economy. So lucrative is the pension transfer market it has attracted new rivals to L&G. In July, Athora, a European insurer owned by US private equity giant Apollo Global, snapped up Pension Insurance Corp, one of the UK's biggest players in PRT, for £5.7billion. And last week Canadian outfit Brookfield swooped on LSE-listed retirement saving specialist Just Group with a £2.4billion bid. But Simoes said L&G was 'firmly on track' to hit targets and reiterated plans to hand £5billion to its shareholders over three years. The shares dropped 2 per cent, or 5.3p, to 256.2p as analysts were disappointed that its solvency ratio, a key measure of financial strength, had dropped to 217 per cent from 223 per cent. L&G's push into the pensions market comes after Simoes warned Britons were not saving enough for retirement and called on the Government to lower the age of auto-enrolment in workplace schemes to 18, from 22. 'We really need to tackle how much we as individuals and employers are contributing,' he told the Daily Mail. Last month, the Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, announced a review of the state pension age alongside a wider probe into retirement savings.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store