Author here. Noticed a lot of traffic from this post - so thanks. Thanks especially for all these thoughtful comments. Just dropping in to say I appreciate the attention - and am grateful that most posters here don't seem to mind that I'm unable to draw hard conclusions in my original article. I also like the posts here that point towards the fact that atomisation maybe has had something to do with things (as well as the hardening of inequalities and etc.) Interesting! Perhaps it was more possible to share jokes in 2003 than it is now? (The concept that jokes either punch up or punch down seems an indication of that... Feels quite recent to me. And What if the intention isn't to hit anyone, really, just to make each other laugh?)
Anyway, to respond to a couple of other things on here. I'm not really a comedian. Sorry! I do work in the publishing industry, so while I can't prove my ideas about publishers being nervous, I would hope I have a reasonable insight and instinct.
Thanks for writing the piece in the first place – I thought it was a wonderfully self-reflective and mature look back at the book, why you created it, and how times have changed.
As a mid 40something in the UK, formerly a creative writer, I have experienced exactly the same shifting attitudes as yourself. The primary reasons, as many have said, are probably the fact that people are more polarised in their thinking and less versed in nuance, but also that the whole of the UK has become a bit crap really, so the joke’s a bit too on the nail.
For what it’s worth, I thought the original idea for the book was pretty funny, and I still do even now! Keep doing what you do – create things from the heart, you can’t predict the future and you can’t cover for everyone’s reactions.
I remember Crap Towns, I loved it! And the Idler! Which had an entire section on jokes for which punchlines had been half-forgotten.
Great and thoughtful reflection piece too.
I’d like to add a few other ideas into the mix as for some reason I’m uncomfortable with the idea “you can’t say that anymore” that I wonder if it’s become a thought-terminating cliche.
Firstly, I suspect there’s always been two forms of puritanism: one with power and one without power. We didn’t historically hear much from puritans without power (famously some shipped off elsewhere and founded an empire). And the ones in power? Well a fish doesn’t know it’s wet…and all the other sods now have X accounts and podcasts!
The second point is to reflect on the fact that British humour is a curious thing. You noticed yourself that satire may have curiously little real world bite.
Maybe there’s been a category error: humour isn’t a mechanism for social change, it’s a coping strategy (I live in Luton, not Hull, TFFT). Or worse mechanism for social control. In my brief time in the Uk I noticed that “banter” often chipped at eccentricities or quirks, and served to bring people into line with group orthodoxy.
In short, and to mirror your uncertainties, I’m just not so sure it’s as clear cut that free speech has been curtailed somehow. Or that humour was ever about just having a laugh.
Taking offense when none was tendered is a special kind of social malfeasance that has gained popularity among the idle and boorish class of recent years. I appreciate it as a facile outward indication of low character and questionable intellect.
Well that may be. But I'm talking more about differences between 2003 and now. Regardless of cancel culture etc, there is a physical possibility of reply/response now, that did not exist in 2003. Perhaps the two things are related?
Went through the entire article expecting imminently to get to the paragraph where you perceive that Crap Towns was a mistake because it makes fun of the poor, and that the reason it couldn't be published now is that poverty in the UK is far worse than it was 20 years ago.
Loved the fact that this post didn't go where I expected it to (or at least, didn't remain there). That a book like this probably wouldn't be published today, or would be less popular today, is a point that has been made many times by many people, about many different books, TV shows, jokes, etc. But the author actually moves on from there; the observation is that even in his own opinion, the same joke isn't funny today — in fact, the equivalent thing being done today just looks “grubby”.
So it's something deeper than the usual “political correctness” debate: the question really is, what is it about the world today that trumps the hallowed British traditions of celebrating failure, of moaning, of affectionate self-mockery? Why isn't the joke funny any more, or why doesn't the mocking seem affectionate?
(He points at the malaise that exists today—it was only funny when there was some hope—but I'm not sure that's the only answer…)
Often when someone, especially a comedian, complains about “political correctness”, what they actually mean is: nobody is laughing at the same joke I told 20 years ago
Sensibilities change. The sense of what is and isn’t punching down changes. Even the appetite for punching down changes.
People who whine about “PC” always pretend like it’s the death of comedy or speech or whatever, and yet… there are younger people building great careers!
And yes, there is a real worrying erosion of free speech - but 98% these people could keep saying exactly what they’ve been saying - they’re just not getting the laughs they think they’re entitled to.
> Often when someone, especially a comedian, complains about “political correctness”, what they actually mean is: nobody is laughing at the same joke I told 20 years ago
Don't rephrase others' sentiments to suit your own narrative. Soothsayers are bullshitters.
When comedians complain about political correctness, there is no alternate meaning. They are upset that they can't tell the same jokes they told 20 years ago, to the same audiences from 20 years ago that continue to enjoy them, because external forces mob, heckle, and harass them so they cannot serve their customers...
...which conveniently provides opportunities for those younger people to "build great careers," by eliminating all legacy competition.
In any other context it'd be driving the local kebab shop owner out of town because someone with influence wants to open a salad bar in its place.
Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved it's not. It's just a critical mass of people having opinions you don't like and voicing those opinions.
If the market of ideas decides your ideas are not valuable anymore for whatever reason you're going to suffer what scarcity feels like.
> Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved
Last time I checked the mob called for these people lives to be destroyed by asking for them to lose all possibility of ever having a job and threatening anyone who would employ them or support them of dire repercussions while slapping themselves in the back for what a positive impact they made.
The fact is that many people actually follow through on their desire to boycott something, to the point that it’s not a trivial branch of the population.
Taken in the fullness of its meaning, it very much shows that peoples positions and sentiments have changed.
Should we be proud that a non trivial branch of the population is apparently wedging their power to silence another part who would like to say things they don't like?
Personnaly, that doesn't sound very healthy to me.
I mean, no one cared when the shoe was on the foot. America has an information system that has one section that disconnected its viewers from other views. For decades now.
Putting pressure on people in order to destroy someone life definitely is violence, yes, especially considering the point is preventing someone from having the capacity to have a livelihood. Pushed to its logical conclusion, if it worked perfectly, it's more or less murder (or ostrasism if you want to be nice but as some vocal opponents are openly implying murder would be okay I feel founded in saying it is murder).
Violence is not limited to physical violence. The fact that this apparently eludes some is probably the most worrying part of the current American trend and I think in no small part responsible for the sorry state of the country.
Except of course, it really shouldn’t be funny according to anybody the sole fact that somebody is gay. About what most of these “comedians” arguing for. Even according to the massive amount of disinformation in this topic.
I don’t know why the author included that in the article when the distaste for self-loathing humour can have completely different causes. And also can be quite good reasons, like you cannot really do anything against those, not against the bad environment into which you’re born, and also not against being gay. But that would be against the fabricated outrage, which is enjoyed by many. Probably even by the author.
Just to mention one example that these can have reasons not suggested by disinformation (because for example, it would be against their sources): in Hungary, joking about corruption is dead. Completely. The reason is twofold: Orban stole about 30% of the whole economy in the past 15 years, and that doesn’t include the stolen cash. Also people who care, couldn’t do anything, even when some of us tried. It’s like being gay (in this context), it’s totally out of your control, and there is no chance to change it in any way. Now that I moved to somewhere with healthier democracy, I’m quite happy that I see jokes about corruption again.
comedians no longer complain about that, contemporary comedy is merely repeating the commonly accepted societal mantrae, and laughing at and trivialising opposition or criticism to or of it.
Wit, satire, and criticism are still funny, but aren't permissible.
The same phenomenon exists when people talk about the movie Blazing Saddles.
It's transgressive content worked because it was satirizing "wholesome" Wild West shows, holding up a funhouse mirror to their less-obvious absurdities and racist aspects. It was so successful, its targets don't exist anymore.
I think the difference is between, let's say, Ricky Gervais making a joke about a little boy with cancer, and Ricky Gervais making a joke about THAT little boy with cancer right there in Seat 7G. Everyone now knows these crap towns are dying.
If someone looks a bit pale and sickly, it's often considered fair game to make fun of their appearance (eat some vegetables, get some exercise etc)... Whereas if they have severe health problems it's no longer tasteful. This fact has not changed, it's basic human decency. The situation is what's changed.
This is a good question..it just occurred to me that perhaps its because its so much easier for the people who would be the target of the joke to answer back now?
Social media gives the possibility of instant reply, whereas if you publish a book in 2003 called 'crap towns' how can the so-called chavs answer back? Publish their own book? Write to the local paper?
So its a side effect of how we can all hear each other better now (for better or for worse)
Oh, that's insightful. Author could have encountered a light form of elite convergence 20 years ago when interacting with fellow writers and journalists, who probably didn't live in the blighted areas, and could take the joke on behalf of their cities. Being from a crap town is fine if you're don't live in the crappy part of town.
I'll add that the decade-long austerity measures let people know that it's actual class warfare, and it's no longer a laughing matter as it was in 2003 when it seemed fixable. Now it's clear the people in charge are not interested in fixing anything. A joke about someone's health situation is received better if the condition is treatable, but less so of they are terminal.
> "I mean: incredibly, governments and local councils didn’t read my work and decide to mend their ways. The UK did not get better. Instead we got more than a decade of Tory austerity, Brexit, and all the accompanying neglect and bad feeling."
This bit made me laugh.
I read the original book when it came out and it was funny and - in some ways - true. I was born and bought up in the town ranked #4 in the original list (Hythe), but when I read it I was living in Hackney (#10 on the list). So I could shove the book in the faces of my friends and colleagues and say: look at me! I've moved up in the world!
The reason I laughed is because around the time of publication (2003?) I was working in the Government's Social Exclusion Unit. Prior to that I had spent time in the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit; later on I'd go on to work for the Lyons Inquiry. Part of my work included meeting people, and one thing I took away from those meetings would be how incredibly proud people could be about their neighbourhoods and towns: however deeply sunk into poverty the area was, they still cherished the place. The other thing I learned was, more often than not, those people often had good ideas about how to fix some of the issues - local solutions for local problems. All they needed was a little help and support from authorities to get those solutions off the ground.
So when the author claims that "governments" didn't read the book - some of us did. We enjoyed it, and we tried to do things to help people make their towns just a little bit less crap. Sadly it wasn't enough, but if people don't try then nothing will ever get fixed.
I was curious - what was the angle on Hythe in the book?
These days Hythe seems like a posh seaside town with a Waitrose, a nice canalside park, a cute steam railway, lots of boutiquey shops and cafes, etc.
I know a lot of places in the area (e.g. Folkestone, Margate, Whitstable) have all been heavily "gentrified" in the last few years, but I sort of assumed Hythe was always this way? Is that not the case?
And even allowing for a bit of gentrification, it seems wild in 2025 to select it for a "crap towns" award ahead of somewhere like Dover or New Romney.
Crap Towns called Hythe "...quite possibly the most spirit-crushingly tedious town in Kent." and "...the place that makes nearby Folkestone look like Las Vegas."
As someone who grew up in Hythe in the 80s and 90s I'd point out that the Rotunda was a far cry from Vegas.
I worked at Portex back in the 80s. After a shift at that factory it was a pleasure to get home, slip on the shell suit and spend the evening drinking and discussing minor, mindless vandalism opportunities. I moved away in the end (to a squat in London) because I knew, deep down, there had to be something better for me out there.
That sounds to me as a product of something I see a lot of in society in general. Governments think hoi polloi are stupid, and they are clever, and therefore solutions imposed from above are superior to local solutions.
I think that's a misdiagnosis. The suggestions of the "hoi polloi" are obvious, and would solve the problem. Government prefers instead a solution that is both cheaper, so they can instead direct funds to things that they prefer, and more indirect, so they can route funds through friends and family.
The government's main effort is to complicate or denounce the "obvious" solutions. It's why they put so little effort into devising the programs that actually get rolled out; instead they just copy them directly from some non-profit that the government has been indirectly and almost entirely financing, and is directed by The Honorable Lord or Lady Somebody's Cousin.
Twenty years ago, I think there was still a sense that we were collectively laughing with each other about the dullness of small towns. We all had the same shops - Woolworths, Dixons, Our Price, BHS. We all had a leisure centre that looked like everyone else's leisure centre. Some towns were better off than others, some towns had parts that you were better off avoiding after dark, but the majority of towns belonged to the same broad spectrum of bland mediocrity.
Today, I think it's clear who would be being laughed at by whom. The fates of places have so radically diverged that we no longer have a sense of collective identity. All of the places listed in Crap Towns are now unrecognisable, for better or worse. Those familiar shops are now gone; in some places they have been replaced by artisan bakeries and pop-up boutiques, while in others they have been replaced by charity shops or nothing at all. Half the leisure centres have shut and we all know which half.
The upper middle class might have become more humourless and puritanical, but I think that's a subconscious self-defence mechanism, a manifestation of noblesse oblige without real obligation. The working class are too angry to laugh and certainly aren't willing to be laughed at. We all know that we're teetering on the brink of a populist wave, but no-one in a position of power seems willing or able to do anything about it.
This is what I was going to say. Back then, a book like this would have been perceived as the UK making fun of itself. Now it’s perceived as being cruel to those less fortunate.
I think it’s worth putting into context that the economy was doing great in the era this book was first published and huge progress was being made with things like homelessness, inequality, and poverty. It felt like the country had turned a corner from the lows of the 80s.
Since then, we’ve had the global financial crisis, local councils being bankrupted, and a huge rise in homelessness and inequality. The rich have more and the poor have less.
If you published that book today, the contents might be the same, but the story it tells would be quite different.
One problem may be that the UK is very London-centric in a way that is markably different from France being Paris-centric.
Just my perception (and I know London much better than Paris) is that in France, if you are not in Paris you are seen as "living in the 'province'", but politicians still fight for farmers there etc. In contrast, in the UK, on the surface there is the appearance that yes, London is the capital and more important, but that people are trying to do initiatives like moving part of the BBC to Glasgow and Manchester - to decentralize a bit.
Yet the wealth concentrated in Greater London and its commutable satellites - as contrasted with the rest of the country - is many orders of magnitude bigger, also due to the financial industry there.
If you live in Knightsbridge and commute to your trader job in Canary Wharf you will never see how derelict Portsmouth or Blackpool really are (the only time I went to Portsmouth, I recall some people sitting in the street with nothing to do).
True, but "civil servant" is a very broad term. A majority of civil servants - a very large majority outside of London - work in Operational Delivery. They work in JobCentres or prisons, they do clerical work in the DVLA or the Passport Office, but they have no actual involvement in or influence over policy. The centre of power is still overwhelmingly in London.
Meh. As someone who's in the opposite situation (familiar with France and not with the UK), I get the feeling that what you're saying applies here, too.
It's funny you should talk about farmers. Yes, politicians say they'll move mountains for them. Yet, in practice, farmers are still barely making ends meet. And we also have the EU on top, which is run by bureaucrats even more removed from the actual "bas peuple". Just look at the whole situation with the Mercosur treaty.
Politicians keep yapping about how ICE cars are the devil and should be banned. After all, you can take a bike or ride the metro, right? It's not like anybody lives outside Paris or its close "satellites". It's very easy when you don't even have an idea how much a ticket costs, since you're carted around by police escort on the people's dime.
We've also had a push for "decentralization", with all kinds of hilariously bad results.
I don't know about Portsmouth nor Blackpool, but I ride around France a fair bit, and outside the biggest cities, many small towns have empty, run-down centers, with mayors fighting to get stores and whatnot back. But people simply move out for lack of jobs.
What has actually changed is that thirty years ago, the ratio between house prices and average earnings was about 4. By twenty years ago it had doubled and, most importantly, it has been at that level ever since with no real sign of dropping [1].
This is a structural change. We now have at least one, and perhaps two, generations of people who can't really alter their economic situation through hard work. That's the classic recipe for populism to thrive.
Interest rates were much higher back then which accounts for most of the change. The base rate was around 6% through most of the nineties (it hit 15% at its peak).
Right to Buy does not explain why the same trend is visible all over the Anglosphere, from Dublin, Ireland, to Wellington, New Zealand, to Sydney, Australia, to Vancouver, Canada.
The people don’t want housing built near them and the politicians listened. Lower supply than demand for decades leads to steadily rising prices. If you want to see the alternative look to Tokyo, Austin or Seattle. Build so much housing that the returns on investment are low and people can afford housing.
To me the biggest problem is the buy-to-let market, which means anything affordable is snapped up in seconds by people with money to invest, rather than people who just want a home to live in.
I think it's mainly a symptom of the unusualy low interest rates over the last 20 years: people have invested in residential property not because they particularly want to be landlords, but because it's perceived as the easiest way to get a better return on your money than a savings account that pays near zero interest.
I know of more than one person who's now looking to sell their rental property because they found out the hard way that "landlord" is actually a job title, not just the name of their savings account, that properties need to be maintained and that letting agents will find a way to swallow the vast majority of any profits.
I also know more than one person living in rented accommodation with appalling maintenance lapses. One had a shoddy roof repair last year which left the gutter missing. When the next rainstorm caused water to cascade down the outside wall and flow in above the back door, the letting agent had the nerve to shrug and say "old properties do that".
Another had a rotten wooden lintel above a street door scraped out, filled with expanding foam and painted over.
Ireland is never a good example of these trends being global. We're right next to the UK and basically copy their policies on a few years lag.
I think that it's important to note that the UK, Ireland and California have similarly destructive planning processes which end up ensuring that only property with high margins gets built.
Austin? I thought my house was outrageously overpriced in 2014 when I bought it — compared to every other major city in Texas it was 2x/ft. It's tripled in "value" since then; new builds are quadruple. The rest of Texas is only up ~50% in the same period.
I vaguely recall a criticism of neoliberalism related to the emphasis on home ownership. Something about policy, homes being the primary vehicle for building wealth (vs say pensions), etc. And, ultimately, begetting NIMBYism.
I'm just repeating stuff I've heard. A lot of it feels like unintended consequences.
The NIMBYism part seems pretty clear.
If others have ideas, sources, rebuttals, please share.
I couldn't disagree more! I think the housing cost issue is pure supply and demand, we have a country which doesn't like to permit building and an increasing population due to (legal) immigration.
I will bash Maggie all day, for her refusal to effectively manage industrial decline in Britain, for her boneheaded belief that a top-ranking economy could exist solely on services, and, most of all, for her idiotic squandering of our North Sea oil wealth. But, Right to Buy was a rare hit for me. I see it as having been a forward-looking policy which aimed to reward people for work -- play the game, and you too can have a tangible slice of society in the form of your own home to possess and care for as you wish. The problem is that we didn't replace the social housing lost to RtB.
> The problem is that we didn't replace the social housing lost to RtB.
We didn't fail that - Councils wanted to build more social housing with RtB and Thatcher viciously destroyed those programs. She created RtB not because it was a "forward-looking policy aimed to reward people for work" but because she hated the social security apparatus and wanted to destroy it. And she was never covert nor apologetic about it.
“for the UK as a whole, the WID found that the top 0.1% had share of total wealth double between 1984 and 2013, reaching 9%.”
“If the wealth of the super rich continues to grow at the rate it has been, by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than the whole UK GDP.”
> by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than the whole UK GDP
Those things are measured in different units, which automatically throws doubt on the ability of the source to be statistically rigorous in any other way.
One is measured in pounds. The other is measured in pounds. Seems pretty comparable.
If you're being deliberately stupid you could pretend it's a comparison between pounds and pounds per year, but everyone who is at least minimally literate in the subject understands that "GDP" here means "the amount of value produced in a year".
They own a lot of UK property and land, both directly and through trusts. And given the statistic that the top 50 families control half of the UK’s total wealth, I’m not sure how you can say it wouldn’t have an impact on either tax revenues or property prices. A land tax of 0.1% would have a staggering impact on tax revenues.
It might affect agricultural land prices. Indeed that's at the heart of the farming IHT controversy (farming land is effectively overpriced relative to its business or utility value, because of its previously far too generous IHT treatment). It won't affect the price of houses, because it's not 200 rich families hogging the supply.
50 families controlling half the country's wealth is a bit of a stretch. The top 50 individuals have an average net worth of maybe $4-5Bn, giving a total wealth of $250Bn. Half the country's _land_ seems more likely?
Meanwhile there are literally millions of £1M+ houses owned by relatively ordinary people, millions of Boomers and some older GenX with at least £0.5m in their pension funds, and so on.
Land tax of 0.1% would be a good thing, but it'd be equivalent to putting about a third on council tax (£1k/year on a £1m home, currently council tax is about £3k in that bracket I think?). A useful step certainly but not revolutionary.
It looks to me like Equality Trust put a fair amount of thought and research into their website, did their best to paint a picture of what's going on in the UK by using multiple reputable sources, and tried to explain why that picture is dire, not just for those with a net worth that rounds to £0 but for the nation at large, with several dozen citations to back that up.
Thank God we have this one number from some Credit Suisse marketing material to invalidate all of that.
Gini is a very rough tool. It’s trying to describe the shape of a curve with a single number. It describes the average inequality between any two people.
The curve can be skewed without the Gini number changing significantly if, say, the bottom 99% became increasingly more equal in income/wealth by becoming poorer overall, transferring income/wealth to the upper 1%.
Perception in solicit is we should take people in £200k or £800k a year a lot more and leaver those with £100m in assets alone.
We’re up in arms when people block roads to highlight problems with climate change, but when millionaires get worried they’ll have less of a loophole with tax, we’re supporting it in droves.
Highly unlikely because the rich are now just running away from UK pulling all their cash with them; it's likely that leftists will get what they want - reduction of wealth inequality - just not in the way that pleases them: with the cash being simply gone.
Sounds good to me. The problem is the rich don't actually take their money and fuck off, they just keep owning wealth here forever. I expect that won't change until the UK gets an actual leftist government, which seems unlikely to happen in the next 10 years.
Switzerland and Afghanistan have an almost equal Gini coefficient.
My point is: the Gini coefficient might indicate what your country's income distribution looks like, it however does not tell anything about actual life conditions.
Switzerland has 98 days of maternity leave,
Afghanistan has 90(+15) days of maternity leave
(Wikipedia even puts it at #1 worldwide with two years,
but that may be incorrect?).
In Switzerland, women have been able to vote since 1971.
In Afghanistan, women have been able to vote since 1919
(but interrupted during the *previous* Taliban regime).
The Human Development Index, on the other hand, does. Switzerland is #1 at 0.967, improving at 0.25% per year. Afghanistan is #182 at 0.462 and dropping, the UK is a respectable #15 at 0.940 (between Finland and New Zealand) and also improving.
Sure but that’s a bit silly. Switzerland’s GDP is something like 50x that of Afghanistan. UK GDP in 2025 is much higher than in 2003, too. Of course not 5000%
Yes, and and increases in the price of essentials (food, housing, utilities) have a greater effect on livings standards of the worse off and are not captured in the numbers.
The value of grants paid from central government to local government have fallen by over 80%. In 2005, the poorest local authorities received most of their funding from central government; today, they're dependent on council tax and business rates for the vast majority of their income. During that time, demand for social care has vastly increased, disproportionately so in the poorest local authorities, eating away at the already shrinking resources of local authorities.
The result of those cuts have been drastic for people living in poorer communities, particularly the poorest members of those communities. They quite justifiably feel abandoned by society. Youth clubs and children's centres, social work, homelessness provision, subsidised bus routes, parks and libraries have all been cut to the bone. None of that is captured in the Gini coefficient, but it's felt acutely by the people who rely on those services.
The wealthy are largely unaffected by this, because they live in local authorities that were never particularly reliant on central government funding and because they never really relied on council services anyway. For the very poorest, the impact of austerity is often dominated by one big failure of provision - being stuck in unsuitable temporary accommodation for months or years because there's no social housing available, being denied support for a disabled child etc. For the majority, it's just a slow but pervasive erosion of their quality of life - their kids have nowhere to go after school, their street is full of potholes, the bus they take into town has been cut from four an hour to one an hour, their back alley is full of rubbish because the council can't afford to deal with fly-tipping.
I think the argument is less that inequality has increased overall, and more that the country is increasingly stratified by geography - with greater concentrations of wealth in the South East relative to the rest of the country.
This is especially true in formerly undesirable areas of London (e.g. Hackney, #10 on the 2003 list) and towns within commuting distance of London (e.g. Hythe, #3).
Presumably this is due to the gradual shift to a London-centric services economy as well as the increasingly ludicrous price of houses in Central London.
“About the same” is not “the same”, and there are tipping points. The gini coefficient has still seen a decent bump.
But anyway, gini is a coarse measure. Look at the chart below that, showing income percentages going steadily upwards for the top 10 and 1%.
Most worryingly, look at the decline of the middle 40%. A healthy middle class keeps countries stable. You need a good chunk of society who feel like the system works for them.
And it’s not just perceptions, it’s fundamental stuff. A teacher could afford a house in the 90s; they can’t now. For all the boomers bang on about mobile phones and flat screen TVs, in the end those are luxuries compared to clean, secure accommodation. The days of getting a mortgage on one income, or having access to nice council housing are gone.
Not sure about homelessness rising versus the 90s. Possibly the rate is similar to 1998. I looked at ourworldindata, but their graph only goes back to 2010. Wikipedia has wildly different figures from the charities Shelter and Crisis because they're counting different things. It then gives government figures: just over 100,000 in 1998, 135,000 in 2003, 40,000 in 2009 and 2010 (so ourworldindata gives a chart that begins with this low), and "record levels, with 104,510 people" in 2023, though that's less than 135,000 so the way in which this is a record is not specified.
In summary, it goes up and down a lot, is counted in different ways, was (counted to be) far lower in 2010 (two years after the financial crisis?), but pretty much the same as now in 1998, although the kind of people who have an interest in saying "homelessness has hit record levels" are saying that homelessness has hit record levels.
This makes me nostalgic for 1991 when the Big Issue was first published, and there were songs like Gypsy Woman by Crystal Waters and Walking Down Madison by Kirsty MacColl.
You’re looking at the wrong numbers. Wealth, not income. Wealth inequality is through the roof. Poverty is through the roof. More people using food banks than ever. More people on zero hours and low paid contracts.
If you think the problem with the UK is that rich people are leaving, then you have no idea about the reality of living in the UK. Visiting some of the towns in this book would be a starting point.
> If you think the problem with the UK is that rich people are leaving
I said it's a problem, not the problem. And it's not just the ultra-rich who are leaving, but vast swathes of the middle classes. Many poor people would leave too if they had the means.
You and the other replier seem to think I'm defending the status quo. How on earth did I imply that? You think I think it's a good thing for the entire country to get poorer?
"Wealth inequality, while high, is still roughly where it was in 2007"
This is not whats represented in the source you cited?
In the graph titled "Top 10% and Bottom 50% Wealth Shares in The UK 1900-2020" you can clearly see the wealth owned by the top 10% increased from 54.4% in 2007 to 57% in 2020 and likely even higher now 5 years later.
Yes, that's only a 2.6% increase. I don't think it's unfair to call that "roughly where it was".
In fact, according to that chart wealth inequality today is much lower than it was in the 1970s, although it increased throughout the 1990s.
The same link shows that the UK has unremarkable wealth inequality by the standards of developed countries: we're bang in the middle of the OECD, with lower levels of wealth inequality than Sweden, Denmark, Finland or Norway. (That's funny, I thought the Nordics were egalitarian utopias?)
I'm not saying that wealth inequality is low, or that it's not a problem. I'm merely responding to the claim that "wealth inequality is through the roof", which I take to mean that wealth inequality has increased substantially in recent years. As far as I can tell that's not true.
Personally I think we need more economic growth, not more taxes. We already have the highest taxes since WWII, soon to be the highest taxes in the entire history of the UK, and all it's doing is strangling the economy and making productive people flee.
Look, I'm not gonna dispute that the tax system is messed up in the UK (Student loans, the cutting off of credits at 100k and the lack of a real property tax) but fundamentally as a society ye blew mineral wealth on tax cuts then removed yourselves from a giant trading bloc, so the lack of services and higher tax rates are unsurprising.
Ultimately though, tax on income should be lowered and tax on property should be proportionately increased, given that property is the source of much wealth and is very difficult to hide or move.
The statistics they provide are the result of self-reporting by people they interview, and they themselves talk at length about the challenges and errors that may exist in their data and sampling: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...
I think this is inherently going to be a poor way to get an accurate representation of wealth inequality, because if you ask a bunch of really wealthy people worth $100mm+ how much money and assets they have, and especailly when these are very privacy focused people, they're going to either:
1. decline to respond in any way
2. if they do respond, they are very likely to misrepresent and downplay their wealth
3. very likely to have wealth that isn't UK based and therefore wouldn't disclose it to anyone for any reason
4. have a lot of very valuable things, like owning a private businesses, that may not necessarily have a price tag attached to them, and so therefore hard to represent when asked "how much money do you have?"
even though reports throughout years would always have this same issue, i think the problem is that as wealth for the 0.1% rises, that rise is not going to get well represented or collected
Go get an airbnb in a poor suburb for a few weeks and live there, talk to people, and ask them if they think they're more or less equal with other Britons in the last 15 years. Show them your Gini coefficient and see what they think of it. Ask them if they feel the income distribution has been flattened in a way that favours them.
The rich people living here for the last 40 years all leaving does not bother most people. In fact, it's cause for celebration. They're leeches who don't pay tax on their piles of cash held in off-shore accounts - they just drive up the price of everything, particularly property. Meanwhile there are plenty of people trying to get here from the US to replace them who understand the purpose of capital is to put it to work and create jobs, not stare at it on a screen.
Your kind of thinking is not unusual within centre right politics, but it's also why nationalist populism is a credible threat. Farage is currently favourite with most bookmakers to be next PM because of the kind of defence of Tory policy you're making. Please think on that.
The major change to income levels has been the massive increase in minimum wage. This removes the incentive to work hard and get skills because they aren’t valued, especially outside of London.
The other major change is the continual divergence of wealth.
If you are a 20 year old living near London you can get a crap paying junior job and live rent free for 5 years with parents while you save a 100k deposit (which using things like LISAs).
By the time you’re in your early 30s you have a decent paying job, have met a partner with a similar income, and can buy a house and repeat the cycle.
If you don’t you get the same job but have to pay rent to someone else’s parents, and you never get that deposit, so you’re trapped in the rent cycle.
Shocking how similar the fates of the US and the UK are similar. I’m in my 30s and the divergence is starting to become extremely stark between people who had middle class financially supportive parents and those who didn’t.
Kids who’s parents who are well off but wouldn’t pay for college is an entire cohort who are functionally locked out of the housing market. For most of my generation, there is little opportunity, only gatekeeping.
> Kids [whose] parents who are well off but wouldn’t pay for college is an entire cohort who are functionally locked out of the housing market.
That can’t be a particularly large set. Parents well off is already a small minority case and only a minority of that small minority won’t give support to their kids.
For people in that tiny sliver, I’m sure it feels bad but it doesn’t seem like a solution that works for other “starting from zero” young adults would need changes to also work for this set.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US (20+ years ago), the metrics used to determine "well off" for the purposes of receiving lower prices for higher education had nothing to do with the parents' wealth, and only their income, with no accounting for assets and number of other children, not to mention jobs without access to subsidized healthcare and/or healthcare costs, etc.
In my case, immigrant parents just started earning a little money around the time I go to college, which means I don't qualify for any assistance, parents don't have enough money to pay for my college, nor would I want them to as it would hurt their ability to support my grandparents and my younger sister, so I am taking out loans at full price.
Using income as a proxy for wealth has screwed the middle/upper middle for such a long time, and the actually rich love it (can throw in the nonsense that is earned income taxes here).
If you want to support your child at university in the UK, there's a particular band of middle-class income where you get the worst of both worlds. You make too much to get certain kinds of government support, but you don't make enough that you can comfortably make up the difference.
If you want to put multiple children through uni then it can get very burdensome.
One of many ways in which our system is regressive.
In 2000 I received the minimum loan, which was enough for full board university accommodation.
Today the minimum loan needs a £250 a month top up to pay for the same accommodation.
The only benefit is that you don’t have to pay for tuition fees until you’re earning a really good wage - rather than having to work all summer to pay for them.
You’d be surprised - parents of an entire generation basically paid for their entire schooling with a part time job. They pay less on their mortgage for a 3 bedroom house than a studio apartment.
In their mind, they made it on their own, and their entire parenting strategy was to teach the lessons of how they made it to their kids.
We've also seen a huge compression in net income as the tax thresholds haven't kept up with inflation. So someone who paid a 20% marginal rate twenty years ago is now paying 40% on the same real-terms income. And the 0% personal allowance has been eroded too.
Not to mention the 60% effective marginal rate between £100k and £125k - 69% if you have student debt, oh and that's not even counting employee's NICs.
And don't get me started on the stealth tax that is employer's NICs. (Those were just increased even further, and the morons are all defending it by pretending it doesn't come from wages... where exactly do they think the employer gets the money from?)
Plus all the insane traps where earning extra money can actually reduce your net income. E.g. there are situations in which increasing your salary by £1 can leave you thousands of pounds poorer because certain benefits are withdrawn with a cliff.
What's the point in working harder? You'd think that with such eye-wateringly high levels of taxation, we'd at least have something to show for it in the public sector, but... okay, I need to stop writing now for the sake of my blood pressure.
Everyone goes on about the 100k issue. For 10 years I paid 60% between 50 and 60k due to child tax. The child tax has recently shifted to between 60k and 80k and reduced so it’s now about 51% (plus student loans)
The chief economist of the resolution foundation spoke about this quite eloquently. The divide began in the 80 with the “new industries” (finance, pharma, technology, telecoms), it’s just that it is less visible during good times. When the tide retreats it uncovers the ugly rocks and the unevenness of the underlying strata.
> in some places they have been replaced by artisan bakeries and pop-up boutiques, while in others they have been replaced by charity shops or nothing at all.
Charity shops, vape shops (used for money laundering), Turkish Barbers (used for money laundering), Automated Laundrettes (used for money laundering), Car Washes (used for money laundering), Phone shops (used for money laundering), Kebab shops (used for money laundering)
Banks and privatised utilities (used for money laundering.) Politicians (used for money laundering.)
This is the UK's entire economy now - extracting the wealth of the people who work in the UK and moving it to foreign owners.
London looks rich because some of the money sticks to the sides while it's passing through, but it's still being siphoned from the provinces through the City and out - to tax havens, foreign mafias, foreign aristocrats, and giant foreign corporations.
It's important the population isn't allowed to understand that the UK is a colonised country. So there's a huge media machine making sure the peasants blame "immigrants" for small-scale criminality, and poor people for being feckless and unproductive. It's useful to make sure everyone keeps fighting about racism/immigration and gender issues to keep them from looking at structural economics and the destruction of democracy.
> We all know that we're teetering on the brink of a populist wave, but no-one in a position of power seems willing or able to do anything about it.
This, I believe, is because the problem is psychological more than political: social division and alienation.
Of course, an increase in economic prosperity will lessen populism.
But if people continue to be alienated then they will be drawn to populists offering collective causes against perceived wrongdoers.
The large majority of online activities increase social alienation and social division.
Local, apolitical activities that breed cohension rather than division will decrease the psychological benefits that populism offers the alienated. I see no other solution.
I’d argue that your last paragraph has the cause-and-effect reversed:
We’re entering into a populist phase because the managerial class is incapable of addressing the problems experienced by most people — so they’re going to try dismantling the current elite systems and rebuilding them. To say that the problem is elites inability to suppress populism is to miss that the elites own chronic failures is what caused the populist surge.
Similar to populist waves circa 1900, where aristocratic systems were replaced with managerialism via populist revolts. Now, managerialism has failed so we’re again seeing the stirrings of change. At a broad scale, communism, fascism, and progressivism were all different technocratic managerial solutions to the problems and excesses of the late 1800s and early 1900s.
I think it’ll be interesting to see what comes next.
Currently, weapons and logistics are not automated to that extent; I don’t think it’s meaningful to guess about decades from now, given the current flux.
I’d argue that your perspective means that the time to revolt is now (ie, next few years) — while the technical and social systems are in mutual flux and before a new regime solidifies. A regime that might be more autocratic totalitarian in nature (as you suggest will be the case).
People will reasonably come to different conclusions.
Change does not have to be violent, let alone be a violent internal conflict.
I think between the rise of China, America's reaction to it, and the general shift in economic power to Asia from the west, and the lack of trust in government in the west, things will change.
That seems an extremely cynical take to me, I don't think that's true at all. It divides people into monoliths and makes assumptions then uses those assumptions to restrict and hold back.
> but the majority of towns belonged to the same broad spectrum of bland mediocrity
Isn't it to be expected that the majority of X are average (mediocre)? I mean, you could have a statistically skewed distribution, but would that be very desirable?
Yet another signal of the sad state of affairs is that you probably genuinely think we're "on the brink" and not well over the cliff, Wile E.-style. Buildings burned during leftist protests (whether or not leftists actually set the fires is up for debate), and the Capital was ransacked by a mob looking to overthrow an election.
That was half a decade ago.
The interim has consisted of a corrupt centrist presidential administration that spent most of its time denying that things are getting worse ("It's not a recession"; "We didn't fumble the Afghanistan draw-down"; "Those weren't significant bank failures"; "That's not a genocide"), followed by a corrupt fascist admin that is openly dedicated to making things worse.
All the while, the intellectuals who understand what is happening - not just what will happen, what is happening - have been begging anyone who will listen to take the situation seriously - to understand that their attempted conservation of the previous normal is actually vascillation, while the ground falls out from under us. But my property values! But my American dream! But my rules-based order! They're already dead. And we can't start rebuilding until people with money and influence face it.
I think you're from the USA and the commenter you're replying to is British, which probably explains the difference. Those shop names are recognisably British.
Ah, I'd thought that that Woolworths and Dixons were defunct regional chains (of which America has many, that Americans from other regions would not recognize or would have only heard about in passing). My bad.
Still, GP accurately describes much of the American East, Midwest, and South. Likewise, I would have to /s if I were to say that the British upper class were known for their down-to-Earth character. No one who is "posh" has ever been described as out-of-touch or "living in a bubble", particularly on the development of populist issues, after all. (/s)
How is this your #1 problem? We have so much serious issues and you are hung up on women having sex? Let them fuck how much they want. Nobody stopped men from fucking and if it works, doesn't that indicate a different problem?
There is more to puritanical attitudes than sex. It generally means anti-pleasure.
One thing the real puritans are against that people have turned against very strongly is alcohol. It never stopped being a problem in the US, of course, but there are far more preachy teetotalers in the UK than there used to be, and government policy is very anti too.
Then there is the push for achievement and the acquisition of wealth. You are supposed to dedicate your life to the cause of high achievement, rather than stop to enjoy it.
Sex acts online actually fit in with all this as they are safe and controlled alternative to enjoying sex in real life.
puritanism is often linked to a backlash against this type of thing.
Weimar berlin was very open about this stuff too and was followed by a puritanical backlash. The world feels like it is going through something very similar.
These are… specific examples. Something on your mind? Puritanical cultures do have an association with being sex-negative lack of a better term because purity culture sounds circular. But they're far from the only aspect of culture that can embody puritan thinking.
Now that's an interesting trend. It's no longer feasible to have an independent web site, because nobody will visit it because you don't have the page rank. Journalists that do find your site copy your data and may add a link (that noone vists). Their pagerank is much higher, so they get all search engine links and all the ads, for your content.
We have this situation in lithuanian web for a two decades now.
Once the big news networks (DELFI.lt, 15min.lt, lrytas.lt, alfa.lt and few others) bought out the largest blogs and connected them to their own domains, there isn't much of an independent web left. Owners of the websites back then gladly sold out (and I would have done it too), because it seemed like a great idea to sell your work back in the 2008-ish for real profit, an unique chance (imagine monetising your content when you have only 3 mil. theoretical consumers! There isn't much lithuanian speakers) and especially during the economic crisis.
Then the other blogs were attached to the networks by the generous offers of "let us publish and we will give backlinks, maybe" + "we will just copy it because we know that you won't bother taking us to court, it's too small of a country, you know".
So now whatever you google, you get mostly these results: 7 big network sites and subsites, 2 auto-translated AI slop generated by someone in other side of the planet, 0.9 of business pages and 0.1 something actually personal.
No wonder that almost all content creators moved to social networks by the 2015-ish. They still are there.
I wonder what will change this. A web apocalypse? Mass demand of in-person, non-online "content"? I wonder...
> organisations who despite their name, do not give a flying ** about their social housing stock
> and run-down decaying towns in the whole country
You cannot simultaneously have landlords living in Spain and well maintained local housing. Both are expensive. Pick only one. There exists a sweet spot when people are desperate enough to live in a place and pay every rent for any housing, but the sugar coating has washed off.
Yikes, I spent 15 years living in one of the Top 10 and my summers in another one. I probably agree, though. The rot was showing in most of those by the late 80s and they went very swiftly downhill after that.
To counter those depressing places, these towns and villages seem lovely:
I can't see the list because of the paywall but my guess is they are all medium sized market towns. Large enough to have the facilities you need but not so big that they become impersonal.
> Ricky Gervais encapsulated its brutalist new town grim with ‘The Office’ before giving up and writing lame punching-down anti-woke “gags” for the educationally subnormal
That's a very strange reading on Gervais' post-The Office career. After The Office he did things like Extras, a sitcom about extras on TV and film sets, Derek, an emotional series about a well-meaning care worker who thinks it's more important to be kind than popular, and After Life, a series about a man who loses his wife young and how he deals with grief.
He also did The Invention of Lying, which, 16 years since I watched it in the cinema, is still the answer I give without hesitation to "what's the worst movie you've ever seen?"
For me that has to be High Life. Pitched to me as "Robert Pattinson has to to take care of a baby in space", in reality it was basically a side plot to "serial killers and rapists are stuck on a spaceship together" and all that implies.
I know there is the odd biblical literalist in power in the US, but have never come across one in the UK. The biggest group of Christians in the UK are Anglicans (who are not usually biblical literalists, although there are evangelical groups within it that might be) and Catholics (church firmly against Biblical literalism, although there might be odd individuals).
I think the reason atheists argue with Bibilical literalists is that its easy. It is somehting of a straw man: you pick a sub-group that is easy to debunk/discredit and then discredit the whole group by association. This has always been a problem: St Augustine talked about the damage done by people who interpreted the scriptures as contradicting what is known to be true in the 4th century.
To be honest, like most of his subsequent attempts to be edgy and transgressive, it wasn't really 15 years ago either. His entire career as a standup and Twitter commentator feels like an extension of the Brent "I don't live by The Rules you know" persona
If you're about to write a diatrabe about the harms of political correctness or scold the writer on inventing a victimhood complex for themselves, please read the ending of the OP:
> Much as I’d like to, I can’t just blame the puritans if my old jokes don’t work any more. Nor can I claim that the Crap Towns books were an unqualified success
[...]
> before closing, I should admit that there is a more straightforward answer to the question of whether you can still get away with doing something like Crap Towns.
> That answer is: yes. There’s a website (I won’t link to it) that has kept on running a survey of the worst places in the UK for years and years- and, honestly, when I look at it, I hate it. Partly because I feel like they’re ripping off my project, but mainly because when I read the comments on there about incels and chavs and carbuncles and brutalism it all just seems grubby. Maybe even cruel.
> I could argue that I don’t like this website because their approach and criteria are different to mine - and I hope there would be some truth in that. But I also know that I now also just react against the whole thing. It’s been done. It’s grown stale. It doesn’t fit - especially since so much has changed around it. In short, the world has moved on. And maybe that’s not such a bad thing?
I say, try. Publish "Crap Towns, 20 Year Update" and ask what's changed? Revisit some of the original places, take some new photos. Plenty of scope to continue the humour, but also scope to hint at some wider reflections and continue the conversation. Having recognition of the first book also adds some authority to your commentary.
He says he won't, but he's also right that if it's funny, it works. Humour has a wonderful way of being able to say things you couldn't otherwise be able to communicate so effectively.
And a book that dares to go beyond the humour and reflect on 20 years of progress, would love to see it.
One thing that has been accentuated over the past few decades is the idea that you are responsible for your success. When you were poor, lacked means, or didn't have a good job, it was because the god of fortune didn't smile on you. Only the fortunate experienced success.
Now only losers are broke and live in crap towns, and winners drive expensive cars. With this idea in mind, calling it crap towns becomes an attack on the people, rather then the town itself.
This idea is thoroughly explored in Alain de Botton's "Status Anxiety"
I feel like the opposite has been accentuated for around 15+ years now, especially after the 2008 recession.
The 1990s/2000s felt like "you make your own luck", but since I got out of college, it seems the 90% luck / 10% effort idea is the mainstream (including "who you know is more important than what you know"). Maybe it is just me growing up, or maybe it's the proliferation of access to data due to the internet, such as opportunityatlas.org
I wonder if the increased acceptance of this fact can cause a type of societal malaise.
I would estimate the bigger cause of malaise is the fact that things just seem to get worse. Housing gets more expensive, shops close down, towns die. One can't help but get the feeling there is a continual tightening of the screws. Every year, the country sinks a little further down. What can you do if you want to stop it? Brexit? Reform? Very unsatisfying answers, but the only ones people are given beyond "lay down and accept it".
People in crap towns drive expensive cars too. The inequality between a crap place and a nice place is now enough that people can afford a ghastly Lamborghini SUV thing before they can afford to move out of a crap town.
I remember a few years ago a politician was vilified for suggesting there wasn't much you could do about the derelict seaside towns. I have a feeling that what he said was probably quite close to the truth.
Just because these types of annoyances can be easily disabled by someone with a little bit of technical know-how doesn't mean that one doesn't have the right to be annoyed by the tendency and call it out.
I thought that too, it it quite hard to uncover the logical argument there. Appears to be sourced from conversations with journalists. I ended up just trusting that it was true in order to engage with the rest of the piece.
Some of them maybe have gentrified (not to ignore that this in itself isn't 100% a good thing). Others are if anything worse than when he wrote the book.
Nah, several of them were always running jokes, some of them were a lot worse a decade or three earlier, and some of them were picked far more for their snobbishness or for being homogenous sanitised suburbia than their decline.
>One age misunderstands another; and a petty age misunderstands all the others in its own ugly way.
I couldn't help but keep thinking about this Wittgenstein quote as I read this. I find it harder to say exactly why. Obviously, we felt differently in the past. Not my past, of course: I was a child, barely able to integrate by parts or fold a shirt correctly.
There is another possibility. The usual complaint is that oversensitivity has constrained humor. The usual retort is that what we did before was harmful and we're better off not doing it. But the problem with logical-seeming dilemmas is that existential propositions can only seem logical. The world, unlike logic, is malleable. Perhaps the jokes really are worse today than they were in the past?
Twenty years ago, our crap towns were something we experienced with the other townsfolk first and foremost, and only to a lesser degree did we bear the weight of the outside world's eyes upon us. Today it is not like this. Communication across great distances has gone from difficult to convenient to pervasive and unavoidable.
Locality has frayed in more domains than the spatial. Recently /r/MedicalPhysics had a spat with /r/sysadmin about hospital IT policies. Such a civil war would have been unthinkable in the 2000s. Humans used to spend much more time socializing with their friends or at least comrades-in-something than with almost complete strangers. Our egos are exposed to the elements in a new and phase-changing way.
I think that the social fabric has already begun to fight this trend from the bottom up. At the risk of sounding like an advertisement, Discord has made non-discoverability its greatest feature. The gladiatorial aspect of modern discourse has never sat well with me. I don't want to have a conversation for the audience. But here I am. Please clap.
> The island was shat from the arse of the Norse god Fuctup whilst he was suffering a bout of diarrhoea as a side effect of his recent withdrawal from scag. And that's true, as true as I'm sitting here.
> A large number of policefolk who work on Sheppey are "Specials", which by a startling coincidence is also an affectionate term used to describe people with learning disabilities.
> Christian based cults aside, the main religious practices on the island usually resemble primitive tribal type worship. Drug induced trances are a common tool for reaching the spirits beyond. These trances are often extended to include ritual drug induced self sacrifice- a deeply sacred activity known commonly to the natives as "Overdose".
You go to the "culture" section and there's just a single word, "NO." xD
The road to Wigan Pier (1937) would be a humourless response. His main issue is the lack of acceptance of current satirical humour, "modern life is rubbish" being 22 years old.
I think he's wrong to say you couldn't publish it now. I think he is right it would be misunderstood and misinterpreted.
Bill Bryson and Paul Thoroux wrote extensively of how shit English towns can be in winter after 4pm when the shops are shut and the pub isn't open.
This kind of humor still exists and I think it’s still most popular with young people. I followed an Instagram account in Chicago that mocks local bars and the people who go to them, but they’re all bars for people in their 20s, so I’ve rarely heard of them and don’t fully get the descriptions. There’s also that trend of “cynical maps” (Google it) of city neighborhoods, country regions, etc that peaked a few years ago and still circulates.
I don’t see this selling as a book now, but I also don’t see humorous coffee table books in general as a category the way they were 25 years ago?
If, as a humorist, you are concerned about whether you can publish your humorous book you can be certain that you live in a cursed timeline. Additionally if you think there are two kinds of jokes: those that were once funny and those that were never funny, then I suggest that your jokes were at best lazy. The human condition is pretty constant throughout the ages and those jokes that are aimed at such universal experiences continue to amuse for centuries or millennia.
Understandably the humor of the inexperienced 20-something will differ from that of the 40+ year-old. The simple and absolute world that we believe to see and understand in our younger years tends to vanish from our grasp as we become older and attain the wisdom of experience. Perhaps the author's belief that "it has been done already" reflects some of that wisdom, and just maybe those of a certain age at the time of the publishing of "Crap Towns" felt exactly the same way about his book. It seems, after all, that every generation believes that it is the first to do or discover a thing without considering that humans have been doing human things for an awfully long time and that the observation "there is nothing new under the sun" has some merit.
> If, as a humorist, you are concerned about whether you can publish your humorous book you can be certain that you live in a cursed timeline.
This has literally always been the case. The topics have shifted, and some other details have changed, but in essence it's no difference. Try publishing a humorist book about, say, sex or religion in the 50s. Or the world wars, or maybe something that features gay characters. Or civil rights-type stuff (in US).
The counter culture did just that in trove by the end of the 50s and it had started long before. That was pretty much the whole point and it offended the polite society very much.
This is, unfortunately, the world that we live in right now. There are stand-up comedians who privately admit it’s almost impossible to do their jobs any more because of the faux outrage.
A fellow Elbonian made a book [1] depicting the ugliest places in our town.
Despite the tongue-in-a-cheek mood it's a great piece of nostalgia trip spiced with some interesting local history lessons.
He also have an automotive youtube channel dedicated to popular old cars and he loves to film them in these obscure and sordid locations mentioned in the book.
EDIT: fun note - when MS released their first digital encyclopedia in Elbonia, somewhere in mid 90's, the Elbonia entry, apart from having accurate information about the country and up to date statistics had an illustration image subtitled "Elbonians in front of typical dwelling" depicting something like this: https://strojeludowe.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/1.3-600x...
> I even worry that in trying to diagnose some of the alienation, boredom and despair that people in the UK were starting to feel, I actually might have added to the malaise.
That's usually how it goes with personal scale self-deprecating humor too. It was instrumental to my own misery, and I didn't quite notice this until I've let go of it for a while.
Another thing to ponder is the second hand effects. For the one making the joke it's a very different headspace to someone who sees it from the outside, and internalizes it as some sort of style. I'm fairly sure this kind of "saying a body, hearing a skeleton" game is how the author got to the point of seeing that site carrying the torch, but not really appreciating what he sees there. It's a kind of effect people making humorous content always seem to learn the hard way, like it was the case for e.g. idubbz, and countless others. Or like weakly racist jokes are to any odd fellow European.
Not to pass judgement though, I can see how overcorrections and the "puritanism" are definitely not any good either. But yeah, that's how these things tend to go.
I'd be vary of the author really hopping on that "they're cancelling us" bus. If he doesn't appreciate what he sees on that site, he's in for a world of hurt when he realizes where people who constantly play around with this topic right now will get him to. This is all a setup to the next chapter, where humorists will actually get unfairly censored, but then they won't be able to properly reach audiences with it anymore, as the memetic background for that has been appropriated and spent by then, by those actually malicious, a long time ago.
The Connections series by James Burke from around the same time posited that politics is irrelevant and progress is mostly due to science. The consumer society of today is much better than when Crap Towns was written although improvement is not uniform. But even the least improved towns are better now than they were due to all the regional, national, and international improvements in services.
Unfortunately I’m not sure this is true. My home town is one of the Crap Towns and in the last 25 years more or less the entire high street economy has collapsed and nothing has replaced it. It increasingly exists as a cheap undesirable housing spot with a 30 min commute to the next city.
The sense of self importance and overanalysis in this writeup on a silly book called "Crap Towns" is almost as hilarious as the book itself.
I still think the idea of the book is funny. There's a certain art to taking something bad and hilariously describing its terribleness. For some reason this has always made me laugh, but honestly not everyone gets it, and this has always been the case.
This kind of book can only happen in a place and a community with enough confidence and stability to handle it. Of course you can "get away" with it today, it's easier than ever to publish just about anything - but humor has changed and I don't expect it to go "viral" the way it did. Not all old jokes age well and we have all made products that no longer fit after some time.
But the author, oh boy. Dear sir, your tongue in cheek picturebook from 20 years ago is not as important as you imagine.
It’s probably very important to the author, though, in the sense that it shaped their life and clearly became briefly very famous. So I don’t think it’s particularly fair to snipe at them for writing a reflective blog post about that. It’s not like you have to read it.
I for one can both think that the author can take it and that the the original commenter opinion is misguided because people are free to write about what they want on their own blog especially what matters to them which is kind of the point of having a blog in the first place.
I recently started a subscription to https://www.the-fence.com/ as set out in the opening to this piece and it's truly a lovely object. Highly recommend.
A society that can laugh at itself is an homogenous society where citizens share the same values. Today unfortunately that's not the case anymore.
This is not a racism problem (the UK historically had a lot of well-integrated immigration in the previous centuries), but about minorities that don't want to be integrated and want to impose their culture (look at Sharia tribunals in the UK) - and criminals from poorer countries abusing the EU freedom to travel, the welfare state and how lax the police is.
The UK is not the only society to have been destroyed in the name of globalisation, but it's certainly a sad state of affair.
It's exactly this kind of structuralism induced fatalism that makes more towns than ought shit.
If you know a town is shit, it's your moral obligation to tell them so that their kids and smart residents move out. Post 2000s progressive seem to think that Towns, religions and culture can form opinions. They are trying to be "empathetic" and so get tricked by scammers who personally benefit from these horrible situations.
There's a lot of honest reflection here that you don't often get from writers revisiting their earlier work. I think it captures something important about how the culture around humor, offense, and public discourse has shifted. It's easy to blame "people being too sensitive" or to nostalgize the past, but the truth is more complicated: humor that punches up tends to age better than humor that punches down, and the line between the two can shift as society changes.
Went through the entire article expecting imminently to get to the paragraph where the author perceives that Crap Towns was a mistake because it makes fun of the poor, and that the reason it couldn't be published now is that poverty in the UK is far worse than it was 20 years ago. But, no, "identity politics". Good riddance.
It's not about identity politics. It's not about self-deprecation. It's not even about if the material is particularly funny or not.
It's whether you're punching up or punching down.
If the purpose of Crap Towns is to punch up, speak to power, to point out the failures of Thatcherism, decreased social mobility through a perptuation of failing center-right politics thanks to an overly-powerful media and political class that is divorced from reality, the absurd dominance of PPE graduates within policy making, and on, and on, on... well, it's great satire.
If it's just to point at working class people and go "haha, their streets are dirty and they eat bad food", well... you're punching down, and it's rare that can work as comedy. It's just mean bullying.
So yes, you can write Crap Towns today, but it lands better if you draw the line from Thatcher through Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and Starmer, and their acolytes - the PPE mafia on both sides of the House, and point out how their crappy politics has caused all this, not their victims.
Note that punching up is the same mechanism of humour as punching down. "look at people who are not like us, ha ha ha"
I always found the funnier things were not about punching up or down but were applicable to anyone. Restricting comedy to only be about punching up turns it into a political tool and not an art form that makes us feel better. Comedy that is only allowed if it sends a political message is firstly propaganda and then humour. It's why most modern comedy elicits a smile at best and no belly laughs any more. It can still be amusing but it has no universality.
The best comedy has truth about ourselves in it. Psychologically "punching up" is a rejection of these things in ourselves. Ideologically, "punching up" is a tactic reinforcing group identity coherence.
> It's whether you're punching up or punching down.
I disagree with the idea that one is "OK" and the other is "bad", "wrong" or, even worse, "problematic" (i.e., the bien-pensant's own "blasphemous"). It just makes one an eternal sacred cow, and the other the eternal punching bag, no matter either's virtues or vices.
And this, in fact, has already been the case for a long time. In the US, producer Dick Wolf's five Law & Order TV shows (and, now, his three Chicago shows) taught us over 30 years that the "wealthy CEO" or "high-powered corporate lawyer" is always guilty, and the large companies they own/work for are just as crooked. The only upscale demographic that is never the criminal is, strangely enough, the famous TV-show producer.
> It's whether you're punching up or punching down.
I think the problem with the “punching up/down” perspective of comedy is that power is relative so the same exact humor and joke can be both punching up and down at the exact same time. Consider the current political moment in the US. Right wing, conservative, religious groups have power currently, so your average Daily Show or SNL writer feels pretty justified that they’re “punching up” when they take their potshots at “god and country” types. And to an extent they are. But at the same time, your average “god and country” type that their humor is skewering is also a punch down because unlike the SNL or Daily Show writer, they don’t have a national TV show in which to broadcast their views. They are (if you believe the writers) uneducated, ignorant and duped into believing lies that the rich and powerful have sold them. But if that’s the case, then by definition they are not the powerful, and “punching” them must be “punching down” (or at least laterally). Is it right (or at least ok) to be skewering “god and country” types for the ridiculous things they do? Probably. But I don’t think it’s because it’s somehow “speaking truth to power” or “punching up”. It’s right and ok because they are ridiculous things and people are allowed to find ridiculous things funny and skewer them, regardless of the relative power disparities
Over time, people change the weapons they use to hurt each other with. What used to have nothing in common with words meant to hurt now demands mental energy to decide whether it is an attack.
Political correctness is about cleanly dividing ideas into ones obviously meant to hurt and ones obviously meant to be harmless. It is impossible to even come close to succeeding at this, but it is still worth trying.
> but mainly because when I read the comments on there about incels and chavs and carbuncles and brutalism it all just seems grubby. Maybe even cruel.
There we go. People shift from being the out-group to being more sympathetic and unfortunate, and humour that targeted them moves into being punching down. I was shocked at how less funny Bill Hicks feels 20 years on, because now it just sounds like he's being an asshole about people who are struggling.
Vindication like what Ohioans would have felt when Charles Dickens visited America and said that St. Louis was a nice enough place, but “not likely ever to vie, in point of elegance or beauty, with Cincinnati”?
I remember laughing at this, my hometown was included it’s worth saying. I suspect the purchasers were largely people who lived in one of the ‘crap towns’
I’m not sure how anyone could have read it and not understood it was a joke. At the same time, I do think that he’s right that it wouldn’t get published today, not because the content wasn’t true, but people are much more quick to take offense over things like this.
I have always admired the British[1] ability to take the piss out of themselves with humour. Underlying the self-deprecation, there's always a sense of pride (misplaced?).
Perhaps things on the isles have turned to shite over time, and the pride has dwindled?
[1] maybe British is the wrong word since the Scots and Irish do similar. I'm from the ex-colonies so the correct words for UK country and peoples are confusing to me.
The UK has gone in a dark direction, with the police arresting people for thoughts they post on social media that run counter to popular narratives. Feels like the mob attitude that killed Socrates. It is important every nation enshrines free speech into their constitutions.
In my experience there are only a few cities in the U.S that literate people are proud enough to live in, that they would be insulted that you put that into your crap town book.
Thus I wonder what demographic that at one time would have bought this book is not going to be buying this book now.
hmm, maybe. In the U.S you have often the person who moved from a 'crap' town to some place they consider great, who gets really emotional about the crappiness they escaped to be able to think freely and the like. And often these people are the ones I would think of as customers for a book like this, and if their new town isn't in the book they certainly won't be offended.
There is a fairly popular tiktok account doing much the same thing. Travelling from town to town to point out the worst parts of them. Although I'll admit it sometimes feels more depressing than funny.
It just won’t be as popular today. And would, ironically, be crapped on by other people, which is what the author is unhappy about.
Thats what the author means, and represents the entirety of the “Oh I am so oppressed because I can’t say shitty unfunny jokes because other people will make shitty unfunny jokes about me in response” genre of argument.
The difference between then and now is that the people in the “crap towns” have the opportunity to call the author out.
That's not the author's main point — the author's point is the surprising observation that “That joke isn't funny any more”, even to the author himself. This is something deeper than the usual “genre of argument” you're referring to.
> The good news is that I don’t think that the illiberalism of identity politics will endure much longer. Especially when it comes to the literal policing of humour - and cancellation of comedians for telling the wrong kinds of jokes.
If you believe that single sentence (that I disagree with him about, but that's neither here nor their) is the entire point of the article, I'd really suggest you read it again, it's far more interesting than that.
I grew up in the "rust belt", just north of Flint, Michigan. A GM town at the time. I loved it as a kid. But it was many would consider a "crap town".
Even though it was already declining (economically replaced with healthcare, a fucking sign) it had nature and woods.
That was magical.
Anyways, I'd like to talk about bat guano.
I'd love to have a local nature conservancy or non-profit do a kids educational showing. Wouldn't that be fun? Just a deep dive into how much you can still learn, whether you're old or young. That even with limits, we can still inspire joy through gross natural things.
Kids love gross shit.
There are so many models you could experiment with. Traveling nature discovery labs... Art-train things. Robotic teleprescence to let kids take apart their own guano pile...
I'm obviously not comparing UK towns or my home town to bat shit.
I suppose there are so many liability issues around bat handling that's just a job in itself. Believe me when I say I can't work with my brother who does similar work. Those liability concerns will save lives, but I'd like my own story. Maybe somebody I love in the future can have their own story too.
the book author says "There’s a website (I won’t link to it) that has kept on running a survey of the worst places in the UK for years and years- and, honestly, when I look at it, I hate it. Partly because I feel like they’re ripping off my project"
this is why we should cherish the [indie] web. we can still almost publish anything in incredible detail, keep it alive for a long time and not worry about being canceled.
plus i have low opinion of people that wont share a link they know is relevant to the topic.
There's one thing I honestly don't understand about this post and the comments here.
NOWHERE does the author, or the people commenting here, mention the reason why such a book might be deemed "offensive". Of course it's easy to repell the criticism if you don't address the reasons in it ! But to me, it feels weird and classist to make a book about shitty places in a country. Aren't they often simply... poor ? Is it OK to laugh at the lower class ? The "shavs" ?
I don't know much about the UK but I feel like such a book in France would cause an uproar. Of course concrete suburbs are ugly as fuck ! Of course small towns in northern France, hit by unemployment, are often quite sad and grey and depressing ! But is it okay for people who don't live there to publish a book saying "lol look at how these people live" ? Sounds like the definition of punching down, to me.
Because now it means immigrant neighbourhoods more explicitly, and we cannot call that out now. That's why it's a bygone time. The writing was on the wall. And we just laughed "ahah how can it be so bad!!" well now here it is.
With quotes (re cultural appropriation) like “the ultimate endpoint of keeping our mitts off experience that doesn’t belong to us is that there is no fiction… All that’s left is memoir”
We’ve been suffering under the yoke of the intellectualization of deliberalization, censorship and oppression of ideas via our leading thinkers, institutions and platforms who have been acting out of fear. Fear of being strung up on the town square and fear that not signaling support for what has been happening signals disapproval.
What I find infuriating is that our youth have been driving this conformist, enforcement, rule making and rule following mentality and trend. Our youth should be questioning the rules, not forming up as a conformist jack booted militia and persecuting those who don’t follow the rules. History has shown that the latter ends in tears.
We saw this in Germany in the 30s, in China in the 60s and 70s where the red guards in the cultural revolution were mostly teens, under the Khmer Rouge in the 70s where kids were police, and with the Young Pioneers and Komsomol in the early and mid 20th century Soviet Union.
When youth stop questioning and start enforcing, it often marks the end of a healthy society and the beginning of something much darker.
Personally I see it the other way around: the youth's increasing intolerance of politically incorrect ideas is caused by the increasing power of the "jack booted militia" on the right. It's not surprising that people try to suppress intolerant ideas when there is a very real risk of them being adopted by those in power.
"jack booted militia" is a nastily evocative & suggestive phrase that lingers like a rotten smell. I am worried & want to know who and where. Which are the ideas that we all agree are intolerant? Sounds as if you are addressing a club of the like-minded.
> the youth's increasing intolerance of politically incorrect ideas is caused …
So, wrongthink. This is my point. And it’s incredible how the history of passing legislation to censor being ultimately used by the opposition just keeps on repeating.
maybe the rules they're questioning simply aren't the ones you want them to question
for example: the usa has long had a social "rule" to tolerate intolerance, but now that youth see where that has led, many are questioning that rule
they were long warned that it leads to bad censorship, and they look around now, and see that the intolerant who warned are themselves perpetrating a wave of censorship anyways, and the argument is dissolved
a good person might want whichever rules do less harm in the end (and perhaps ones that do more good), it naturally follows that those primary goals should inform decisions regarding rules and policy and economy and government
It's not just acceptability. Jokes written even just five or ten years ago often fail to land on modern audiences. That taste in humor changes is neither morally positive nor negative. It's easy to look for deeper meaning in the notion that what once was funny now isn't, but often, there isn't a deeper meaning to find. Life is different now; so too must humor change.
When I re-watch comedy like ‘The Young Ones’ or many other funny series from the 80s or 90s, I don’t find it funny any more. It’s not that the jokes weren’t good and that I didn’t find it funny at the time, it’s just that humour changes. In that case, it’s nothing to do with the jokes becoming ‘unacceptable’.
I watched the entirety of Yes (Prime) Minister relatively recently despite being younger than the show and not British; and found it delightfully entertaining and often surprisingly relevant to contemporary political issues.
Not necessarily. I think the interesting idea the article dances around is changing attitudes and sensibilities. In many ways, I think media of the 90s and even 2000s had a different balance of optimism and cynicism. Critical commentary was an edgy (or in this case humorous) counterpoint. 1999 saw dark edgy and dystopian films like the matrix, fight club that felt like a warning, criticism of a future to be avoided.
Similar subjects today are noticably darker without the buttress of social optimism. Films like The Joker seem less like a cautionary tale and more like a documentary. Is the joker now the protagonist?
That is a very British take. Constant worry about the value of something you don't want to sell. Thinking about your home as a financial investment, rather than a...home.
> Thinking about your home as a financial investment, rather than a...home.
Sadly, the way all Western economies have devolved over the last decades, real estate equity is the only form of wealth that at least some part of the 99% has for retirement.
Broad market index funds have performed spectacularly over the last few decades, and far more than 1% have them (or could have had them) for retirement. It has been the standard recommendation since I graduated college in the early 2000s.
Of course, many people prefer to invest in extra big and luxurious houses/cars/vacations/restaurants/alcohol/coffee/etc out and I would even throw in educations with low ROI, rather than broad market index funds.
This is specifically about those who had been earning money in the ~1980 to ~2010 period, for the vast majority, their house should not have been the only equity.
> Of course, many people prefer to invest in extra big and luxurious houses/cars/vacations/restaurants/alcohol/coffee/etc out and I would even throw in educations with low ROI, rather than broad market index funds.
The problem is, index funds have no inherent value, they (just like all stocks and other financial derivatives/instruments) are effectively a paper with one or another form of "IOU" written on it. Economic crashes, wars, tariffs, morons in politics, whatever, there are tons of ways massive amounts of value can be straight up destroyed in a matter of days.
A house however? As long as it's reasonably well built, come what may, you still have a roof over your head. No one's gonna come and kick you out of it. And that's inherent value.
Real estate suffers from the whims of the market, governmental policy and especially war. Even if you rule out outliers like imminent domain (used on many many homeowners in the first half of the 20th century in the US) or destruction via war, simple economic changes as we saw in 2008 cause people to lose their homes.
> index funds have no inherent value, they (just like all stocks and other financial derivatives/instruments) are effectively a paper with one or another form of "IOU" written on it
The difference between real estate and financial assets is possession. But every time you're away from your home, you aren't in possession of it. And possession, control and ownership are three overlapping but ultimately separate concepts.
> pretty upset if the value of my home was harmed because someone decided to make it common knowledge that the town I lived in was crap
I could argue this for the journalism disclosing Flint’s lead problems. The root cause isn’t the commentary. It’s the reality. Balancing one’s property value is the fraud conveyed on a prospective buyer.
I though I had a decent command of English language, even if I am not a native speaker, but I have no ide what is "naive structuralism" or "overwrought reductionism" in this context.
Would any of you care to elaborate? I am serious, I am not familiar much with the UK political scene so can't tie these normal sounding phrases to anything, and would honestly appreciate some help.
This sounds like an intellectual debate but there's nothing of substance being said here lol. casey2 thinks British people today are wrongly (naively) complaining about the rich/powerful/elite (structuralism). top1bobby is making fun of casey2 because the latter is using a lot of big words (overwrought) while _reducing_ complicated politics to a single issue; basically "you think you're smart with fancy words but you are just as bad as the people you complain about (P.S. I can use fancy words too)"
I read some guy complaining some podcast complained about his book and elevate it into some weird organized political movement that he's already declared is dead, and he's happy those kind of rancid speech-haters are gone...punchline... they're the illiberals!
Okay then!
Be honest with yourself, O Reader!
Are you sure he's not writing a satire of the same piece you've seen written every year since 1990, just with a shifting name for it?
> The good news is that I don’t think that the illiberalism of identity politics will endure much longer.
That's a weird thing to say in 2025 , considering what the US government is deporting people for having the wrong opinions domestically, and attempting to export the identity politics of the current administration via tarde deals with the UK. I suppose one might be blind to it because of their own political persuasion, suggesting that identity politics peaked in 2021 says more about the author's biases than the present reality.
> attempting to export the identity politics of the current administration via tarde deals with the UK
Not only can I not understand how you could imagine this to be the motive; I can't imagine how you even understand the term "identity politics" such that they could even in principle be "exported" in such a manner.
Are you suggesting, for example, that tariffs are somehow being differentially applied to different products from the same country, according to the ethnicity, gender, etc. of the manufacturers?
> No one has been deported for their opinions, yet
You probably thought I was talking about El Salvador. I wasn't.
Is it not deportations when multiple university students have stripped of their visas without notice, by order of "Little Marco" and forced to leave the country?
> How would you react to 10 million tourists moving to your country, buying up all the food from your grocery stores, drinking and driving, stealing, dealing drugs,...
Author here. Noticed a lot of traffic from this post - so thanks. Thanks especially for all these thoughtful comments. Just dropping in to say I appreciate the attention - and am grateful that most posters here don't seem to mind that I'm unable to draw hard conclusions in my original article. I also like the posts here that point towards the fact that atomisation maybe has had something to do with things (as well as the hardening of inequalities and etc.) Interesting! Perhaps it was more possible to share jokes in 2003 than it is now? (The concept that jokes either punch up or punch down seems an indication of that... Feels quite recent to me. And What if the intention isn't to hit anyone, really, just to make each other laugh?)
Anyway, to respond to a couple of other things on here. I'm not really a comedian. Sorry! I do work in the publishing industry, so while I can't prove my ideas about publishers being nervous, I would hope I have a reasonable insight and instinct.
Hi Sam
Thanks for writing the piece in the first place – I thought it was a wonderfully self-reflective and mature look back at the book, why you created it, and how times have changed.
As a mid 40something in the UK, formerly a creative writer, I have experienced exactly the same shifting attitudes as yourself. The primary reasons, as many have said, are probably the fact that people are more polarised in their thinking and less versed in nuance, but also that the whole of the UK has become a bit crap really, so the joke’s a bit too on the nail.
For what it’s worth, I thought the original idea for the book was pretty funny, and I still do even now! Keep doing what you do – create things from the heart, you can’t predict the future and you can’t cover for everyone’s reactions.
I remember Crap Towns, I loved it! And the Idler! Which had an entire section on jokes for which punchlines had been half-forgotten.
Great and thoughtful reflection piece too.
I’d like to add a few other ideas into the mix as for some reason I’m uncomfortable with the idea “you can’t say that anymore” that I wonder if it’s become a thought-terminating cliche.
Firstly, I suspect there’s always been two forms of puritanism: one with power and one without power. We didn’t historically hear much from puritans without power (famously some shipped off elsewhere and founded an empire). And the ones in power? Well a fish doesn’t know it’s wet…and all the other sods now have X accounts and podcasts!
The second point is to reflect on the fact that British humour is a curious thing. You noticed yourself that satire may have curiously little real world bite.
Maybe there’s been a category error: humour isn’t a mechanism for social change, it’s a coping strategy (I live in Luton, not Hull, TFFT). Or worse mechanism for social control. In my brief time in the Uk I noticed that “banter” often chipped at eccentricities or quirks, and served to bring people into line with group orthodoxy.
In short, and to mirror your uncertainties, I’m just not so sure it’s as clear cut that free speech has been curtailed somehow. Or that humour was ever about just having a laugh.
Thank you!!
Perhaps it was more possible to share jokes in 2003 than it is now
Its much more possible for people who are the target of jokes to reply now, compared to pre-social-media 2003
Taking offense when none was tendered is a special kind of social malfeasance that has gained popularity among the idle and boorish class of recent years. I appreciate it as a facile outward indication of low character and questionable intellect.
Well that may be. But I'm talking more about differences between 2003 and now. Regardless of cancel culture etc, there is a physical possibility of reply/response now, that did not exist in 2003. Perhaps the two things are related?
I suspect you are right, both in the voice and in the causal nature of the new memosphere validating the valueless.
Went through the entire article expecting imminently to get to the paragraph where you perceive that Crap Towns was a mistake because it makes fun of the poor, and that the reason it couldn't be published now is that poverty in the UK is far worse than it was 20 years ago.
[flagged]
Loved the fact that this post didn't go where I expected it to (or at least, didn't remain there). That a book like this probably wouldn't be published today, or would be less popular today, is a point that has been made many times by many people, about many different books, TV shows, jokes, etc. But the author actually moves on from there; the observation is that even in his own opinion, the same joke isn't funny today — in fact, the equivalent thing being done today just looks “grubby”.
So it's something deeper than the usual “political correctness” debate: the question really is, what is it about the world today that trumps the hallowed British traditions of celebrating failure, of moaning, of affectionate self-mockery? Why isn't the joke funny any more, or why doesn't the mocking seem affectionate?
(He points at the malaise that exists today—it was only funny when there was some hope—but I'm not sure that's the only answer…)
Often when someone, especially a comedian, complains about “political correctness”, what they actually mean is: nobody is laughing at the same joke I told 20 years ago
Sensibilities change. The sense of what is and isn’t punching down changes. Even the appetite for punching down changes.
People who whine about “PC” always pretend like it’s the death of comedy or speech or whatever, and yet… there are younger people building great careers!
And yes, there is a real worrying erosion of free speech - but 98% these people could keep saying exactly what they’ve been saying - they’re just not getting the laughs they think they’re entitled to.
> Sensibilities change. The sense of what is and isn’t punching down changes. Even the appetite for punching down changes.
Yes, and the way it changes tells us something about our society, which I believe this article is trying to address.
Read the article, its much more interesting and reflective that that
I did, I’m just commenting one facet
> Sensibilities change
If people are literally calling the police, they aren't changing, they are being suppressed/punished.
> they’re just not getting the laughs they think they’re entitled to
Why are the comedians 'entitled' rather than the people who go to their show and complain?
It’s not zero sum. Expand your thinking lol
Maybe expand your comment so I know what you're thinking, "lol"
Maybe don’t make up something in your head and then get mad at me for it, lol
> Often when someone, especially a comedian, complains about “political correctness”, what they actually mean is: nobody is laughing at the same joke I told 20 years ago
Don't rephrase others' sentiments to suit your own narrative. Soothsayers are bullshitters.
When comedians complain about political correctness, there is no alternate meaning. They are upset that they can't tell the same jokes they told 20 years ago, to the same audiences from 20 years ago that continue to enjoy them, because external forces mob, heckle, and harass them so they cannot serve their customers...
...which conveniently provides opportunities for those younger people to "build great careers," by eliminating all legacy competition.
In any other context it'd be driving the local kebab shop owner out of town because someone with influence wants to open a salad bar in its place.
It's mob rule, not "social justice."
>mob rule
Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved it's not. It's just a critical mass of people having opinions you don't like and voicing those opinions.
If the market of ideas decides your ideas are not valuable anymore for whatever reason you're going to suffer what scarcity feels like.
> Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved
Last time I checked the mob called for these people lives to be destroyed by asking for them to lose all possibility of ever having a job and threatening anyone who would employ them or support them of dire repercussions while slapping themselves in the back for what a positive impact they made.
So yes, it’s very much about threat of violence.
The fact is that many people actually follow through on their desire to boycott something, to the point that it’s not a trivial branch of the population.
Taken in the fullness of its meaning, it very much shows that peoples positions and sentiments have changed.
Should we be proud that a non trivial branch of the population is apparently wedging their power to silence another part who would like to say things they don't like?
Personnaly, that doesn't sound very healthy to me.
I mean, no one cared when the shoe was on the foot. America has an information system that has one section that disconnected its viewers from other views. For decades now.
Is it violence?
describes something non violent
This is violence!
Putting pressure on people in order to destroy someone life definitely is violence, yes, especially considering the point is preventing someone from having the capacity to have a livelihood. Pushed to its logical conclusion, if it worked perfectly, it's more or less murder (or ostrasism if you want to be nice but as some vocal opponents are openly implying murder would be okay I feel founded in saying it is murder).
Violence is not limited to physical violence. The fact that this apparently eludes some is probably the most worrying part of the current American trend and I think in no small part responsible for the sorry state of the country.
Getting someone's home foreclosed is just SWATing them in slow-motion.
Except of course, it really shouldn’t be funny according to anybody the sole fact that somebody is gay. About what most of these “comedians” arguing for. Even according to the massive amount of disinformation in this topic.
I don’t know why the author included that in the article when the distaste for self-loathing humour can have completely different causes. And also can be quite good reasons, like you cannot really do anything against those, not against the bad environment into which you’re born, and also not against being gay. But that would be against the fabricated outrage, which is enjoyed by many. Probably even by the author.
Just to mention one example that these can have reasons not suggested by disinformation (because for example, it would be against their sources): in Hungary, joking about corruption is dead. Completely. The reason is twofold: Orban stole about 30% of the whole economy in the past 15 years, and that doesn’t include the stolen cash. Also people who care, couldn’t do anything, even when some of us tried. It’s like being gay (in this context), it’s totally out of your control, and there is no chance to change it in any way. Now that I moved to somewhere with healthier democracy, I’m quite happy that I see jokes about corruption again.
“Mob rule” is just how conservatives say “I shouldn’t face consequences”. Freedom doesn’t include freedom from repercussions
Mob rule is when people don't like my comedy any more. Got it.
> Got it.
No you haven't, and it seems you don't care to.
comedians no longer complain about that, contemporary comedy is merely repeating the commonly accepted societal mantrae, and laughing at and trivialising opposition or criticism to or of it.
Wit, satire, and criticism are still funny, but aren't permissible.
The same phenomenon exists when people talk about the movie Blazing Saddles.
It's transgressive content worked because it was satirizing "wholesome" Wild West shows, holding up a funhouse mirror to their less-obvious absurdities and racist aspects. It was so successful, its targets don't exist anymore.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=jzMFoNZeZm0
I think the difference is between, let's say, Ricky Gervais making a joke about a little boy with cancer, and Ricky Gervais making a joke about THAT little boy with cancer right there in Seat 7G. Everyone now knows these crap towns are dying.
If someone looks a bit pale and sickly, it's often considered fair game to make fun of their appearance (eat some vegetables, get some exercise etc)... Whereas if they have severe health problems it's no longer tasteful. This fact has not changed, it's basic human decency. The situation is what's changed.
This is a good question..it just occurred to me that perhaps its because its so much easier for the people who would be the target of the joke to answer back now?
Social media gives the possibility of instant reply, whereas if you publish a book in 2003 called 'crap towns' how can the so-called chavs answer back? Publish their own book? Write to the local paper?
So its a side effect of how we can all hear each other better now (for better or for worse)
Oh, that's insightful. Author could have encountered a light form of elite convergence 20 years ago when interacting with fellow writers and journalists, who probably didn't live in the blighted areas, and could take the joke on behalf of their cities. Being from a crap town is fine if you're don't live in the crappy part of town.
I'll add that the decade-long austerity measures let people know that it's actual class warfare, and it's no longer a laughing matter as it was in 2003 when it seemed fixable. Now it's clear the people in charge are not interested in fixing anything. A joke about someone's health situation is received better if the condition is treatable, but less so of they are terminal.
It was 2003, not 1993 - the article even has a screenshot of people answering back online.
The competing website they don't want to name has Internet Archive pages dating back to 2004.
Humor is as much about context as content
and yet there is a whole youtube channel successfully doing the same
> "I mean: incredibly, governments and local councils didn’t read my work and decide to mend their ways. The UK did not get better. Instead we got more than a decade of Tory austerity, Brexit, and all the accompanying neglect and bad feeling."
This bit made me laugh.
I read the original book when it came out and it was funny and - in some ways - true. I was born and bought up in the town ranked #4 in the original list (Hythe), but when I read it I was living in Hackney (#10 on the list). So I could shove the book in the faces of my friends and colleagues and say: look at me! I've moved up in the world!
The reason I laughed is because around the time of publication (2003?) I was working in the Government's Social Exclusion Unit. Prior to that I had spent time in the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit; later on I'd go on to work for the Lyons Inquiry. Part of my work included meeting people, and one thing I took away from those meetings would be how incredibly proud people could be about their neighbourhoods and towns: however deeply sunk into poverty the area was, they still cherished the place. The other thing I learned was, more often than not, those people often had good ideas about how to fix some of the issues - local solutions for local problems. All they needed was a little help and support from authorities to get those solutions off the ground.
So when the author claims that "governments" didn't read the book - some of us did. We enjoyed it, and we tried to do things to help people make their towns just a little bit less crap. Sadly it wasn't enough, but if people don't try then nothing will ever get fixed.
I was curious - what was the angle on Hythe in the book?
These days Hythe seems like a posh seaside town with a Waitrose, a nice canalside park, a cute steam railway, lots of boutiquey shops and cafes, etc.
I know a lot of places in the area (e.g. Folkestone, Margate, Whitstable) have all been heavily "gentrified" in the last few years, but I sort of assumed Hythe was always this way? Is that not the case?
And even allowing for a bit of gentrification, it seems wild in 2025 to select it for a "crap towns" award ahead of somewhere like Dover or New Romney.
Crap Towns called Hythe "...quite possibly the most spirit-crushingly tedious town in Kent." and "...the place that makes nearby Folkestone look like Las Vegas."
As someone who grew up in Hythe in the 80s and 90s I'd point out that the Rotunda was a far cry from Vegas.
https://www.warrenpress.net/FolkestoneThenNow/The_Demolition...
> quite possibly the most spirit-crushingly tedious town in Kent.
This is an extremely high bar to hit in a county that also contains Ashford.
Ashford at least has a high-speed rail connection to London. If nominations were to open today, I'd vote Dover.
It used to have one to Paris however when you look at how they voted in the referendum you can see why it doesn't anymore.
I worked at Portex back in the 80s. After a shift at that factory it was a pleasure to get home, slip on the shell suit and spend the evening drinking and discussing minor, mindless vandalism opportunities. I moved away in the end (to a squat in London) because I knew, deep down, there had to be something better for me out there.
> I was born and _bought_ up in the town ranked #4 in the original list (Hythe)
Blimey, it must have been horribly dreadful there if people were selling and buying children
That sounds to me as a product of something I see a lot of in society in general. Governments think hoi polloi are stupid, and they are clever, and therefore solutions imposed from above are superior to local solutions.
I think that's a misdiagnosis. The suggestions of the "hoi polloi" are obvious, and would solve the problem. Government prefers instead a solution that is both cheaper, so they can instead direct funds to things that they prefer, and more indirect, so they can route funds through friends and family.
The government's main effort is to complicate or denounce the "obvious" solutions. It's why they put so little effort into devising the programs that actually get rolled out; instead they just copy them directly from some non-profit that the government has been indirectly and almost entirely financing, and is directed by The Honorable Lord or Lady Somebody's Cousin.
Twenty years ago, I think there was still a sense that we were collectively laughing with each other about the dullness of small towns. We all had the same shops - Woolworths, Dixons, Our Price, BHS. We all had a leisure centre that looked like everyone else's leisure centre. Some towns were better off than others, some towns had parts that you were better off avoiding after dark, but the majority of towns belonged to the same broad spectrum of bland mediocrity.
Today, I think it's clear who would be being laughed at by whom. The fates of places have so radically diverged that we no longer have a sense of collective identity. All of the places listed in Crap Towns are now unrecognisable, for better or worse. Those familiar shops are now gone; in some places they have been replaced by artisan bakeries and pop-up boutiques, while in others they have been replaced by charity shops or nothing at all. Half the leisure centres have shut and we all know which half.
The upper middle class might have become more humourless and puritanical, but I think that's a subconscious self-defence mechanism, a manifestation of noblesse oblige without real obligation. The working class are too angry to laugh and certainly aren't willing to be laughed at. We all know that we're teetering on the brink of a populist wave, but no-one in a position of power seems willing or able to do anything about it.
This is what I was going to say. Back then, a book like this would have been perceived as the UK making fun of itself. Now it’s perceived as being cruel to those less fortunate.
I think it’s worth putting into context that the economy was doing great in the era this book was first published and huge progress was being made with things like homelessness, inequality, and poverty. It felt like the country had turned a corner from the lows of the 80s.
Since then, we’ve had the global financial crisis, local councils being bankrupted, and a huge rise in homelessness and inequality. The rich have more and the poor have less.
If you published that book today, the contents might be the same, but the story it tells would be quite different.
Good point re: facts versus story.
One problem may be that the UK is very London-centric in a way that is markably different from France being Paris-centric.
Just my perception (and I know London much better than Paris) is that in France, if you are not in Paris you are seen as "living in the 'province'", but politicians still fight for farmers there etc. In contrast, in the UK, on the surface there is the appearance that yes, London is the capital and more important, but that people are trying to do initiatives like moving part of the BBC to Glasgow and Manchester - to decentralize a bit.
Yet the wealth concentrated in Greater London and its commutable satellites - as contrasted with the rest of the country - is many orders of magnitude bigger, also due to the financial industry there.
If you live in Knightsbridge and commute to your trader job in Canary Wharf you will never see how derelict Portsmouth or Blackpool really are (the only time I went to Portsmouth, I recall some people sitting in the street with nothing to do).
Fun UK fact. only
>One in five civil servants are based in London (20.1%), down from 20.7% in 2022.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-service-stati...
True, but "civil servant" is a very broad term. A majority of civil servants - a very large majority outside of London - work in Operational Delivery. They work in JobCentres or prisons, they do clerical work in the DVLA or the Passport Office, but they have no actual involvement in or influence over policy. The centre of power is still overwhelmingly in London.
>>One in five civil servants are based in London (20.1%)
Depending on the jobs covered under "civil servants", this is probably normal and not interesting at all.
Meh. As someone who's in the opposite situation (familiar with France and not with the UK), I get the feeling that what you're saying applies here, too.
It's funny you should talk about farmers. Yes, politicians say they'll move mountains for them. Yet, in practice, farmers are still barely making ends meet. And we also have the EU on top, which is run by bureaucrats even more removed from the actual "bas peuple". Just look at the whole situation with the Mercosur treaty.
Politicians keep yapping about how ICE cars are the devil and should be banned. After all, you can take a bike or ride the metro, right? It's not like anybody lives outside Paris or its close "satellites". It's very easy when you don't even have an idea how much a ticket costs, since you're carted around by police escort on the people's dime.
We've also had a push for "decentralization", with all kinds of hilariously bad results.
I don't know about Portsmouth nor Blackpool, but I ride around France a fair bit, and outside the biggest cities, many small towns have empty, run-down centers, with mayors fighting to get stores and whatnot back. But people simply move out for lack of jobs.
You can walk out of Canary Wharf, within a mile or two you'll see much the same.
Not that the Knightsbridge set ever do.
Heck, even from Knightsbridge itself you don't have to go that far. North End Road is what, two, three miles?
I don't know of anywhere in London that has quite the profound sense of hopelessness you find in Blackpool, but a lot of it's really not great.
The Gini coefficient of the UK is about the same now as it was then:
https://equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed/
What has actually changed? A whole bunch of other economic malaise, but also perceptions, amplified to your personal taste by social media.
What has actually changed is that thirty years ago, the ratio between house prices and average earnings was about 4. By twenty years ago it had doubled and, most importantly, it has been at that level ever since with no real sign of dropping [1].
This is a structural change. We now have at least one, and perhaps two, generations of people who can't really alter their economic situation through hard work. That's the classic recipe for populism to thrive.
[1] https://www.schroders.com/en-gb/uk/individual/insights/what-...
Interest rates were much higher back then which accounts for most of the change. The base rate was around 6% through most of the nineties (it hit 15% at its peak).
And as with so many modern issues, the housing problem was largely created by Thatcher - her Right to Buy policy.
Right to Buy does not explain why the same trend is visible all over the Anglosphere, from Dublin, Ireland, to Wellington, New Zealand, to Sydney, Australia, to Vancouver, Canada.
The people don’t want housing built near them and the politicians listened. Lower supply than demand for decades leads to steadily rising prices. If you want to see the alternative look to Tokyo, Austin or Seattle. Build so much housing that the returns on investment are low and people can afford housing.
To me the biggest problem is the buy-to-let market, which means anything affordable is snapped up in seconds by people with money to invest, rather than people who just want a home to live in.
I think it's mainly a symptom of the unusualy low interest rates over the last 20 years: people have invested in residential property not because they particularly want to be landlords, but because it's perceived as the easiest way to get a better return on your money than a savings account that pays near zero interest.
I know of more than one person who's now looking to sell their rental property because they found out the hard way that "landlord" is actually a job title, not just the name of their savings account, that properties need to be maintained and that letting agents will find a way to swallow the vast majority of any profits.
I also know more than one person living in rented accommodation with appalling maintenance lapses. One had a shoddy roof repair last year which left the gutter missing. When the next rainstorm caused water to cascade down the outside wall and flow in above the back door, the letting agent had the nerve to shrug and say "old properties do that".
Another had a rotten wooden lintel above a street door scraped out, filled with expanding foam and painted over.
The problem is potential residents don’t get a say - only the incumbents. The only solution is national level housing policy.
Apart from the local housing supply/demand and NIMBYism there are 3 financial factors:
- artificially low interest rates (since 1990, and esp. since 2007)
- exemption from capital gains tax for primary residence, which is the main reason why property is used as a pension scheme
- mortgage interest tax relief which makes debt tax efficient; phased out in the UK, but still available in the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_mortgage_interest_deducti...
Ireland is never a good example of these trends being global. We're right next to the UK and basically copy their policies on a few years lag.
I think that it's important to note that the UK, Ireland and California have similarly destructive planning processes which end up ensuring that only property with high margins gets built.
Austin? I thought my house was outrageously overpriced in 2014 when I bought it — compared to every other major city in Texas it was 2x/ft. It's tripled in "value" since then; new builds are quadruple. The rest of Texas is only up ~50% in the same period.
I vaguely recall a criticism of neoliberalism related to the emphasis on home ownership. Something about policy, homes being the primary vehicle for building wealth (vs say pensions), etc. And, ultimately, begetting NIMBYism.
I'm just repeating stuff I've heard. A lot of it feels like unintended consequences.
The NIMBYism part seems pretty clear.
If others have ideas, sources, rebuttals, please share.
I couldn't disagree more! I think the housing cost issue is pure supply and demand, we have a country which doesn't like to permit building and an increasing population due to (legal) immigration.
I will bash Maggie all day, for her refusal to effectively manage industrial decline in Britain, for her boneheaded belief that a top-ranking economy could exist solely on services, and, most of all, for her idiotic squandering of our North Sea oil wealth. But, Right to Buy was a rare hit for me. I see it as having been a forward-looking policy which aimed to reward people for work -- play the game, and you too can have a tangible slice of society in the form of your own home to possess and care for as you wish. The problem is that we didn't replace the social housing lost to RtB.
> The problem is that we didn't replace the social housing lost to RtB.
We didn't fail that - Councils wanted to build more social housing with RtB and Thatcher viciously destroyed those programs. She created RtB not because it was a "forward-looking policy aimed to reward people for work" but because she hated the social security apparatus and wanted to destroy it. And she was never covert nor apologetic about it.
Gini coefficient usually only measures income inequality. Wealth inequality is hard to measure for various reasons but…
https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/
“for the UK as a whole, the WID found that the top 0.1% had share of total wealth double between 1984 and 2013, reaching 9%.”
“If the wealth of the super rich continues to grow at the rate it has been, by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than the whole UK GDP.”
Etc.
> by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than the whole UK GDP
Those things are measured in different units, which automatically throws doubt on the ability of the source to be statistically rigorous in any other way.
One is measured in pounds. The other is measured in pounds. Seems pretty comparable.
If you're being deliberately stupid you could pretend it's a comparison between pounds and pounds per year, but everyone who is at least minimally literate in the subject understands that "GDP" here means "the amount of value produced in a year".
The super rich aren't the problem. 200 families is too few to have any meaningful effect on the housing market.
By all means tax them til their eyes bleed, but it'll mostly just make people feel better rather than being a useful contribution to public finances.
They own a lot of UK property and land, both directly and through trusts. And given the statistic that the top 50 families control half of the UK’s total wealth, I’m not sure how you can say it wouldn’t have an impact on either tax revenues or property prices. A land tax of 0.1% would have a staggering impact on tax revenues.
It might affect agricultural land prices. Indeed that's at the heart of the farming IHT controversy (farming land is effectively overpriced relative to its business or utility value, because of its previously far too generous IHT treatment). It won't affect the price of houses, because it's not 200 rich families hogging the supply.
50 families controlling half the country's wealth is a bit of a stretch. The top 50 individuals have an average net worth of maybe $4-5Bn, giving a total wealth of $250Bn. Half the country's _land_ seems more likely?
Meanwhile there are literally millions of £1M+ houses owned by relatively ordinary people, millions of Boomers and some older GenX with at least £0.5m in their pension funds, and so on.
Land tax of 0.1% would be a good thing, but it'd be equivalent to putting about a third on council tax (£1k/year on a £1m home, currently council tax is about £3k in that bracket I think?). A useful step certainly but not revolutionary.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_...
Very little change in U.K. over 20 years
It looks to me like Equality Trust put a fair amount of thought and research into their website, did their best to paint a picture of what's going on in the UK by using multiple reputable sources, and tried to explain why that picture is dire, not just for those with a net worth that rounds to £0 but for the nation at large, with several dozen citations to back that up.
Thank God we have this one number from some Credit Suisse marketing material to invalidate all of that.
Gini is a very rough tool. It’s trying to describe the shape of a curve with a single number. It describes the average inequality between any two people.
The curve can be skewed without the Gini number changing significantly if, say, the bottom 99% became increasingly more equal in income/wealth by becoming poorer overall, transferring income/wealth to the upper 1%.
I the numbers maybe not, but in the public perception? In society?
Perception in solicit is we should take people in £200k or £800k a year a lot more and leaver those with £100m in assets alone.
We’re up in arms when people block roads to highlight problems with climate change, but when millionaires get worried they’ll have less of a loophole with tax, we’re supporting it in droves.
Highly unlikely because the rich are now just running away from UK pulling all their cash with them; it's likely that leftists will get what they want - reduction of wealth inequality - just not in the way that pleases them: with the cash being simply gone.
Sounds good to me. The problem is the rich don't actually take their money and fuck off, they just keep owning wealth here forever. I expect that won't change until the UK gets an actual leftist government, which seems unlikely to happen in the next 10 years.
Switzerland and Afghanistan have an almost equal Gini coefficient.
My point is: the Gini coefficient might indicate what your country's income distribution looks like, it however does not tell anything about actual life conditions.
Quality of life encompasses many factors, e.g.
The Human Development Index, on the other hand, does. Switzerland is #1 at 0.967, improving at 0.25% per year. Afghanistan is #182 at 0.462 and dropping, the UK is a respectable #15 at 0.940 (between Finland and New Zealand) and also improving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Sure but that’s a bit silly. Switzerland’s GDP is something like 50x that of Afghanistan. UK GDP in 2025 is much higher than in 2003, too. Of course not 5000%
Again, gini coefficients or GDP growth measures are, at best, proxies to understand the conditions the bottom decile of your country lives in.
Looking at housing costs, life expectancy, food insecurity or poverty rates do a much better job at capturing this.
Yes, and and increases in the price of essentials (food, housing, utilities) have a greater effect on livings standards of the worse off and are not captured in the numbers.
>What has actually changed?
The value of grants paid from central government to local government have fallen by over 80%. In 2005, the poorest local authorities received most of their funding from central government; today, they're dependent on council tax and business rates for the vast majority of their income. During that time, demand for social care has vastly increased, disproportionately so in the poorest local authorities, eating away at the already shrinking resources of local authorities.
The result of those cuts have been drastic for people living in poorer communities, particularly the poorest members of those communities. They quite justifiably feel abandoned by society. Youth clubs and children's centres, social work, homelessness provision, subsidised bus routes, parks and libraries have all been cut to the bone. None of that is captured in the Gini coefficient, but it's felt acutely by the people who rely on those services.
The wealthy are largely unaffected by this, because they live in local authorities that were never particularly reliant on central government funding and because they never really relied on council services anyway. For the very poorest, the impact of austerity is often dominated by one big failure of provision - being stuck in unsuitable temporary accommodation for months or years because there's no social housing available, being denied support for a disabled child etc. For the majority, it's just a slow but pervasive erosion of their quality of life - their kids have nowhere to go after school, their street is full of potholes, the bus they take into town has been cut from four an hour to one an hour, their back alley is full of rubbish because the council can't afford to deal with fly-tipping.
https://neweconomics.org/uploads/files/NEF_Local_Government_...
https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/cbrwp51...
The share of the middle 40% has fallen sharply according to the bottom chart on that page.
The bottom 50% is unchanged in aggregate , but there will be groups within in that have done a lot worse.
I would also guess (I cannot find numbers) that the proportion of income that is spent on essentials has risen.
I think the argument is less that inequality has increased overall, and more that the country is increasingly stratified by geography - with greater concentrations of wealth in the South East relative to the rest of the country.
This is especially true in formerly undesirable areas of London (e.g. Hackney, #10 on the 2003 list) and towns within commuting distance of London (e.g. Hythe, #3).
Presumably this is due to the gradual shift to a London-centric services economy as well as the increasingly ludicrous price of houses in Central London.
Wealth has moved from public to private, and consumer spending from high streets to out-of-town shopping centres and Amazon, Deliveroo etc.
Leaving a badly depleted public sphere.
Oh, lies, damned lies and statistics. One could also say that the Gini coefficient rose, reached its peak ~2006 and now is going down...
“About the same” is not “the same”, and there are tipping points. The gini coefficient has still seen a decent bump.
But anyway, gini is a coarse measure. Look at the chart below that, showing income percentages going steadily upwards for the top 10 and 1%.
Most worryingly, look at the decline of the middle 40%. A healthy middle class keeps countries stable. You need a good chunk of society who feel like the system works for them.
And it’s not just perceptions, it’s fundamental stuff. A teacher could afford a house in the 90s; they can’t now. For all the boomers bang on about mobile phones and flat screen TVs, in the end those are luxuries compared to clean, secure accommodation. The days of getting a mortgage on one income, or having access to nice council housing are gone.
Look at the graphs as a whole, not just individual points. Compare the 90s to the 10s.
Gini coefficient of what? Income or wealth?
Is borrowing money with appreciating assets as collateral treated as income for purposes of thsese calculations?
Not sure about homelessness rising versus the 90s. Possibly the rate is similar to 1998. I looked at ourworldindata, but their graph only goes back to 2010. Wikipedia has wildly different figures from the charities Shelter and Crisis because they're counting different things. It then gives government figures: just over 100,000 in 1998, 135,000 in 2003, 40,000 in 2009 and 2010 (so ourworldindata gives a chart that begins with this low), and "record levels, with 104,510 people" in 2023, though that's less than 135,000 so the way in which this is a record is not specified.
In summary, it goes up and down a lot, is counted in different ways, was (counted to be) far lower in 2010 (two years after the financial crisis?), but pretty much the same as now in 1998, although the kind of people who have an interest in saying "homelessness has hit record levels" are saying that homelessness has hit record levels.
This makes me nostalgic for 1991 when the Big Issue was first published, and there were songs like Gypsy Woman by Crystal Waters and Walking Down Madison by Kirsty MacColl.
Edit: was your "80s" a typo for "90s" perhaps?
Well put.
A few decades of compounding inequality transforms what used to be good natured ribbing amongst chums into bullying.
What compounding inequality? The UK's Gini coefficient has been trending downwards since the global financial crisis.
14 years of Conservative government made this country more equal, not less, because they flattened the income distribution by making everybody poorer.
The big pattern among rich people in the UK nowadays is not that they're getting richer, it's that they're leaving.
You’re looking at the wrong numbers. Wealth, not income. Wealth inequality is through the roof. Poverty is through the roof. More people using food banks than ever. More people on zero hours and low paid contracts.
If you think the problem with the UK is that rich people are leaving, then you have no idea about the reality of living in the UK. Visiting some of the towns in this book would be a starting point.
> Poverty is through the roof. More people using food banks than ever. More people on zero hours and low paid contracts.
Is that supposed to prove me wrong? I said that everybody is getting poorer.
> Wealth inequality is through the roof.
Wealth inequality, while high, is still roughly where it was in 2007. (Source: https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/)
> If you think the problem with the UK is that rich people are leaving
I said it's a problem, not the problem. And it's not just the ultra-rich who are leaving, but vast swathes of the middle classes. Many poor people would leave too if they had the means.
You and the other replier seem to think I'm defending the status quo. How on earth did I imply that? You think I think it's a good thing for the entire country to get poorer?
"Wealth inequality, while high, is still roughly where it was in 2007"
This is not whats represented in the source you cited?
In the graph titled "Top 10% and Bottom 50% Wealth Shares in The UK 1900-2020" you can clearly see the wealth owned by the top 10% increased from 54.4% in 2007 to 57% in 2020 and likely even higher now 5 years later.
Yes, that's only a 2.6% increase. I don't think it's unfair to call that "roughly where it was".
In fact, according to that chart wealth inequality today is much lower than it was in the 1970s, although it increased throughout the 1990s.
The same link shows that the UK has unremarkable wealth inequality by the standards of developed countries: we're bang in the middle of the OECD, with lower levels of wealth inequality than Sweden, Denmark, Finland or Norway. (That's funny, I thought the Nordics were egalitarian utopias?)
I'm not saying that wealth inequality is low, or that it's not a problem. I'm merely responding to the claim that "wealth inequality is through the roof", which I take to mean that wealth inequality has increased substantially in recent years. As far as I can tell that's not true.
Personally I think we need more economic growth, not more taxes. We already have the highest taxes since WWII, soon to be the highest taxes in the entire history of the UK, and all it's doing is strangling the economy and making productive people flee.
Look, I'm not gonna dispute that the tax system is messed up in the UK (Student loans, the cutting off of credits at 100k and the lack of a real property tax) but fundamentally as a society ye blew mineral wealth on tax cuts then removed yourselves from a giant trading bloc, so the lack of services and higher tax rates are unsurprising.
Ultimately though, tax on income should be lowered and tax on property should be proportionately increased, given that property is the source of much wealth and is very difficult to hide or move.
Right, but the maximum is 92.7% and the minimum is 46%. A 3% difference seems small enough to be noise.
If the floor is 46% and the ceiling is 92.7% that 3% is much less likely to be noise.
The statistics they provide are the result of self-reporting by people they interview, and they themselves talk at length about the challenges and errors that may exist in their data and sampling: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...
I think this is inherently going to be a poor way to get an accurate representation of wealth inequality, because if you ask a bunch of really wealthy people worth $100mm+ how much money and assets they have, and especailly when these are very privacy focused people, they're going to either:
1. decline to respond in any way
2. if they do respond, they are very likely to misrepresent and downplay their wealth
3. very likely to have wealth that isn't UK based and therefore wouldn't disclose it to anyone for any reason
4. have a lot of very valuable things, like owning a private businesses, that may not necessarily have a price tag attached to them, and so therefore hard to represent when asked "how much money do you have?"
even though reports throughout years would always have this same issue, i think the problem is that as wealth for the 0.1% rises, that rise is not going to get well represented or collected
The problem in the U.K. is the availability of housing.
If only our problems could be reduced to a single "the".
Pretty much all other problems stem from that.
Well there’s the weather I guess.
Go get an airbnb in a poor suburb for a few weeks and live there, talk to people, and ask them if they think they're more or less equal with other Britons in the last 15 years. Show them your Gini coefficient and see what they think of it. Ask them if they feel the income distribution has been flattened in a way that favours them.
The rich people living here for the last 40 years all leaving does not bother most people. In fact, it's cause for celebration. They're leeches who don't pay tax on their piles of cash held in off-shore accounts - they just drive up the price of everything, particularly property. Meanwhile there are plenty of people trying to get here from the US to replace them who understand the purpose of capital is to put it to work and create jobs, not stare at it on a screen.
Your kind of thinking is not unusual within centre right politics, but it's also why nationalist populism is a credible threat. Farage is currently favourite with most bookmakers to be next PM because of the kind of defence of Tory policy you're making. Please think on that.
[flagged]
We’re talking about inequality between regions/towns, not individuals.
Do to self selection and sorting, you could have a situation where individual level inequality is unchanged but the geographical disparities change
The major change to income levels has been the massive increase in minimum wage. This removes the incentive to work hard and get skills because they aren’t valued, especially outside of London.
The other major change is the continual divergence of wealth.
If you are a 20 year old living near London you can get a crap paying junior job and live rent free for 5 years with parents while you save a 100k deposit (which using things like LISAs).
By the time you’re in your early 30s you have a decent paying job, have met a partner with a similar income, and can buy a house and repeat the cycle.
If you don’t you get the same job but have to pay rent to someone else’s parents, and you never get that deposit, so you’re trapped in the rent cycle.
Shocking how similar the fates of the US and the UK are similar. I’m in my 30s and the divergence is starting to become extremely stark between people who had middle class financially supportive parents and those who didn’t.
Kids who’s parents who are well off but wouldn’t pay for college is an entire cohort who are functionally locked out of the housing market. For most of my generation, there is little opportunity, only gatekeeping.
> Kids [whose] parents who are well off but wouldn’t pay for college is an entire cohort who are functionally locked out of the housing market.
That can’t be a particularly large set. Parents well off is already a small minority case and only a minority of that small minority won’t give support to their kids.
For people in that tiny sliver, I’m sure it feels bad but it doesn’t seem like a solution that works for other “starting from zero” young adults would need changes to also work for this set.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US (20+ years ago), the metrics used to determine "well off" for the purposes of receiving lower prices for higher education had nothing to do with the parents' wealth, and only their income, with no accounting for assets and number of other children, not to mention jobs without access to subsidized healthcare and/or healthcare costs, etc.
In my case, immigrant parents just started earning a little money around the time I go to college, which means I don't qualify for any assistance, parents don't have enough money to pay for my college, nor would I want them to as it would hurt their ability to support my grandparents and my younger sister, so I am taking out loans at full price.
Using income as a proxy for wealth has screwed the middle/upper middle for such a long time, and the actually rich love it (can throw in the nonsense that is earned income taxes here).
If you want to support your child at university in the UK, there's a particular band of middle-class income where you get the worst of both worlds. You make too much to get certain kinds of government support, but you don't make enough that you can comfortably make up the difference.
If you want to put multiple children through uni then it can get very burdensome.
One of many ways in which our system is regressive.
In 2000 I received the minimum loan, which was enough for full board university accommodation.
Today the minimum loan needs a £250 a month top up to pay for the same accommodation.
The only benefit is that you don’t have to pay for tuition fees until you’re earning a really good wage - rather than having to work all summer to pay for them.
You’d be surprised - parents of an entire generation basically paid for their entire schooling with a part time job. They pay less on their mortgage for a 3 bedroom house than a studio apartment.
In their mind, they made it on their own, and their entire parenting strategy was to teach the lessons of how they made it to their kids.
This is incredibly common with conservatives.
We've also seen a huge compression in net income as the tax thresholds haven't kept up with inflation. So someone who paid a 20% marginal rate twenty years ago is now paying 40% on the same real-terms income. And the 0% personal allowance has been eroded too.
Not to mention the 60% effective marginal rate between £100k and £125k - 69% if you have student debt, oh and that's not even counting employee's NICs.
And don't get me started on the stealth tax that is employer's NICs. (Those were just increased even further, and the morons are all defending it by pretending it doesn't come from wages... where exactly do they think the employer gets the money from?)
Plus all the insane traps where earning extra money can actually reduce your net income. E.g. there are situations in which increasing your salary by £1 can leave you thousands of pounds poorer because certain benefits are withdrawn with a cliff.
What's the point in working harder? You'd think that with such eye-wateringly high levels of taxation, we'd at least have something to show for it in the public sector, but... okay, I need to stop writing now for the sake of my blood pressure.
Everyone goes on about the 100k issue. For 10 years I paid 60% between 50 and 60k due to child tax. The child tax has recently shifted to between 60k and 80k and reduced so it’s now about 51% (plus student loans)
The chief economist of the resolution foundation spoke about this quite eloquently. The divide began in the 80 with the “new industries” (finance, pharma, technology, telecoms), it’s just that it is less visible during good times. When the tide retreats it uncovers the ugly rocks and the unevenness of the underlying strata.
> in some places they have been replaced by artisan bakeries and pop-up boutiques, while in others they have been replaced by charity shops or nothing at all.
Charity shops, vape shops (used for money laundering), Turkish Barbers (used for money laundering), Automated Laundrettes (used for money laundering), Car Washes (used for money laundering), Phone shops (used for money laundering), Kebab shops (used for money laundering)
Banks and privatised utilities (used for money laundering.) Politicians (used for money laundering.)
This is the UK's entire economy now - extracting the wealth of the people who work in the UK and moving it to foreign owners.
London looks rich because some of the money sticks to the sides while it's passing through, but it's still being siphoned from the provinces through the City and out - to tax havens, foreign mafias, foreign aristocrats, and giant foreign corporations.
It's important the population isn't allowed to understand that the UK is a colonised country. So there's a huge media machine making sure the peasants blame "immigrants" for small-scale criminality, and poor people for being feckless and unproductive. It's useful to make sure everyone keeps fighting about racism/immigration and gender issues to keep them from looking at structural economics and the destruction of democracy.
Too real for a Saturday morning. Sigh
How can invest in money laundering? Serious question. No crypto please, I do have some limits.
We really do excel at money laundering. Go UK !
> We all know that we're teetering on the brink of a populist wave, but no-one in a position of power seems willing or able to do anything about it.
This, I believe, is because the problem is psychological more than political: social division and alienation.
Of course, an increase in economic prosperity will lessen populism.
But if people continue to be alienated then they will be drawn to populists offering collective causes against perceived wrongdoers.
The large majority of online activities increase social alienation and social division.
Local, apolitical activities that breed cohension rather than division will decrease the psychological benefits that populism offers the alienated. I see no other solution.
I’d argue that your last paragraph has the cause-and-effect reversed:
We’re entering into a populist phase because the managerial class is incapable of addressing the problems experienced by most people — so they’re going to try dismantling the current elite systems and rebuilding them. To say that the problem is elites inability to suppress populism is to miss that the elites own chronic failures is what caused the populist surge.
Similar to populist waves circa 1900, where aristocratic systems were replaced with managerialism via populist revolts. Now, managerialism has failed so we’re again seeing the stirrings of change. At a broad scale, communism, fascism, and progressivism were all different technocratic managerial solutions to the problems and excesses of the late 1800s and early 1900s.
I think it’ll be interesting to see what comes next.
The only issue is that - in the past - weapons had to be wielded by people. The same working people that revolted.
There is very strong evidence that this will not be the case by the time this wave you have imagined gets really rolling.
I hope it does not happen for decades yet, because frankly: I cannot see the working class (of which I am part of) win that conflict.
Currently, weapons and logistics are not automated to that extent; I don’t think it’s meaningful to guess about decades from now, given the current flux.
I’d argue that your perspective means that the time to revolt is now (ie, next few years) — while the technical and social systems are in mutual flux and before a new regime solidifies. A regime that might be more autocratic totalitarian in nature (as you suggest will be the case).
People will reasonably come to different conclusions.
Change does not have to be violent, let alone be a violent internal conflict.
I think between the rise of China, America's reaction to it, and the general shift in economic power to Asia from the west, and the lack of trust in government in the west, things will change.
That seems an extremely cynical take to me, I don't think that's true at all. It divides people into monoliths and makes assumptions then uses those assumptions to restrict and hold back.
> but the majority of towns belonged to the same broad spectrum of bland mediocrity
Isn't it to be expected that the majority of X are average (mediocre)? I mean, you could have a statistically skewed distribution, but would that be very desirable?
If you recognize deep inequality but feel powerless (or complicit), doubling down on seriousness might feel like the only "responsible" move.
But we were promised that "AGI" will save us and humanity and AI will be able to clean up the crap towns and turn them into cool towns.
Yet another signal of the sad state of affairs is that you probably genuinely think we're "on the brink" and not well over the cliff, Wile E.-style. Buildings burned during leftist protests (whether or not leftists actually set the fires is up for debate), and the Capital was ransacked by a mob looking to overthrow an election.
That was half a decade ago.
The interim has consisted of a corrupt centrist presidential administration that spent most of its time denying that things are getting worse ("It's not a recession"; "We didn't fumble the Afghanistan draw-down"; "Those weren't significant bank failures"; "That's not a genocide"), followed by a corrupt fascist admin that is openly dedicated to making things worse.
All the while, the intellectuals who understand what is happening - not just what will happen, what is happening - have been begging anyone who will listen to take the situation seriously - to understand that their attempted conservation of the previous normal is actually vascillation, while the ground falls out from under us. But my property values! But my American dream! But my rules-based order! They're already dead. And we can't start rebuilding until people with money and influence face it.
I think you're from the USA and the commenter you're replying to is British, which probably explains the difference. Those shop names are recognisably British.
Ah, I'd thought that that Woolworths and Dixons were defunct regional chains (of which America has many, that Americans from other regions would not recognize or would have only heard about in passing). My bad.
Still, GP accurately describes much of the American East, Midwest, and South. Likewise, I would have to /s if I were to say that the British upper class were known for their down-to-Earth character. No one who is "posh" has ever been described as out-of-touch or "living in a bubble", particularly on the development of populist issues, after all. (/s)
I've not heard a compelling description of what 'facing it' looks like, and I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter
[dead]
[flagged]
How is this your #1 problem? We have so much serious issues and you are hung up on women having sex? Let them fuck how much they want. Nobody stopped men from fucking and if it works, doesn't that indicate a different problem?
[flagged]
There is more to puritanical attitudes than sex. It generally means anti-pleasure.
One thing the real puritans are against that people have turned against very strongly is alcohol. It never stopped being a problem in the US, of course, but there are far more preachy teetotalers in the UK than there used to be, and government policy is very anti too.
Then there is the push for achievement and the acquisition of wealth. You are supposed to dedicate your life to the cause of high achievement, rather than stop to enjoy it.
Sex acts online actually fit in with all this as they are safe and controlled alternative to enjoying sex in real life.
The amount of people having sex has dropped quite a bit in the last decade.
People get into sex work for money - they can’t afford rent.
Girls are having sex with 1000 guys a day and some people clearly still aren't getting any... Inequality in theUUK is even worse than I thought :(
puritanism is often linked to a backlash against this type of thing.
Weimar berlin was very open about this stuff too and was followed by a puritanical backlash. The world feels like it is going through something very similar.
These are… specific examples. Something on your mind? Puritanical cultures do have an association with being sex-negative lack of a better term because purity culture sounds circular. But they're far from the only aspect of culture that can embody puritan thinking.
They've been a naughty girls, they let their knickers down!
[flagged]
A popular protestantism is not a bandwagon the current political circus troupe will fit on.
> There’s a website (I won’t link to it) that has kept on running a survey of the worst places in the UK for years and years
I will, it's ChavTowns.
https://web.archive.org/web/20061013053524/http://www.chavto...
Still running as https://www.ilivehere.co.uk/
Also the owner is giving up on it as of the start of this year -- mainly because nobody visits the site; churnalists just freeboot it and they rank higher on google. https://www.ilivehere.co.uk/top-10-worst-places-to-live-in-e...
Now that's an interesting trend. It's no longer feasible to have an independent web site, because nobody will visit it because you don't have the page rank. Journalists that do find your site copy your data and may add a link (that noone vists). Their pagerank is much higher, so they get all search engine links and all the ads, for your content.
Between that, Google reposting your content and AI's hoovering up everything in site it hardly seems worth publishing online anymore.
We have this situation in lithuanian web for a two decades now.
Once the big news networks (DELFI.lt, 15min.lt, lrytas.lt, alfa.lt and few others) bought out the largest blogs and connected them to their own domains, there isn't much of an independent web left. Owners of the websites back then gladly sold out (and I would have done it too), because it seemed like a great idea to sell your work back in the 2008-ish for real profit, an unique chance (imagine monetising your content when you have only 3 mil. theoretical consumers! There isn't much lithuanian speakers) and especially during the economic crisis.
Then the other blogs were attached to the networks by the generous offers of "let us publish and we will give backlinks, maybe" + "we will just copy it because we know that you won't bother taking us to court, it's too small of a country, you know".
So now whatever you google, you get mostly these results: 7 big network sites and subsites, 2 auto-translated AI slop generated by someone in other side of the planet, 0.9 of business pages and 0.1 something actually personal.
No wonder that almost all content creators moved to social networks by the 2015-ish. They still are there.
I wonder what will change this. A web apocalypse? Mass demand of in-person, non-online "content"? I wonder...
Sounds like the main issue is Google Search ?
Plenty of people are linking their own websites on HN, BTW, so it might not necessarily need to be one or the other.
https://indieweb.org/POSSE ?
Please read the words 5-7 again :-)
> organisations who despite their name, do not give a flying ** about their social housing stock
> and run-down decaying towns in the whole country
You cannot simultaneously have landlords living in Spain and well maintained local housing. Both are expensive. Pick only one. There exists a sweet spot when people are desperate enough to live in a place and pay every rent for any housing, but the sugar coating has washed off.
PS. How could they miss Bedford in the ranking?!
The social housing stock is run by corporate landlords with UK offices. It's still poorly maintained anyway.
Not sure how living in Spain is expensive compared to UK. Cheaper living, lower taxes.
"Expat's cost of living" is different from "native's cost of living".
Yikes, I spent 15 years living in one of the Top 10 and my summers in another one. I probably agree, though. The rot was showing in most of those by the late 80s and they went very swiftly downhill after that.
To counter those depressing places, these towns and villages seem lovely:
https://www.thetimes.com/best-places-to-live/location-guide/...
I can't see the list because of the paywall but my guess is they are all medium sized market towns. Large enough to have the facilities you need but not so big that they become impersonal.
That author on Slough,
> Ricky Gervais encapsulated its brutalist new town grim with ‘The Office’ before giving up and writing lame punching-down anti-woke “gags” for the educationally subnormal
That's a very strange reading on Gervais' post-The Office career. After The Office he did things like Extras, a sitcom about extras on TV and film sets, Derek, an emotional series about a well-meaning care worker who thinks it's more important to be kind than popular, and After Life, a series about a man who loses his wife young and how he deals with grief.
He also did The Invention of Lying, which, 16 years since I watched it in the cinema, is still the answer I give without hesitation to "what's the worst movie you've ever seen?"
For me that has to be High Life. Pitched to me as "Robert Pattinson has to to take care of a baby in space", in reality it was basically a side plot to "serial killers and rapists are stuck on a spaceship together" and all that implies.
Yeah I don't know, you're selling it well. I kind of want to watch that.
Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!
John Betjeman (1906 - 1984)
There’s also his standup career of being extra atheist as if the world has never seen a famous lapsed Christian Brit
I concluded Noah's Arc was bollocks when I was 8 so I don't know why he goes on about it at his age
Because people in power of a similar age still go on about how they think it’s true?
Who?
I know there is the odd biblical literalist in power in the US, but have never come across one in the UK. The biggest group of Christians in the UK are Anglicans (who are not usually biblical literalists, although there are evangelical groups within it that might be) and Catholics (church firmly against Biblical literalism, although there might be odd individuals).
I think the reason atheists argue with Bibilical literalists is that its easy. It is somehting of a straw man: you pick a sub-group that is easy to debunk/discredit and then discredit the whole group by association. This has always been a problem: St Augustine talked about the damage done by people who interpreted the scriptures as contradicting what is known to be true in the 4th century.
Have you not been following the news this week? A tremendous number of people still put a huge amount of stock into their silly superstitions.
Because it was edgy and transgressive when he was doing it 15 years ago.
Nowadays not so much.
To be honest, like most of his subsequent attempts to be edgy and transgressive, it wasn't really 15 years ago either. His entire career as a standup and Twitter commentator feels like an extension of the Brent "I don't live by The Rules you know" persona
There's good money in it, I expect.
Plus, there's no harm in making a career (or a joke) out of being vaguely anti-nonsense.
Charlie Hebdo's publishers might disagree.
> lapsed Christian Brit
I don't think he is a lapsed Christian though?
Edit: seems not
If you're about to write a diatrabe about the harms of political correctness or scold the writer on inventing a victimhood complex for themselves, please read the ending of the OP:
> Much as I’d like to, I can’t just blame the puritans if my old jokes don’t work any more. Nor can I claim that the Crap Towns books were an unqualified success
[...]
> before closing, I should admit that there is a more straightforward answer to the question of whether you can still get away with doing something like Crap Towns.
> That answer is: yes. There’s a website (I won’t link to it) that has kept on running a survey of the worst places in the UK for years and years- and, honestly, when I look at it, I hate it. Partly because I feel like they’re ripping off my project, but mainly because when I read the comments on there about incels and chavs and carbuncles and brutalism it all just seems grubby. Maybe even cruel.
> I could argue that I don’t like this website because their approach and criteria are different to mine - and I hope there would be some truth in that. But I also know that I now also just react against the whole thing. It’s been done. It’s grown stale. It doesn’t fit - especially since so much has changed around it. In short, the world has moved on. And maybe that’s not such a bad thing?
> “Of course, you wouldn't get away with it now.”
I say, try. Publish "Crap Towns, 20 Year Update" and ask what's changed? Revisit some of the original places, take some new photos. Plenty of scope to continue the humour, but also scope to hint at some wider reflections and continue the conversation. Having recognition of the first book also adds some authority to your commentary.
He says he won't, but he's also right that if it's funny, it works. Humour has a wonderful way of being able to say things you couldn't otherwise be able to communicate so effectively.
And a book that dares to go beyond the humour and reflect on 20 years of progress, would love to see it.
One thing that has been accentuated over the past few decades is the idea that you are responsible for your success. When you were poor, lacked means, or didn't have a good job, it was because the god of fortune didn't smile on you. Only the fortunate experienced success.
Now only losers are broke and live in crap towns, and winners drive expensive cars. With this idea in mind, calling it crap towns becomes an attack on the people, rather then the town itself.
This idea is thoroughly explored in Alain de Botton's "Status Anxiety"
I feel like the opposite has been accentuated for around 15+ years now, especially after the 2008 recession.
The 1990s/2000s felt like "you make your own luck", but since I got out of college, it seems the 90% luck / 10% effort idea is the mainstream (including "who you know is more important than what you know"). Maybe it is just me growing up, or maybe it's the proliferation of access to data due to the internet, such as opportunityatlas.org
I wonder if the increased acceptance of this fact can cause a type of societal malaise.
I would estimate the bigger cause of malaise is the fact that things just seem to get worse. Housing gets more expensive, shops close down, towns die. One can't help but get the feeling there is a continual tightening of the screws. Every year, the country sinks a little further down. What can you do if you want to stop it? Brexit? Reform? Very unsatisfying answers, but the only ones people are given beyond "lay down and accept it".
People in crap towns drive expensive cars too. The inequality between a crap place and a nice place is now enough that people can afford a ghastly Lamborghini SUV thing before they can afford to move out of a crap town.
Only the drug dealers and landlords.
I remember a few years ago a politician was vilified for suggesting there wasn't much you could do about the derelict seaside towns. I have a feeling that what he said was probably quite close to the truth.
As Thatchers children we've all internalised some of those ideas to an extent, even those who vehemently are against here.
Individualism, atomisation and other Randian bullshit.
The author writes well. Within a few paragraphs the reader entirely forgets that "I couldn't publish Crap Towns today" is a hypothetical.
Yeah I kept reading for the part where the author addresses the thesis, but that's not what it's about.
Is it about keeping you reading for long enough to show you a pop-up for his newsletter?
Just disable JavaScript and get on with your life
Just because these types of annoyances can be easily disabled by someone with a little bit of technical know-how doesn't mean that one doesn't have the right to be annoyed by the tendency and call it out.
I stopped reading and got on with my life just fine.
But I like leaving snarky comments, so I'm not going to stop doing it.
I thought that too, it it quite hard to uncover the logical argument there. Appears to be sourced from conversations with journalists. I ended up just trusting that it was true in order to engage with the rest of the piece.
The problem is those towns weren’t crap within living memory when the books were written. Now anyone who remembers otherwise is close to dead
Some of them maybe have gentrified (not to ignore that this in itself isn't 100% a good thing). Others are if anything worse than when he wrote the book.
Nah, several of them were always running jokes, some of them were a lot worse a decade or three earlier, and some of them were picked far more for their snobbishness or for being homogenous sanitised suburbia than their decline.
>One age misunderstands another; and a petty age misunderstands all the others in its own ugly way.
I couldn't help but keep thinking about this Wittgenstein quote as I read this. I find it harder to say exactly why. Obviously, we felt differently in the past. Not my past, of course: I was a child, barely able to integrate by parts or fold a shirt correctly.
There is another possibility. The usual complaint is that oversensitivity has constrained humor. The usual retort is that what we did before was harmful and we're better off not doing it. But the problem with logical-seeming dilemmas is that existential propositions can only seem logical. The world, unlike logic, is malleable. Perhaps the jokes really are worse today than they were in the past?
Twenty years ago, our crap towns were something we experienced with the other townsfolk first and foremost, and only to a lesser degree did we bear the weight of the outside world's eyes upon us. Today it is not like this. Communication across great distances has gone from difficult to convenient to pervasive and unavoidable.
Locality has frayed in more domains than the spatial. Recently /r/MedicalPhysics had a spat with /r/sysadmin about hospital IT policies. Such a civil war would have been unthinkable in the 2000s. Humans used to spend much more time socializing with their friends or at least comrades-in-something than with almost complete strangers. Our egos are exposed to the elements in a new and phase-changing way.
I think that the social fabric has already begun to fight this trend from the bottom up. At the risk of sounding like an advertisement, Discord has made non-discoverability its greatest feature. The gladiatorial aspect of modern discourse has never sat well with me. I don't want to have a conversation for the audience. But here I am. Please clap.
Reddit is cancer. Discord is a cancerous black hole. (Platforms are evil.)
The issue is not so much discoverability as scale (as you hinted at), as well as some social media aspects.
PhpBB-style forums are both discoverable, rarely grow large enough to become toxic, can be 'owned', and the exit option is much more viable.
I remember a Web site, in the early oughts, called “sheppeyscum.com”. That URL now redirects to one that makes Sheppey look good.
The original one did not.
It was all about insulting the Isle of Sheppey (Western UK). I think an ex-Shep wrote it.
Looks like all traces are gone. I understand that death threats were involved.
Crazy stuff, you got me curious
https://web.archive.org/web/20040411225059/http://www.sheppe...
> The island was shat from the arse of the Norse god Fuctup whilst he was suffering a bout of diarrhoea as a side effect of his recent withdrawal from scag. And that's true, as true as I'm sitting here. > A large number of policefolk who work on Sheppey are "Specials", which by a startling coincidence is also an affectionate term used to describe people with learning disabilities. > Christian based cults aside, the main religious practices on the island usually resemble primitive tribal type worship. Drug induced trances are a common tool for reaching the spirits beyond. These trances are often extended to include ritual drug induced self sacrifice- a deeply sacred activity known commonly to the natives as "Overdose".
You go to the "culture" section and there's just a single word, "NO." xD
If it’s the Sheppey I’m thinking of, it’s in Kent (SE England)
You are correct.
Got my right and left mixed up.
The road to Wigan Pier (1937) would be a humourless response. His main issue is the lack of acceptance of current satirical humour, "modern life is rubbish" being 22 years old.
I think he's wrong to say you couldn't publish it now. I think he is right it would be misunderstood and misinterpreted.
Bill Bryson and Paul Thoroux wrote extensively of how shit English towns can be in winter after 4pm when the shops are shut and the pub isn't open.
Great article.
This kind of humor still exists and I think it’s still most popular with young people. I followed an Instagram account in Chicago that mocks local bars and the people who go to them, but they’re all bars for people in their 20s, so I’ve rarely heard of them and don’t fully get the descriptions. There’s also that trend of “cynical maps” (Google it) of city neighborhoods, country regions, etc that peaked a few years ago and still circulates.
I don’t see this selling as a book now, but I also don’t see humorous coffee table books in general as a category the way they were 25 years ago?
If, as a humorist, you are concerned about whether you can publish your humorous book you can be certain that you live in a cursed timeline. Additionally if you think there are two kinds of jokes: those that were once funny and those that were never funny, then I suggest that your jokes were at best lazy. The human condition is pretty constant throughout the ages and those jokes that are aimed at such universal experiences continue to amuse for centuries or millennia.
Understandably the humor of the inexperienced 20-something will differ from that of the 40+ year-old. The simple and absolute world that we believe to see and understand in our younger years tends to vanish from our grasp as we become older and attain the wisdom of experience. Perhaps the author's belief that "it has been done already" reflects some of that wisdom, and just maybe those of a certain age at the time of the publishing of "Crap Towns" felt exactly the same way about his book. It seems, after all, that every generation believes that it is the first to do or discover a thing without considering that humans have been doing human things for an awfully long time and that the observation "there is nothing new under the sun" has some merit.
> If, as a humorist, you are concerned about whether you can publish your humorous book you can be certain that you live in a cursed timeline.
This has literally always been the case. The topics have shifted, and some other details have changed, but in essence it's no difference. Try publishing a humorist book about, say, sex or religion in the 50s. Or the world wars, or maybe something that features gay characters. Or civil rights-type stuff (in US).
The counter culture did just that in trove by the end of the 50s and it had started long before. That was pretty much the whole point and it offended the polite society very much.
This is, unfortunately, the world that we live in right now. There are stand-up comedians who privately admit it’s almost impossible to do their jobs any more because of the faux outrage.
But there are other stand-up comedians who don't have that problem and are wildly successful. I wonder what the difference is?
Different types of comedy I guess.
Non-rightoid humour?
This reads like Iranian government twitter.
I didn't think most Western governments censor comedians.
A fellow Elbonian made a book [1] depicting the ugliest places in our town.
Despite the tongue-in-a-cheek mood it's a great piece of nostalgia trip spiced with some interesting local history lessons.
He also have an automotive youtube channel dedicated to popular old cars and he loves to film them in these obscure and sordid locations mentioned in the book.
EDIT: fun note - when MS released their first digital encyclopedia in Elbonia, somewhere in mid 90's, the Elbonia entry, apart from having accurate information about the country and up to date statistics had an illustration image subtitled "Elbonians in front of typical dwelling" depicting something like this: https://strojeludowe.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/1.3-600x...
[1] https://paskudnik.com/strona-glowna/6--ebook-paskudnik-warsz...
"We do our best with the worst."
> I even worry that in trying to diagnose some of the alienation, boredom and despair that people in the UK were starting to feel, I actually might have added to the malaise.
That's usually how it goes with personal scale self-deprecating humor too. It was instrumental to my own misery, and I didn't quite notice this until I've let go of it for a while.
Another thing to ponder is the second hand effects. For the one making the joke it's a very different headspace to someone who sees it from the outside, and internalizes it as some sort of style. I'm fairly sure this kind of "saying a body, hearing a skeleton" game is how the author got to the point of seeing that site carrying the torch, but not really appreciating what he sees there. It's a kind of effect people making humorous content always seem to learn the hard way, like it was the case for e.g. idubbz, and countless others. Or like weakly racist jokes are to any odd fellow European.
Not to pass judgement though, I can see how overcorrections and the "puritanism" are definitely not any good either. But yeah, that's how these things tend to go.
I'd be vary of the author really hopping on that "they're cancelling us" bus. If he doesn't appreciate what he sees on that site, he's in for a world of hurt when he realizes where people who constantly play around with this topic right now will get him to. This is all a setup to the next chapter, where humorists will actually get unfairly censored, but then they won't be able to properly reach audiences with it anymore, as the memetic background for that has been appropriated and spent by then, by those actually malicious, a long time ago.
The Connections series by James Burke from around the same time posited that politics is irrelevant and progress is mostly due to science. The consumer society of today is much better than when Crap Towns was written although improvement is not uniform. But even the least improved towns are better now than they were due to all the regional, national, and international improvements in services.
Unfortunately I’m not sure this is true. My home town is one of the Crap Towns and in the last 25 years more or less the entire high street economy has collapsed and nothing has replaced it. It increasingly exists as a cheap undesirable housing spot with a 30 min commute to the next city.
Uh, the internet, smartphones, flat panel TVS, craft beer, Moore's Law.
The sense of self importance and overanalysis in this writeup on a silly book called "Crap Towns" is almost as hilarious as the book itself.
I still think the idea of the book is funny. There's a certain art to taking something bad and hilariously describing its terribleness. For some reason this has always made me laugh, but honestly not everyone gets it, and this has always been the case.
This kind of book can only happen in a place and a community with enough confidence and stability to handle it. Of course you can "get away" with it today, it's easier than ever to publish just about anything - but humor has changed and I don't expect it to go "viral" the way it did. Not all old jokes age well and we have all made products that no longer fit after some time.
But the author, oh boy. Dear sir, your tongue in cheek picturebook from 20 years ago is not as important as you imagine.
It’s probably very important to the author, though, in the sense that it shaped their life and clearly became briefly very famous. So I don’t think it’s particularly fair to snipe at them for writing a reflective blog post about that. It’s not like you have to read it.
Why is it unfair to snipe at a bloke that’s made a career at snipping at others?
The towns he calls crap are important to the people that live there. If they can take it so can he.
I for one can both think that the author can take it and that the the original commenter opinion is misguided because people are free to write about what they want on their own blog especially what matters to them which is kind of the point of having a blog in the first place.
These are not antagonistic opinions.
If you can't be bothered reading a book, or if you find it funny and want more, https://loudribs.com/product-category/postcard/ has a "Rubbish Seaside Postcard" series.
I recently started a subscription to https://www.the-fence.com/ as set out in the opening to this piece and it's truly a lovely object. Highly recommend.
A society that can laugh at itself is an homogenous society where citizens share the same values. Today unfortunately that's not the case anymore.
This is not a racism problem (the UK historically had a lot of well-integrated immigration in the previous centuries), but about minorities that don't want to be integrated and want to impose their culture (look at Sharia tribunals in the UK) - and criminals from poorer countries abusing the EU freedom to travel, the welfare state and how lax the police is.
The UK is not the only society to have been destroyed in the name of globalisation, but it's certainly a sad state of affair.
Be harder to identify the non crap towns tbh.
It's exactly this kind of structuralism induced fatalism that makes more towns than ought shit.
If you know a town is shit, it's your moral obligation to tell them so that their kids and smart residents move out. Post 2000s progressive seem to think that Towns, religions and culture can form opinions. They are trying to be "empathetic" and so get tricked by scammers who personally benefit from these horrible situations.
This reads like the old amanfrommars comments on theregister back in the day.
What?
There's a lot of honest reflection here that you don't often get from writers revisiting their earlier work. I think it captures something important about how the culture around humor, offense, and public discourse has shifted. It's easy to blame "people being too sensitive" or to nostalgize the past, but the truth is more complicated: humor that punches up tends to age better than humor that punches down, and the line between the two can shift as society changes.
a comedians biggest fear is that one day everyone starts taking them seriously
Unless you’re Nathan fielder and you just want to talk about aviation safety
For an earlier example see KLF - It's Grim Up North https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20XLWEjN9eI
As a non British I though this was always a bit of dark British humour tradition.
See Black Adder, also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Heroic_Failures - which mentions towns like Keynes.
Went through the entire article expecting imminently to get to the paragraph where the author perceives that Crap Towns was a mistake because it makes fun of the poor, and that the reason it couldn't be published now is that poverty in the UK is far worse than it was 20 years ago. But, no, "identity politics". Good riddance.
It's not about identity politics. It's not about self-deprecation. It's not even about if the material is particularly funny or not.
It's whether you're punching up or punching down.
If the purpose of Crap Towns is to punch up, speak to power, to point out the failures of Thatcherism, decreased social mobility through a perptuation of failing center-right politics thanks to an overly-powerful media and political class that is divorced from reality, the absurd dominance of PPE graduates within policy making, and on, and on, on... well, it's great satire.
If it's just to point at working class people and go "haha, their streets are dirty and they eat bad food", well... you're punching down, and it's rare that can work as comedy. It's just mean bullying.
So yes, you can write Crap Towns today, but it lands better if you draw the line from Thatcher through Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and Starmer, and their acolytes - the PPE mafia on both sides of the House, and point out how their crappy politics has caused all this, not their victims.
Punching up is "look at them, ha ha ha"
Funnier comedy is "look at us, hahaha!"
Note that punching up is the same mechanism of humour as punching down. "look at people who are not like us, ha ha ha"
I always found the funnier things were not about punching up or down but were applicable to anyone. Restricting comedy to only be about punching up turns it into a political tool and not an art form that makes us feel better. Comedy that is only allowed if it sends a political message is firstly propaganda and then humour. It's why most modern comedy elicits a smile at best and no belly laughs any more. It can still be amusing but it has no universality.
The best comedy has truth about ourselves in it. Psychologically "punching up" is a rejection of these things in ourselves. Ideologically, "punching up" is a tactic reinforcing group identity coherence.
> It's whether you're punching up or punching down.
I disagree with the idea that one is "OK" and the other is "bad", "wrong" or, even worse, "problematic" (i.e., the bien-pensant's own "blasphemous"). It just makes one an eternal sacred cow, and the other the eternal punching bag, no matter either's virtues or vices.
And this, in fact, has already been the case for a long time. In the US, producer Dick Wolf's five Law & Order TV shows (and, now, his three Chicago shows) taught us over 30 years that the "wealthy CEO" or "high-powered corporate lawyer" is always guilty, and the large companies they own/work for are just as crooked. The only upscale demographic that is never the criminal is, strangely enough, the famous TV-show producer.
> It's whether you're punching up or punching down.
I think the problem with the “punching up/down” perspective of comedy is that power is relative so the same exact humor and joke can be both punching up and down at the exact same time. Consider the current political moment in the US. Right wing, conservative, religious groups have power currently, so your average Daily Show or SNL writer feels pretty justified that they’re “punching up” when they take their potshots at “god and country” types. And to an extent they are. But at the same time, your average “god and country” type that their humor is skewering is also a punch down because unlike the SNL or Daily Show writer, they don’t have a national TV show in which to broadcast their views. They are (if you believe the writers) uneducated, ignorant and duped into believing lies that the rich and powerful have sold them. But if that’s the case, then by definition they are not the powerful, and “punching” them must be “punching down” (or at least laterally). Is it right (or at least ok) to be skewering “god and country” types for the ridiculous things they do? Probably. But I don’t think it’s because it’s somehow “speaking truth to power” or “punching up”. It’s right and ok because they are ridiculous things and people are allowed to find ridiculous things funny and skewer them, regardless of the relative power disparities
Over time, people change the weapons they use to hurt each other with. What used to have nothing in common with words meant to hurt now demands mental energy to decide whether it is an attack.
Political correctness is about cleanly dividing ideas into ones obviously meant to hurt and ones obviously meant to be harmless. It is impossible to even come close to succeeding at this, but it is still worth trying.
> but mainly because when I read the comments on there about incels and chavs and carbuncles and brutalism it all just seems grubby. Maybe even cruel.
There we go. People shift from being the out-group to being more sympathetic and unfortunate, and humour that targeted them moves into being punching down. I was shocked at how less funny Bill Hicks feels 20 years on, because now it just sounds like he's being an asshole about people who are struggling.
Without a definition of a shit town I can't make much sense of what he wrote here. I'm tempted to define it myself but I won't fall for the trap.
My home town featured (33rd!). We considered it vindication!
Vindication like what Ohioans would have felt when Charles Dickens visited America and said that St. Louis was a nice enough place, but “not likely ever to vie, in point of elegance or beauty, with Cincinnati”?
Lots of people in the UK grow up in crap towns, and having a book validate that feeling can be good.
I remember laughing at this, my hometown was included it’s worth saying. I suspect the purchasers were largely people who lived in one of the ‘crap towns’
I’m not sure how anyone could have read it and not understood it was a joke. At the same time, I do think that he’s right that it wouldn’t get published today, not because the content wasn’t true, but people are much more quick to take offense over things like this.
I have always admired the British[1] ability to take the piss out of themselves with humour. Underlying the self-deprecation, there's always a sense of pride (misplaced?).
Perhaps things on the isles have turned to shite over time, and the pride has dwindled?
[1] maybe British is the wrong word since the Scots and Irish do similar. I'm from the ex-colonies so the correct words for UK country and peoples are confusing to me.
The Scots are 100% Brits and at least some portion of the people in Northern Ireland strongly identify as Brits too.
I think this is awesome! Should be done more often, gives people perspectives on areas they wouldn't otherwise know or think about.
The UK has gone in a dark direction, with the police arresting people for thoughts they post on social media that run counter to popular narratives. Feels like the mob attitude that killed Socrates. It is important every nation enshrines free speech into their constitutions.
> And when hope was actually something people might consider voting for?
A link to an American politician, of course.
In my experience there are only a few cities in the U.S that literate people are proud enough to live in, that they would be insulted that you put that into your crap town book.
Thus I wonder what demographic that at one time would have bought this book is not going to be buying this book now.
Considering the book is about "crap towns" in the UK, I imagine it could be a very different demographic than the one you're thinking of
hmm, maybe. In the U.S you have often the person who moved from a 'crap' town to some place they consider great, who gets really emotional about the crappiness they escaped to be able to think freely and the like. And often these people are the ones I would think of as customers for a book like this, and if their new town isn't in the book they certainly won't be offended.
A good way to identify which cities suck is to say to a native "<their city> sucks".
If they agree that it sucks, it probably sucks.
If they get really mad and defensive about it, it definitely sucks.
If they're just bemused or laugh it off, it's probably nice.
The funniest thing about that is that the cities where these proudly smug people live have the most actual crap on their streets.
There is a fairly popular tiktok account doing much the same thing. Travelling from town to town to point out the worst parts of them. Although I'll admit it sometimes feels more depressing than funny.
So it’s not that it won’t be published today.
It just won’t be as popular today. And would, ironically, be crapped on by other people, which is what the author is unhappy about.
Thats what the author means, and represents the entirety of the “Oh I am so oppressed because I can’t say shitty unfunny jokes because other people will make shitty unfunny jokes about me in response” genre of argument.
The difference between then and now is that the people in the “crap towns” have the opportunity to call the author out.
That's not the author's main point — the author's point is the surprising observation that “That joke isn't funny any more”, even to the author himself. This is something deeper than the usual “genre of argument” you're referring to.
Eh, he goes out of his way to say
> The good news is that I don’t think that the illiberalism of identity politics will endure much longer. Especially when it comes to the literal policing of humour - and cancellation of comedians for telling the wrong kinds of jokes.
I think it’s still his point.
If you believe that single sentence (that I disagree with him about, but that's neither here nor their) is the entire point of the article, I'd really suggest you read it again, it's far more interesting than that.
No; that's at most a sidenote.
I grew up in the "rust belt", just north of Flint, Michigan. A GM town at the time. I loved it as a kid. But it was many would consider a "crap town".
Even though it was already declining (economically replaced with healthcare, a fucking sign) it had nature and woods.
That was magical.
Anyways, I'd like to talk about bat guano.
I'd love to have a local nature conservancy or non-profit do a kids educational showing. Wouldn't that be fun? Just a deep dive into how much you can still learn, whether you're old or young. That even with limits, we can still inspire joy through gross natural things.
Kids love gross shit.
There are so many models you could experiment with. Traveling nature discovery labs... Art-train things. Robotic teleprescence to let kids take apart their own guano pile...
I'm obviously not comparing UK towns or my home town to bat shit.
I suppose there are so many liability issues around bat handling that's just a job in itself. Believe me when I say I can't work with my brother who does similar work. Those liability concerns will save lives, but I'd like my own story. Maybe somebody I love in the future can have their own story too.
Sorry for "crapping" in the thread.
Consider the Vector, not just the Scalar. The direction, the trajectory, of these places.
> You wouldn’t get away with it now
They almost always say that and it’s almost never true.
There is no way Tropic Thunder would be made today and this is true of many comedy movies before the 2010s.
The question is: "what are we laughing at now that in 20 years we won't think is funny?"
---
I have hope that we might see that laughing at our neighbours for their political views might be seen as inappropriate.
the book author says "There’s a website (I won’t link to it) that has kept on running a survey of the worst places in the UK for years and years- and, honestly, when I look at it, I hate it. Partly because I feel like they’re ripping off my project"
this is why we should cherish the [indie] web. we can still almost publish anything in incredible detail, keep it alive for a long time and not worry about being canceled.
plus i have low opinion of people that wont share a link they know is relevant to the topic.
There's one thing I honestly don't understand about this post and the comments here.
NOWHERE does the author, or the people commenting here, mention the reason why such a book might be deemed "offensive". Of course it's easy to repell the criticism if you don't address the reasons in it ! But to me, it feels weird and classist to make a book about shitty places in a country. Aren't they often simply... poor ? Is it OK to laugh at the lower class ? The "shavs" ?
I don't know much about the UK but I feel like such a book in France would cause an uproar. Of course concrete suburbs are ugly as fuck ! Of course small towns in northern France, hit by unemployment, are often quite sad and grey and depressing ! But is it okay for people who don't live there to publish a book saying "lol look at how these people live" ? Sounds like the definition of punching down, to me.
Since a couple of years, in Germany , you wouldn’t get away with it
Because now it means immigrant neighbourhoods more explicitly, and we cannot call that out now. That's why it's a bygone time. The writing was on the wall. And we just laughed "ahah how can it be so bad!!" well now here it is.
Great article with links to others, like this one:
https://arena.org.au/stay-in-your-lane-the-oxymoron-of-authe...
With quotes (re cultural appropriation) like “the ultimate endpoint of keeping our mitts off experience that doesn’t belong to us is that there is no fiction… All that’s left is memoir”
We’ve been suffering under the yoke of the intellectualization of deliberalization, censorship and oppression of ideas via our leading thinkers, institutions and platforms who have been acting out of fear. Fear of being strung up on the town square and fear that not signaling support for what has been happening signals disapproval.
What I find infuriating is that our youth have been driving this conformist, enforcement, rule making and rule following mentality and trend. Our youth should be questioning the rules, not forming up as a conformist jack booted militia and persecuting those who don’t follow the rules. History has shown that the latter ends in tears.
We saw this in Germany in the 30s, in China in the 60s and 70s where the red guards in the cultural revolution were mostly teens, under the Khmer Rouge in the 70s where kids were police, and with the Young Pioneers and Komsomol in the early and mid 20th century Soviet Union.
When youth stop questioning and start enforcing, it often marks the end of a healthy society and the beginning of something much darker.
Personally I see it the other way around: the youth's increasing intolerance of politically incorrect ideas is caused by the increasing power of the "jack booted militia" on the right. It's not surprising that people try to suppress intolerant ideas when there is a very real risk of them being adopted by those in power.
"jack booted militia" is a nastily evocative & suggestive phrase that lingers like a rotten smell. I am worried & want to know who and where. Which are the ideas that we all agree are intolerant? Sounds as if you are addressing a club of the like-minded.
> the youth's increasing intolerance of politically incorrect ideas is caused …
So, wrongthink. This is my point. And it’s incredible how the history of passing legislation to censor being ultimately used by the opposition just keeps on repeating.
> youth should be questioning the rules
that sounds like a rule to me
maybe the rules they're questioning simply aren't the ones you want them to question
for example: the usa has long had a social "rule" to tolerate intolerance, but now that youth see where that has led, many are questioning that rule
they were long warned that it leads to bad censorship, and they look around now, and see that the intolerant who warned are themselves perpetrating a wave of censorship anyways, and the argument is dissolved
a good person might want whichever rules do less harm in the end (and perhaps ones that do more good), it naturally follows that those primary goals should inform decisions regarding rules and policy and economy and government
we're good with questioning the rules, right?
Yes, it’s a problem that something like that is insulting to publish.
I'm not sure. Times change, and things that were acceptable become not so - and vice versa.
It's not just acceptability. Jokes written even just five or ten years ago often fail to land on modern audiences. That taste in humor changes is neither morally positive nor negative. It's easy to look for deeper meaning in the notion that what once was funny now isn't, but often, there isn't a deeper meaning to find. Life is different now; so too must humor change.
When I re-watch comedy like ‘The Young Ones’ or many other funny series from the 80s or 90s, I don’t find it funny any more. It’s not that the jokes weren’t good and that I didn’t find it funny at the time, it’s just that humour changes. In that case, it’s nothing to do with the jokes becoming ‘unacceptable’.
I find Yes Minister funny now, and I'm too young to have watched when it first aired.
I used to find The Thick of It hilarious but now I find it a depressing reminder of how ludicrous modern politics has become
Yes Minister is a reminder that politics has been ludicrous for a long time, but I think its style is much lighter than The Thick of It.
I watched the entirety of Yes (Prime) Minister relatively recently despite being younger than the show and not British; and found it delightfully entertaining and often surprisingly relevant to contemporary political issues.
The institution yes minister makes fun of has barely changed in 400 years, let alone 40, the jokes on the whole thus remain fresh.
Not necessarily. I think the interesting idea the article dances around is changing attitudes and sensibilities. In many ways, I think media of the 90s and even 2000s had a different balance of optimism and cynicism. Critical commentary was an edgy (or in this case humorous) counterpoint. 1999 saw dark edgy and dystopian films like the matrix, fight club that felt like a warning, criticism of a future to be avoided.
Similar subjects today are noticably darker without the buttress of social optimism. Films like The Joker seem less like a cautionary tale and more like a documentary. Is the joker now the protagonist?
Or could it be about “Othering” these destitute places, and realising far more of us are engulfed in humdrum of life collapsing.
I’d be pretty upset if the value of my home was harmed because someone decided to make it common knowledge that the town I lived in was crap.
That is a very British take. Constant worry about the value of something you don't want to sell. Thinking about your home as a financial investment, rather than a...home.
Unfortunately it's become embedded in the system with the houses themselves becoming vastly over inflated.
A Ponzi scheme.
> Thinking about your home as a financial investment, rather than a...home.
Sadly, the way all Western economies have devolved over the last decades, real estate equity is the only form of wealth that at least some part of the 99% has for retirement.
Broad market index funds have performed spectacularly over the last few decades, and far more than 1% have them (or could have had them) for retirement. It has been the standard recommendation since I graduated college in the early 2000s.
Of course, many people prefer to invest in extra big and luxurious houses/cars/vacations/restaurants/alcohol/coffee/etc out and I would even throw in educations with low ROI, rather than broad market index funds.
This is specifically about those who had been earning money in the ~1980 to ~2010 period, for the vast majority, their house should not have been the only equity.
> Of course, many people prefer to invest in extra big and luxurious houses/cars/vacations/restaurants/alcohol/coffee/etc out and I would even throw in educations with low ROI, rather than broad market index funds.
The problem is, index funds have no inherent value, they (just like all stocks and other financial derivatives/instruments) are effectively a paper with one or another form of "IOU" written on it. Economic crashes, wars, tariffs, morons in politics, whatever, there are tons of ways massive amounts of value can be straight up destroyed in a matter of days.
A house however? As long as it's reasonably well built, come what may, you still have a roof over your head. No one's gonna come and kick you out of it. And that's inherent value.
> No one's gonna come and kick you out of it.
Real estate suffers from the whims of the market, governmental policy and especially war. Even if you rule out outliers like imminent domain (used on many many homeowners in the first half of the 20th century in the US) or destruction via war, simple economic changes as we saw in 2008 cause people to lose their homes.
> index funds have no inherent value, they (just like all stocks and other financial derivatives/instruments) are effectively a paper with one or another form of "IOU" written on it
What do you think a real-estate deed is?
> No one's gonna come and kick you out of it
Property tax. Title fraud. Mortgage fraud. Mistaken foreclosure. (Legitimate foreclosure.) Squatters' rights. Eminent domain.
The difference between real estate and financial assets is possession. But every time you're away from your home, you aren't in possession of it. And possession, control and ownership are three overlapping but ultimately separate concepts.
> pretty upset if the value of my home was harmed because someone decided to make it common knowledge that the town I lived in was crap
I could argue this for the journalism disclosing Flint’s lead problems. The root cause isn’t the commentary. It’s the reality. Balancing one’s property value is the fraud conveyed on a prospective buyer.
It sounds like he made the places famous and gentrified them.
Hackney is now full of this: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/160955729
Presumably, anyone looking to buy your home would visit and quickly ascertain whether or not your town is crap.
Maybe now the crappiest places have something common that should not be mentioned.
They don’t have a Pret A Manger?
If you say it cannot be made now - why not ?!
Why can't I say "This is a shit, because of this and this" ?
What sort of society have we become that we cannot write facts like that any more ?
Nothing about the towns with massive gang-rape grooming gangs. Well, we know why:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46684638
[dead]
[flagged]
Please don't start nationalistic flamewars on HN. Last thing we need here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[flagged]
I though I had a decent command of English language, even if I am not a native speaker, but I have no ide what is "naive structuralism" or "overwrought reductionism" in this context.
Would any of you care to elaborate? I am serious, I am not familiar much with the UK political scene so can't tie these normal sounding phrases to anything, and would honestly appreciate some help.
This sounds like an intellectual debate but there's nothing of substance being said here lol. casey2 thinks British people today are wrongly (naively) complaining about the rich/powerful/elite (structuralism). top1bobby is making fun of casey2 because the latter is using a lot of big words (overwrought) while _reducing_ complicated politics to a single issue; basically "you think you're smart with fancy words but you are just as bad as the people you complain about (P.S. I can use fancy words too)"
Thanks for the rundown, appreciated! :)
I read some guy complaining some podcast complained about his book and elevate it into some weird organized political movement that he's already declared is dead, and he's happy those kind of rancid speech-haters are gone...punchline... they're the illiberals!
Okay then!
Be honest with yourself, O Reader!
Are you sure he's not writing a satire of the same piece you've seen written every year since 1990, just with a shifting name for it?
He is a comedian after all...
Are you sure he's serious?
I was sure there was going to be a series of these books
Crap Governments Crap Businesses Crap Websites Crap Engineers Crap Media....
> The good news is that I don’t think that the illiberalism of identity politics will endure much longer.
That's a weird thing to say in 2025 , considering what the US government is deporting people for having the wrong opinions domestically, and attempting to export the identity politics of the current administration via tarde deals with the UK. I suppose one might be blind to it because of their own political persuasion, suggesting that identity politics peaked in 2021 says more about the author's biases than the present reality.
> attempting to export the identity politics of the current administration via tarde deals with the UK
Not only can I not understand how you could imagine this to be the motive; I can't imagine how you even understand the term "identity politics" such that they could even in principle be "exported" in such a manner.
Are you suggesting, for example, that tariffs are somehow being differentially applied to different products from the same country, according to the ethnicity, gender, etc. of the manufacturers?
> Not only can I not understand how you could imagine this to be the motive
That's a fair question, and I suppose you may not consume British media and may be missing the necessary context.
> I can't imagine how you even understand the term "identity politics" such that they could even in principle be "exported" in such a manner.
I got you: the Trump admin wants to export its ideology on gender-identity by coercing the UK into changing its LGBTQ policies as a prerequisite to a trade deal with the US. The European right is not as crotchety about non-heteronomative relationship as the American right, and the Trump admin would like to change that. You may start here https://www.advocate.com/politics/us-uk-trade-deal-lgbtq https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/04/18/trump-uk-trade-lgbtq-...
>The European right is not as ...crotchety about non-heteronomative relationship as the American right
This very much does not agree with my own observations over the years, but I suspect there is no productive discussion to be had here.
[flagged]
> No one has been deported for their opinions, yet
You probably thought I was talking about El Salvador. I wasn't.
Is it not deportations when multiple university students have stripped of their visas without notice, by order of "Little Marco" and forced to leave the country?
> How would you react to 10 million tourists moving to your country, buying up all the food from your grocery stores, drinking and driving, stealing, dealing drugs,...
...ask the kingdom of Hawai'i
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]