I was brought up in a more angry expressive age. The cold war and the dread of nuclear annihilation meant that war would be unlikely to follow unless it was mutually assured destruction. As a young man in this climate I had the opportunity to go to university. I received several financial benefits that today's youth do not receive.
In the 1960s the United States were in pursuit of President Kennedy's desire to put a man on the moon. That intention which was part of the then cold war led to massive borrowing to fund NASA - the United States expedition into space. In 1968 at the height of student unrest in Britain and Europe, it's remarkable because it is the only year where no British service personnel were killed in action. Students may have been angry but their activities didn't jeopardise soldiers' lives. By spending so much money as well as financing the war in Vietnam, the US and other western governments involved themselves in substantial borrowing.
As a result of this the rate of inflation throughout the westernised world began to edge up. Inflation had the unintended consequence of hitting savers far harder than borrowers. More often than not, unlike up until recently, inflation hurts the elderly generation who are normally savers. Younger people during the 1960's and 70's were much more likely to be borrowers. Inflation erodes the real value of any debt so in the 1970's when British inflation like other countries in the western world reached high levels, the original value of any debt was eradicated by the effects of inflation; "one mans pay increase became another mans price increase".
Inflation and costs spiralled upwards. At the time it was a major problem for the westernised world to eradicate inflation. For example my father who bought the house that we lived in for £3000 in 1959, was able in the mid 1970's to pay off the entire debt. Inflation approaching 30% essentially eradicated the real cost of any debt. In the early 1970's pay increases were averaged around 30%. Money was essentially printed to allow this to happen. The influence of the United States space race was initially instrumental in allowing this financial slackness. Governments were printing money to ease their financial shortages. In the late 1970's I was lucky enough to gain a place at university. My university course and the grant I received were funded entirely by the state. It cost me nothing to go to university.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970's, before the financial strictness of the Thatcher revolution, there was a considerable transfer of "wealth" from the old to the young. In history this process is very unusual; the reverse is normally the case. Typically in the history of warfare the young sacrifice their lives for the security of the old. Politically this transition was marked by the era of Harold Wilson and the labour government following their election in 1964. In a sense historically these things represent swings and roundabouts of political fortunes.
The "swinging 60s" marked a stark transition. In 1969 votes were introduced for the first time for people aged 18 and over. For the first time Britain had achieved a universal franchise from 18 and above. The hope was that young people would be more inclined to vote for less strict regimes of government; this was always wishful thinking. On average the political direction of this period was neutral, with Edward Heath and the conservative party taking up the prime ministership of the country from 1970. The political right wing were anxious at the time to replicate the direction in which the left wing were shifting the country. In this respect the role of the Thatcher government was clearly keen to interrupt what some government ministers regarded as "post war funk". The era of this shift of wealth from the old to the young had come to an end. Unemployment became the economic remedy of the time.
This affected young people in a more than proportionate way. In the early 1980's their reaction was one of anger. Riots became commonplace. In London and the south of England where I live, allegedly in the summer of 1981 all police leave was cancelled. The government were clearly alarmed by the rise in unemployment and introduced what became the Y.T.S (youth training scheme). This was a means of taking young people out of immediate joblessness and making them appear to be at work. This had the effect of appearing to massage the youth unemployment figures that were alarmingly high at the time.
Student grants continued until the end of the 1990s when the new labour government were anxious to increase the proportion of people going to university. To do this they were aware that an alternative means of funding university education had to be introduced where students financed themselves. Prior to this only around 13-14% of 18 year olds went to university. The new labour objective was to get this figure closer to 50%. The government could no longer afford this commitment of finance. Eventually the system of funding introduced now allows young people to borrow at a minimal interest rate the finance; none of which will be repaid until they are earning over £21,000.
Which brings me to my original question; why aren't the young more angry today? It is normally in the nature of young people, particularly men, to express themselves through aggression. It has ever been thus. Young people today are in a situation in this low inflation, higher unemployment age where they start life with appreciable debts following further education. The real values of these debts are unlikely to be eroded for many years. These notions of being in debt were alien to my own era. When I was young we were inclined to be vociferous. My researcher who has younger children than me has pointed out that the consequences of being angry today are somewhat higher than they were.
Being angry requires demonstrating and an expression of discontent. If the young pursue this route of expressing anger, as some did this year during the August riots, and demonstrating they may get "kettled" and arrested. If they do get arrested they may get a police record. If they get a police record they may find it harder to gain employment and it may also restrict their ability to emigrate. Any deviation from 'the path' and you risk your chances of a decent standard of living.
The young can't even enjoy themselves unmolested by the activities of the police - curbs on binge drinking, jail sentences for recreational drug consumption, strict licensing laws for the consumption of alcohol. To move on in life and buy a house requires getting a mortgage; this again involves appreciable debt and most young people struggle to save for a deposit for a house. Today the intergenerational transfer of wealth is far more equivocal. Since the credit crunch of 2008, virtually every cohort of British society is suffering. This seems to be the legacy that British politicians have left us with.