Product Description

In 1975, Britons spent much of their time complaining - and for good reasons. A Labour government with a wafer-thin majority was struggling in vain against rampant inflation. Trade union officials seemed more powerful than the politicians who had been elected through the democratic process. Even Londoners now considered themselves to be on the front line of a terrorist campaign which originated in Northern Ireland. Behind all this lay a fear of a devastating nuclear war, which could break out at any time whether or not a majority of British people agreed with the cause of conflict. More than thirty years later, it is easy to see why commentators thought that Britain was becoming 'ungovernable' in the mid-1970s. Yet evidence suggests that the British people were happier in those days than they have been in the early years of the twenty-first century; they were also much more inclined to cast votes in general elections. During the 1980s Britain was certainly affected by the 'Thatcherite', consumerist ethos. But on closer inspection, it turns out that Britons are just as 'angry' today as they were in 1975, if not more so.And are they really 'apathetic', as we are being told by political commentators? In this groundbreaking new book, Mark Garnett charts the changes in British politics, society and culture since 1975. From Anger to Apathy breaks with the traditional approach to history by addressing the reaction to change through themes like lust, greed, fear and charity, while at the same time retaining a sense of chronological progression.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #364269 in Books
• Published on: 2008-10-02
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 480 pages

Review
'Mark Garnett tracks consumerism and political spin... versus optimism...His caustic history takes no prisoners'
--Observer

Telegraph
'Garnett is a fine guide to the sheer grimness of life 30 years ago'

Metro
'This survey asks some interesting questions about our social history and offers the first steps towards answering them'

Customer Reviews

Ungovernable Britain brought back from chaos
It seems to me that the author wasn't around in the 1970s. If so he would have put a greater emphasis on how everything in Britain was ghastly; the place felt like it was going down the pan. It was all over for Britain, and we all felt it.

This book should have dealt much more harshly with the fools who were running this country. The guilty; Heath, Wilson, Callaghan; supposedly intelligent men, men of vision. But it took a woman, Mrs Thatcher, to put the show back on the road. And, boy, did the people of Britain whine about it? I was there and I heard them. And they are whining still.

This book is far too forgiving on the idiots - the politicians and trade unionists - who were willfully destroying this country. There isn't enough wit in the book, not enough barbs. Not enough comedy, even. The characters were laughable, and we should be invited to laugh.

And here's something else. Not a major part of the book, but it shows you where the author stands. The author appears to think there is a direct link between the lovelies who grace page three of the Sun newspaper, and the insane sexual violence of the Fred West household. Eh? This is what is known as 'political correctness gone mad'. He rails against those who shouted down Clare Short when she tried to bring in legislation which was specifically aimed at the Sun newspaper. Personally, I think she got off light.

It's an odd work, really. There are references to Mary Whitehouse and Mary Millington, but no mention of Jean-Charles Menezes (d. July 2005). If anything is going to instill either anger or a fearful apathy into a population, then the mad-cap antics of armed police would do the trick.

Still, it's nice to see that the city of Sheffield gets mentioned about seven times (Battle of Orgreave, Hillsborough Disaster, Kinnock's embarrassing 'rock star' moment, police arrest of Peter Sutcliffe, the setting for The Full Monty, birthplace of both Peter Stringfellow and David Blunkett.) It's all happening here!!

Anyway... There needs to be a history written about the late 1970s and how the collective soul of the nation was altered by events. But, sadly, this isn't the book.

Interesting but botched idea
What a strange book .Mark Garnett's political background lies with the Conservative party , indeed he has worked professionally for them and as such he was unlikely to receive a wholly sympathetic review from this particular reader but even I was perplexed by some of the drivel in this book. Yet rather annoyingly just when I was preparing to vent my spleen like a human Vesuvius he makes a which point co-joins with my rather left wing perceptions. How dare he.....the Tory bastard.
Comparing the house buying experiences of Fred West and Tony Blair may seem scurrilous even absurd but Garnett seems to be making a point -in a rather agonisingly convoluted way about the arrogance and failure of the political class and how their endeavours influence how those at the bottom of society treat each other. I certainly concur that New Labour have been stunningly derelict in their role as party of the working class though I'm sure I wouldn't choose to make my point in such a fanciful not say potentially scandalous way. However the point is there and from a conservative its welcome though slightly rich....forgive the pun.
The book gives sympathy to the idea of protest(should we glean from this he supports the striking postal workers I wonder?)and Garnett is utilitarian as he is has sympathy not just for the pro-hunting lobby( what?) but the striking miners -again quite an admittance for a Tory. He also admits that the Tories were responsible for some of the worst economic chaos of the last century but then spoils it all by asserting that Margaret Thatcher did not "anticipate [sic] that her policies would devastate entire communities where manufacturing industry was the sole employer, provoking lasting antipathy towards her party".He argues that rather than engineering the Falklands conflict to win an election at a time when she was massively unpopular that Thatcher was the grateful recipient of a "Cock up" caused by cuts in defence spending. How very convenient. He misses the most obvious point about voter apathy being that in order to get elected Labour had to turn into a surrogate Conservative party but then forgot to turn back when its leaders decided they rather liked fornicating with the ruling class leaving millions disenfranchised from the political system.
There is a general examination of Britain since 1975 taking in lots of mundane stuff about Europe for reasons that escape me. Its most entertaining when it centres on personalities (Blair and Murdoch come in for a good kicking ...once again a bit of a bombshell) .These are often very good but sometimes hysterical , little more than frothy ranting and some of his cultural references are snot sprayingly funny...though in a I can't believe he wrote something so crass and stupid sort of way. Blaming subsequent cultural divisions in society on punk rock is like blaming cock rock for the surge in AIDS or the unregulated pornographic industry which would be apposite actually as porn also comes in for Garnett's swinging bizarre logic as responsible for just about every bad thing that happens ever ...including a lot of murders.
To cap it all in the introduction Garnett explains that the books title is actually all wrong as the passage of 1970,s to 1990.,s is not one of anger to apathy at all as all the trends were in evidence in the 70,s so much so we are still stuck in "The Long Late 70,s"so errrr shouldn't the book have been called from apathy to APATHY? Which begs the question when did the decline really start and why didn't he start his book from there? I really should find out but you know what...I can't be bothered.

Interesting, but...
There is a decent amount of research behind parts of this book (though some glaring gaps) and Mark Garnett makes some interesting points, but as a work of social history it is somewhat careless in places. The themes Garnett chooses are important ones and at times he serves them well. In places, he has an acute eye for the significance of certain developments (especially in the chapters on lust and greed). However, he is also far too prone to make sweeping judgements based on little or no evidence. This is particularly so when he pronounces on the state of British culture or the views and attitudes of the British people based on little more than an incident or two or a particular tabloid feeding frenzy. In some places he seems to believe that his personal experience of the period counts as valid evidence. This is always a risk when writing about a period one lived through. However, this approach only works for glib journalists who can be confident that no one will be reading their off-the-cuff analysis a week later. A more thorough approach to researching particular issues (the Falklands War and the development of the Premier League are but two minor examples) would have avoided overly-simplistic comments about them. There are plenty of books and articles out there that could have given him the required depth without adding significantly to the length.

Towards the end, the book starts to become disfigured by what turns into one long rang against Blair, New Labour and all their works (with the occasional nod to some decent things they have done). Not that this is objectionable in itself - many millions will share his views - but in a work of social history one would have hoped for a more thoughtful treatment that drew on the work of other writers and analysts more extensively.

In the end, I was left informed but also frustrated. A significant number of obvious gaps in the bibliography confirmed my sense that this analysis, though useful and thoughtful in places, skims the surface too much. Worthwhile, but could have been a lot better. This will become a useful part of the collection of books now appearing about this period, but mainly because it illustrates a contrasting approach to how one can analyse social history.