←back to thread

I wrote a book called “Crap Towns”. It seemed funny at the time

(samj.substack.com)
395 points url | 1 comments | 26 Apr 25 00:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.415s | source
Show context
jdietrich ◴[26 Apr 25 03:50 UTC] No.43800782[source]▶
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 Those familiar shops are now gone; in some places they have been replaced by artisan bakeries and pop-up boutiques, while in others they have been replaced by charity shops or nothing at all.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.

replies(15): >>43800919 #>>43800937 #>>43800971 #>>43801102 #>>43801155 #>>43801453 #>>43801591 #>>43801875 #>>43802160 #>>43804316 #>>43804445 #>>43805995 #>>43806112 #>>43806115 #>>43806135 #
JimDabell ◴[26 Apr 25 05:23 UTC] No.43801155[source]▶
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.

replies(3): >>43801414 #>>43801607 #>>43802226 #
jl6 ◴[26 Apr 25 06:35 UTC] No.43801414[source]▶
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.

replies(11): >>43801475 #>>43801476 #>>43801725 #>>43801766 #>>43801788 #>>43801915 #>>43802098 #>>43802516 #>>43802568 #>>43805141 #>>43805759 #
1. jdietrich ◴[26 Apr 25 11:06 UTC] No.43802568[source]▶
>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...