I recall our council house falling slowly to pieces in the 1970s - the pre-fabricated kitchen moving gently away from the brickwork, and my mother worrying herself grey over inflation. Dominic Sandbrook doesn't. But as he is well-heeled, a '90s university type, and brought up on that decade's skewed "70s nostalgia", he wouldn't. What is it with that man that is so deperate to make the '70s out to be something it wasn't? And why, like so many so-called historians, does he skim over 1970s aspects like inflation and punk rock - which many would say were important? Try being in a freezing cold council house in winter, with no money for the gas meter, and not much on the table to eat, Dominic. And try writing about what you know for a change rather than your bizarre revisionist nonsense. Or doing proper research and quoting more sources.
That might make your work worthwhile.
And as for all those 1960s goodies coming home to roost, well, no, most of us didn't understand what all that had been about and the main themes of the 1970s seemed to be about anger at having the missed the 1960s (and having them rammed down our throats) and a lot of very conservative attitudes meeting increasing "oh gawd, I fancy you, let's have a shag!" and "I'm gonna punch your ***kin' 'ead in attitudes" - none of which were actually born in the 1970s.
In the '70s, he would have been called a "prat". And that's the politest word we would have used.
Do take a look at this:
And, Dominic, to many of us who were actually there in the 1970s, your work is inaccurate, relies far too much on too few sources and your own personal "brilliance" (your word, I'm sure - if only in secret!). It's a total waste of space.