Can we detect ‘Thatcher’s Children’ in data on attitudes to crime? Emily Gray*, Maria Grasso* Stephen Farrall*, Will Jennings† and Colin Hay * *University of Sheffield †University of Southampton

Introduction Crime became a key issue in UK political and social agendas in three ways: 1: long-term social and economic trends led to increases in crime rates from the 1960s. 2: the economic and social policies (neo-liberalism) pursued from the 1970s/80s accentuated these trajectories, adding to rises in crime. 3: competition between political parties on the issue of crime raised the profile of crime as an issue and added to levels of public concern over crime. 4: feed-back loops between these operated to foster those circumstances which produced crime and in turn led to the rise of crime as an object of political concern (neo- conservatism).

Figure 1. Property crime per capita (Home Office Recorded Statistics and BCS)

Figure 2: % ‘Worried about crime’ – BCS

Theoretical and substantive contexts Other authors have sought highlighted the links between crime and political/ cultural shifts (Garland, 2001, Young, 1999). However: Both cite ‘post modernity’, ‘late modernity’ as driving factors – no political dimension. Ignore specific Government policies. Focus on experiences of the middle class.

Age, Period, Cohort Analysis Longitudinal analysis of BCS/ CSEW data ( ) affords an APC analysis (Ryder, 1965). Exploration of the unique contributions of three types of time-related variations - ‘age, period, and cohort’ effects. Age effects - changes in the life course; period effects - arise via specific cultural and economic changes; cohort effects are the core of social change and represent the effects of formative experiences (Ryder 1965). Ipsos Mori :‘Generation Y’ / ‘millennials’

Table 1. Political Generations Cohorts (1) Pre- Welfare State Generation (2) Post-War Consensus Generation (3) Crumbling Consensus Generation (4) Thatcher’s Children (5) New Labour’s Children Era/period Years of birth N (Tot. 598,426) 74,797166,009149,680163,49944,441

Thatcher’s children? BCS/ CSEW data Table 2. BCS indicators for analysis Questionnaire item Original response categories Recode for analysis How safe do you feel walking alone in this area after dark? [feelsafe] 1 Very safe 2 Fairly safe 3 A bit unsafe 4 Very unsafe 1/2= 0 feels safe 3/4= 1 feels unsafe walking after dark Could you tell me how worried you are about...? Having your home broken into and being burgled [wburgl] 1 Very worried 2 Fairly worried 3 Not very worried 4 Not at all worried 1/2= 1 worried about being mugged 3/4= 0 not worried Could you tell me how worried you are about...? Being mugged and robbed [wmugged] 1 Very worried 2 Fairly worried 3 Not very worried 4 Not at all worried 1/2= 1 worried about being mugged 3/4= 0 not worried How common a problem (in this area) are...? Groups of teenagers making a nuisance [teenhang] 1 Very big problem 2 Fairly big problem 3 Not very big problem 4 Not a problem 1/2= 1 teenagers a problem 3/4= 0 not a problem

Table 3. Results from identified APC models Not safeBurglarsMuggingTeenagers Pre-Welfare State (ref. cat.) Post-War Consensus Generation 0.54***1.51***1.23***1.65*** Crumbling Consensus Generation 0.45***1.57***1.24***1.99*** Thatcher’s Children Generation0.41***1.56***1.20***2.27*** New Labour’s Children Generation 0.40***1.24***1.39***2.54*** years of age (ref. cat.) years of age0.83***0.97*0.91***0.90*** years of age1.08***0.95*1.09***0.81*** Year of interview0.99***0.95*0.96***0.98*** N427,605

Provisional results summary The APC models provide evidence for ‘pure’ generational effects. Evidence of clear political socialisation periods Pre-welfare state generation least worried about burglary / robbery, but feel the most unsafe after dark. Thatcher’s children and New Labour’s children (the youngest cohort) are the most concerned about nuisance ‘teenagers’.

Outline of future work 1.Data sets to be made available 2.Training workshop (with UK Data Service) 3.Documentary film 4.Dissemination events and publications 5.