COPYRIGHT

HarperCollinsPublishers

1 London Bridge Street

London SE1 9GF

www.harpercollins.co.uk

First published by HarperCollinsPublishers 2020

FIRST EDITION

Text © Crown Copyright 2020

Illustrations by Liane Payne © HarperCollinsPublishers Ltd 2020

Cover layout design by Claire Ward © HarperCollinsPublishers Ltd 2020

Cover illustration © Neil Gower

A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library

The Office for National Statistics asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the nonexclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of HarperCollins e-books.

Find out about HarperCollins and the environment at

www.harpercollins.co.uk/green

Source ISBN: 9780008412197

Ebook Edition © October 2020 ISBN: 9780008412203

Version: 2020-09-23

CONTENTS

1  Cover

2  Title Page

3  Copyright

4  Contents

5  Note to Readers

6  Foreword by Professor Sir Ian Diamond, UK National Statistician

7  Introduction

8  Part One – Who We Are

9  Part Two – What We Do

10  Part Three – Where We Live

11  Part Four – 1921: A Census of Enlightenment

12  Part Five – 2121: Back to the Future?

13  Conclusion

14  Sources

15  Resources and Further Reading

16  Acknowledgements

17  Index

18  About the Publisher

LandmarksCoverFrontmatterStart of ContentBackmatter

List of Pagesiiiiv1234567891011121314151618192021222324252627282930313334353637383940414243444546474849505152545556575859606162636465666768697071727374757677787980818283848587888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170172173174175176177179181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221223225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267269270271272273274275276277278279281282284285286287288289290291292293294295296297

NOTE TO READERS

This ebook contains the following accessibility features which, if supported by your device, can be accessed via your ereader/accessibility settings:

 Change of font size and line height

 Change of background and font colours

 Change of font

 Change justification

 Text to speech

 Page numbers taken from the following print edition: ISBN 9780008412197

FOREWORD

by Professor Sir Ian Diamond, UK National Statistician

The great scientist Lord Kelvin once said that ‘if you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it’. Britain has a long tradition of measuring things about the life of the country with a view to improving them. True, William the Conqueror commissioned the Domesday Book to tax his realm rather than improve it, but in a year when coronavirus has sadly turned the spotlight on the weekly deaths figures produced by the Office for National Statistics as never before, it’s worth remembering that the tradition of regular reporting of deaths by cause goes back to late Tudor times. Then, the ‘Bills of Mortality’ for London were compiled from the returns sent in each week by the clerk of each parish in the city, which was vital knowledge to monitor when bubonic plague was a recurrent threat. The nineteenth century saw great strides in official data – the census to monitor whether the population was growing or shrinking, and registration of births and deaths to provide comprehensive national data. Florence Nightingale, as well as championing professional standards in nursing, was also a pioneer in the presentation of statistics and became the first woman member of the Royal Statistical Society. Dr John Snow famously used meticulous record-keeping to establish that cholera, the great scourge of Victorian London, was transmitted by infected water, not foul air. And Charles Babbage, generally remembered for his unsuccessful attempts to build a mechanical computer, is also credited with devising the pre-printed survey form. In the twentieth century, the Second World War highlighted the need for reliable statistics to enable the country’s leadership to make key decisions. Thus, as this book points out, Winston Churchill, complaining that ‘the utmost confusion is caused when people argue on different statistical data’, ordered the establishment of the Central Statistical Office, one of the predecessor organisations of today’s Office for National Statistics, to consolidate the efforts of other departments and issue ‘final authoritative working statistics’.

When my appointment as National Statistician was announced in August 2019, I said that I was looking forward to making use of rich new sources of information to deliver the data that decision-makers across the UK needed, as the ONS and the wider Government Statistical Service empowered Parliament, academia, business and beyond with trusted and quality data. However, I was little expecting that, within about six months of taking up my post here, the onset of a global pandemic would have created an unprecedented demand from within government, the media and the public as a whole for statistics that were both rapid and reliable regarding what was happening to the country. I’m proud of how well my colleagues here have responded to that challenge. To give one example, the ONS, with its partners, set up the Virus Infection Survey, to gauge the prevalence of COVID-19 in the community, going from its announcement to first publication of results in barely three weeks. And so I was very gratified to hear that one of the country’s leading media commentators on statistics had said that one of the things the pandemic has taught us is ‘the value of timely, accurate, trustworthy, comprehensive information’ and added that, in producing this new survey, we had done an impressive job in trying to get representative data on the prevalence of the infection. And this year has thrown up other instances of how we’ve responded – developing new survey questions to measure how British business was responding to the economic challenges and how the population were responding to the various measures introduced to hinder the spread of the pandemic, speeding up the publication of some of our economic indicators, and so on.

What has happened this past year is something more or less unprecedented in living memory – there has surely been nothing like this and on this scale since the Spanish flu outbreak over a hundred years ago now, Indeed, one of the recurring themes of this book is the dramatic effect that the two vast wars of the twentieth century had on the life of people in this country.

After a year none of us here at the ONS will easily forget, 2021 too promises to be an important year for us – not only does it mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of our creation by the bringing together of the CSO with another government statistical department, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, it’s also time for the once-in-a-decade census, for which the ONS has responsibility in England and Wales (separate arrangements apply in Scotland – where the census will take place in 2022 – and Northern Ireland). This book makes much use of data from past censuses, as well as the other surveys and administrative data that the government collects, but the census process continues to evolve, as does the sort of topics we ask about. The 2021 census will, for the first time, be online-first, but of course you will still be able to reply in the previous way, by filling in a paper form, if you prefer. If, like me, you were intrigued by some of the snippets in this book (who knew that being ‘a pedestrian’ could be an occupation as well as a means of getting about?), then I hope you’ll make sure that, if you live in England or Wales, come Sunday, 21 March 2021 – Census Day – you get your own census return in to us, whichever method you choose. By so doing, you are helping ensure that the country has the information it needs to target its resources more effectively and to plan services such as housing, education, health and transport. In the meantime, please sit back and enjoy Boris Starling’s lively take on what official data past and present tell us about our nation, who we are, what we do and where we live. We official statisticians tend not be a showy bunch, but I hope readers will see from this story why we are quietly passionate about what we do and why, above all, it matters so much.

INTRODUCTION

In 2011, the year of the most recent UK census, the film One Day was released. Based on a bestselling novel by David Nicholls, it told the story of its two protagonists, Emma and Dexter, through the neat structural conceit of visiting them on the same day every year for two decades. As such, the viewer saw Emma and Dexter’s lives through snapshots taken at regular intervals, with the changes in those lives signified at least partially through the regular markers humans use: where they were living, what they were doing, the status of their relationships, and so on.

In other words, through a very small-scale and annual census.

This desire – to know, to mark, to record – is one that has existed for millennia. As mankind began to arrange itself into societies of increasing numbers and complexity, so too did the rulers of those societies seek to find ways of enumerating at least what they considered the most important elements of the body politic. Ancient Egypt introduced censuses towards the end of its Middle Kingdom era, roughly 1,800 years before the birth of Christ. The Sumerians and Babylonians also had some form of citizen registration. In the Bible, the Book of Numbers is named after the counting of the Israelite population, and opens with the Lord speaking ‘unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying, Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names’. Later, King David ordered Joab, the captain of his host, to count the tribes of Israel and Judah, which came to 800,000 and 500,000 men respectively. For this apparently sinful activity, God sent a pestilence that killed 70,000 men, and the fear of further divine retribution was one of the arguments used in eighteenth-century Britain against enumerating the population. The Chinese began to perform local population registers from the sixth century BC, and the Indians from around the third century BC.

But it was the Romans who first solidified the census into something approximating what we recognise today, and in doing so gave us its name too (from the Latin censere, ‘to assess’.) The first Roman census was carried out under the orders of Servius Tullius in the sixth century BC, and gradually became an event held every five years and aimed above all at establishing two things: the availability of men of fighting age and the determination of taxes. The most famous census of all was, of course, the one organised in Judaea by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, the Roman governor of Syria, which became famous not so much for anything that it counted but for the movement of one particular couple. As the Gospel of Luke recounts, and as everyone who goes to a carol service hears during the lessons, ‘it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.’

Given that censuses concern themselves first and foremost with hard, quantifiable facts, it is ironic that Luke’s linking the birth of Christ to Quirinius’ census is almost certainly wrong on several grounds. Matthew says that the birth of Jesus took place in the reign of Herod, but Herod had died around a decade before the census Luke mentions; no Roman census required people to travel to the distant homes of their ancestors, thus making Joseph and Mary’s trip from Galilee to Nazareth extremely unlikely; and the Romans did not at the time impose direct taxation on their client kingdoms. But, as the man who shot Liberty Valance knew, when the legend becomes fact, then print the legend: and so the birth of Christ is always associated with a census.

The first formal English census is only slightly less momentous, coming as it did at the instigation of William the Conqueror and being enshrined in the Domesday Book of 1086. William, perhaps understandably for a man who had basically performed a hostile takeover of an entire country, wanted to know much the same things previous census-takers all over the world had sought: who lived where, who owned what, who had owned it before the Conquest, who could fight and who owed how much in taxes. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (a collection of historical documents rather than a regional newspaper, which would have been a very early casualty of the digital journalism revolution) reports that William sent ‘his men over all England into each shire; commissioning them to find out how many hundreds of hides* were in the shire, what land the king himself had, and what stock upon the land; or, what dues he ought to have by the year from the shire’.

In a move of which modern-day dictators would be proud, the Domesday Book was not only official but unalterable: there was no right of dispute for anyone who felt the assessors had incorrectly calculated their holdings and liabilities. These overtones gave the book the name by which it’s known now. Richard FitzNeal, treasurer of England under Henry II, wrote that

the book is metaphorically called by the native English, Domesday, i.e., the Day of Judgement. For as the sentence of that strict and terrible last account cannot be evaded by any skilful subterfuge, so when this book is appealed to on those matters which it contains, its sentence cannot be quashed or set aside with impunity. That is why we have called the book ‘the Book of Judgement’ … not because it contains decisions on various difficult points, but because its decisions, like those of the Last Judgement, are unalterable.

The book is divided into two parts, Little Domesday (covering Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex) and Great Domesday (pretty much the rest of England at the time, with a few exceptions). Rumours that Little Domesday was so short due to the restricted gene pool of its East Anglian denizens are scurrilous and without foundation, at least according to a resident of Cromer whose brother may also be his wife. Rumours that Great Domesday was written almost entirely by a single scribe are much more credible (and presumably the scribe in question was the first Englishman ever known to have suffered from repetitive strain injury, carpal tunnel syndrome and bouts of incandescent fury when someone pointed out a typo on page 343 of a particularly beautifully illuminated manuscript section). And it was thorough: to take one example almost at random, the small village of Ightfield in Shropshire, or ‘Istrefeld’ as Domesday calls it, is summed up thus:

Gerard holds Istrefeld. Ulniet held it and was a free man. There two hides pay geld. There is land for four ploughs. A priest is there and two bordars [according to the Oxford English Dictionary, ‘a villein of the lowest rank, who held a cottage at his lord’s pleasure’], with one plough. Woodland there for fattening sixty swine, and two hayes [a ‘haye’ being an enclosure constructed for the capture of game, especially roebuck].

Some efforts were made to gauge the population: for example, in Elizabeth I’s reign, the bishops were asked to count the number of families in their respective dioceses and report back to the Privy Council. Later, mid-eighteenth-century proposals to count the population were fiercely attacked in the Commons, either as an affront to traditional British liberties or as a security risk if it meant disclosing our potential weakness to a foreign power (not to mention the risk of another pestilence from God). Indeed, despite the country’s increasing prosperity, some people thought the population might actually be falling: for example, in 1780, the Welsh Nonconformist minister the Reverend Richard Price published a book on the subject. Known in short as Dr Price’s Reversionary Payments, its title runs in full to 60 words, of which the last nine are ‘and a Postscript on the Population of the Kingdom’. In this he argued that the population might have fallen by as much as a quarter in the previous 70 years. Price was, incidentally, a friend of the pioneering statistician Thomas Bayes, the proponent of Bayes’s theorem, and was apparently responsible for getting the theorem published after Bayes’s death. However, it would be almost three-quarters of a millennium since Domesday before the country finally essayed another formal, general census. Blame it on political opposition, on expense, on successive governments having different priorities, on the country being at war as often as not, but it was not until 1796 that a statistician and former House of Commons clerk named John Rickman (once described as ‘hugely literate, oppressively full of information … from matter of fact to Xenophon and Plato’) proposed a census in the Commercial, Agricultural, and Manufacturer’s Magazine (which sounds very much like one of Have I Got News for You’s guest publications, alongside the likes of Hot Dip Galvanising or Cigar Aficionado). That Rickman also edited the Commercial, Agricultural, and Manufacturer’s Magazine may suggest that he wasn’t the most enormous fun at parties, but on this issue at least he was certainly persuasive. He enumerated 12 reasons as to why a census was necessary, among them the usual questions of taxation and conscription but also the contentions that ‘the intimate knowledge of any country must form the rational basis of legislation and diplomacy’, that ‘an industrious population is the basic power and resource of any nation, and therefore its size needs to be known’, that ‘the need to plan the production of corn and thus to know the number of people who had to be fed’ and that ‘the life insurance industry would be stimulated by the results’ (there is a certain Alan Partridge quality to the last of these, which may endear him to the modern-day reader). This all tapped very much into Thomas Malthus’s concerns of the time about overpopulation (which ran directly opposite to Dr Price’s fears), published in his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population.

Thus Rickman’s idea took hold, and the necessary legislation, proposed by Mr Abbot, MP for Helston in Cornwall, was rapidly passed by Parliament in late 1800. The first UK census therefore took place on 10 March 1801, and consisted of six questions aimed at working out the national population, their living arrangements and occupations, and giving some idea as to whether the population was increasing or decreasing. Without an overarching national body to take charge, enumeration in each area was the responsibility of the local overseers of the poor or, failing them, substantial householders and church officials and, if need be, ‘constables, tithingmen, headboroughs or other peace officers’.† (In Scotland, early censuses were, by contrast, carried out by local schoolmasters – perhaps a mark of the high esteem that Scotland has traditionally placed on education – but in 1861 responsibility passed to the recently created General Register Office for Scotland, now the National Register of Scotland.) Since there was obviously no previous census against which the last point could be measured, baptism and burial records were requested from each of the previous 20 years and then for the start of each decade before that, all the way back to 1700. The population of England and Wales was found to be 8.9 million, and that of Scotland 1.6 million – almost exactly the same numbers who live in modern-day Greater London and the Glasgow metropolitan area respectively. Ightfield in Shropshire, which in 1086 had had four ploughs, two bordars, a priest and woodland for 60 swine, now boasted a population of 209 people (which would have risen only to 529 by 2011).

The next census took place in 1811, showing a population of 12 million, an increase of 15 per cent over the decade. With one exception – that of 1941, which was cancelled due to the small matter of the Second World War being in full swing, though even that was partially offset by the drawing up of a wartime National Register at the start of the war in 1939 – so it has stayed to the present day: a census every year ending with a ‘1’. (Tottenham Hotspur fans of a certain age will remember when those years were reliable sources of glory: the League in 1951, the League and FA Cup double in 1961, the Cup in 1981 and 1991. Spurs fans of younger vintage, used to altogether sparser pickings in the silverware department, will regard years ending in ‘1’ rather like all other years, as for them all years end in zero.)

The census has not, of course, stayed still. Categories have been added, changed and removed; questions asked and suspended. In 1821, respondents’ ages were included for the first time, albeit in quinquennial groups (categories nowadays familiar to marathon runners and triathletes whose advancing years are brutally marked out in black and white: MV45 for men’s veterans 45–49, FV50 for female veterans 50–54, and so on). 1821 saw the first census in Ireland, which was of course then in its entirety part of the UK. The early enumerators there were mostly appointed from local tax collectors, apparently on the theory that, like the Poor Law officials in England and Wales, they would be familiar with their districts.

The 1841 census saw a seismic shift in the way the count was organised and conducted. Whereas the three previous censuses had been fundamentally myriad local affairs subsequently tallied together, which had left substantial scope for people being counted twice or not at all, responsibility in England and Wales was now passed to the recently created post of registrar general. A trial run was carried out to see how many households an enumerator could cover in a single day – the forerunner of today’s census tests and rehearsals. In consequence, 35,000 enumerators were appointed to take the census in the shortest possible time, and all records were to be sent to London for analysis at the General Register Office. In addition, proper information on every member of a household was now sought, and all the data collected were published in three separate volumes: the Enumeration Abstract, the Age Abstract and the Occupation Abstract, which sound like long-lost Robert Ludlum novels. If 1801 was the first modern British census, 1841 was the first one to do things as they are in effect still done today: the principles of enumeration have not really been altered since, although the methods have been updated by such developments as printed forms and the development of next year’s primarily online census. Ironically, Rickman himself did not quite live to see the introduction of what might be termed census version 2.0: he had died the previous year.

The census continued to become more advanced and complex as it entered its second half-century and beyond. 1851 asked for exact ages rather than quinquennial age-groups, marriage status, and also noted blindness, deafness and dumbness. It also asked about religion – interestingly, as a voluntary question, as it was when it reappeared on the form in 2001. It asked about attendance at services, rather than affiliation, and was aimed primarily at establishing whether there was sufficient provision of churches and other places of worship. The subsequent report opined that, ‘The most important fact which this investigation as to attendance brings before us is, unquestionably, the alarming number of the non-attendants’. It was clear who was responsible for this; not of course the middle and upper classes, but ‘artizans’ and ‘the labouring classes’. 1871 asked for those who were classified as a lunatic, or as an idiot or imbecile. On one level, this seems amusing to us – we all know people of whom we would say, hopefully teasingly, that they fall into at least one of these categories, and in some cases all three – but it is also a salutary reminder that Victorian attitudes towards the mentally infirm now seem at best unenlightened and at worst actively cruel. The term ‘idiot’ survived until 1901, when it was replaced with ‘feeble-minded’.

In 1881, a new dictionary of occupations was drawn up to keep pace with rapid changes in industry and the proliferation of new jobs. Around 12,000 different occupations were listed, almost double the previous amount, though by 1911 this would be up to around 30,000 (much same as in the coding index of the latest 2020 Standard Occupational Classification, though the latter no longer includes ‘wheeltapper’ but does acknowledge ‘YouTuber’ as a recognised occupation). 1881 also saw respondents in Scotland asked whether they spoke Gaelic, a question extended to Welsh-speaking in Wales in 1891. 1901 saw unmarried women differentiated from their married or widowed counterparts for the first time. The 1901 census presciently asked people in certain industries whether they worked from their own homes, though presumably it failed to foresee that in another 120 years the main question for homeworkers would be ‘Are you still on mute?’ as they tried to conduct yet another online meeting with their widely scattered colleagues. In 1911 – the first census to use machines, albeit by our standards rather primitive ones which worked via holes punched in appropriate positions on special cards – the fertility of marriage was included, with questions asked about the duration of existing marriages and the number of living children born to each marriage. However, the outbreak of war in 1914 delayed the processing of the fertility data, the last report of which was not published until 1923, a dozen years after its collection.

The 1921 census in Great Britain was held in the aftermath of the First World War and the Spanish flu – see Part Four. But it was postponed in all of Ireland, north and south, because of the political situation. In Northern Ireland it was not held until 1926, carried out by the registrar general for Northern Ireland, and the timetable for Northern Ireland did not get back in sync with the rest of the UK until 1951. The 1931 census went off without a hitch, but 11 years later all the results were destroyed in a fire at an Office of Works store in Hayes, Middlesex. It also saw clerks downgraded to Social Class III, having been already moved down from Social Class I to Social Class II two decades earlier – this gradual fall seemingly a result of the spread of universal education (and typewriters) devaluing skills that had once been in great demand. 1951 introduced a 1 per cent sample to allow a quick and wide cross-section of data before the actual publication of the full results, and asked each household about their water supply as these began to shift away from communal arrangements and outdoor toilets to individual and internal household ones. A piped internal supply was deemed different from a tap in the yard, and a tap in the yard of course different from a public standpipe: a water closet was distinct from an earth or chemical one. In 1961, an electronic computer – an IBM 705, to be precise – was used to help process results for the first time, and like all computers of the era took up most of a room and yet had less processing power than the SIM card in the smartphone on which you may well be reading this. As the General Register Office did not yet have its own computer, one located in Winchester belonging to the Royal Army Pay Corps was used instead. The 1971 census was the first to be conducted under the aegis of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which had been set up the previous year to combine the General Register Office and the Government Social Survey. And questions on ethnicity and religion were introduced (or reintroduced) in 1991 and 2001 respectively. In 2001 responsibility for the census passed to the Office for National Statistics, which had come into being five years earlier when the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys merged with the Central Statistical Office.

The census has been compulsory since 1921, but at least two years’ censuses have been subject to boycotts by way of civil disobedience. In 1911, the Women’s Freedom League encouraged women to avoid the census (by attending all-night parties or staying with friends) as part of the suffragette movement campaigning for women’s right to vote. Emily Davison, who two years later would die after colliding with by the king’s horse at the Derby, was recorded in two places on census night: her own house in Russell Square and a broom cupboard in the Houses of Parliament. And opposition to Margaret Thatcher’s poll tax (not to mention fear that the census might be used to enforce that tax) led to press reports that up to a million people had avoided the 1991 census, even though Mrs Thatcher herself had stepped down as prime minister the previous year and the poll tax was clearly on the way out.

Of course, for the more recent censuses, one can’t yet see the actual records themselves, only the anonymised data tables that are published. This is because these records, full as they are of very sensitive personal information, remain confidential for a hundred years after they are collected. Once that period has elapsed, census returns are in the public domain, and these days can be easily accessed online, thanks to popular genealogy websites. But until then they remain closely guarded by the ONS. Not so long ago the well-known television crime drama Silent Witness featured the cops logging in to an imaginary ‘National Census Database’ to get the information they needed to crack the case; but, alas, thanks to the hundred-year rule, it would have to be a pretty cold case review indeed for the police to be able to access any useful information from the census (anyone fancy digging around the 1891 census returns to propose yet another suspect for being Jack the Ripper?). Indeed, data confidentiality generally, and the need to avoid accidentally releasing material that could identify individuals, is very important to the ONS, which means that it can’t always release information in the full level of detail that it collects. For example, on baby names, it doesn’t publish those names that are only given to one or two individual babies each year.

Meanwhile, quite distinct from the decennial census, more and more official statistics were being collected, often reflecting particular concerns. For example, the registration of births, marriages and deaths had long been done by the Church of England on a parish-by-parish basis, but with the spread of other denominations that could not carry out legally binding weddings according to their own law, there was increasing pressure for a registration system controlled by the state not the church. This resulted in the Registration Act and the Marriage Act 1836, under which Thomas Lister was appointed the first registrar general for England and Wales. And naturally with the registers came the statistical reports: Lister’s first annual report, published in 1839, revealed that, in the 12-month period of July 1837 to June 1838, there were 107,201 marriages celebrated ‘according to the Rites of the Established Church’ and another 111,481 not according to those rites. Again, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were times of labour unrest, not least the 1888 match girls’ strike and the 1889 London dockers’ strike. Not surprisingly, therefore, the official statistics on labour disputes, first compiled by the Board of Trade and then the Department of Employment but more recently by the Office for National Statistics, go back to 1891 – though the peak year for the number of days lost to strikes did not come until 1926, with the General Strike and the long-running miners’ strike that followed it.

Incidentally, different arrangements were already starting to apply to the different countries of the United Kingdom, even in those pre-devolution days: thus, while England and Wales had a registrar general from 1836, the first registrar general for Scotland was not appointed until 1854 and civil registration in Ireland only began in 1864. To this day, the ONS is responsible for the census only in England and Wales, with National Records for Scotland (set up in 2011) and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (established in 1996) now looking after it elsewhere in the UK. This means that sometimes, especially when dealing with old series going a long way back, it can be hard to get long-run numbers for the UK as a whole.

Quite separately, the great advances in computing in recent decades have made possible a number of developments in the collection and analysis of official data. For example, in late 2019 the ONS began publishing, jointly with HM Revenue and Customs, monthly updates on the number of employees on the payroll in the UK. A few months later, when the country was struck by the coronavirus pandemic, forcing many businesses to suspend trading, the ONS was able to accelerate its timetable for publishing these figures so as to get them out quicker than was possible with the old survey-based measures of employment. Likewise, as part of its work to meet the challenge of providing richer and more real-time statistics to inform decision-makers, in 2016 the ONS announced the establishment of a data science campus. This was seen as a way of exploring and using innovative methods and new data sources, including administrative data and big data, to improve existing statistics and develop new outputs for the public good.

The campus continues to play an important role in the data revolution by innovating public sector data science and building artificial intelligence (AI) capability through a range of learning and development programmes, in collaboration with other government departments, industry and academia. Since its launch in 2017, it has researched a large number of different topics – including investigating the use of machine-learning techniques to predict missing energy performance scores in the housing stock; the use of open data sets to develop a better understanding of loneliness; using non-traditional data sources to understand the characteristics of high-growth companies; and using tax returns, ship-tracking data and road traffic sensor data to allow early identification of large economic changes. Moreover, it too was able to respond rapidly to the pandemic; for example, doing analysis of anonymised mobility data released by Google to give insight into the impact of social distancing measures introduced in response to the pandemic.

This book uses the census snapshots over the past two centuries, as well as other figures from the Office for National Statistics and other official sources, to chart the past and present of this country during that period; to see, as far as possible, how much we have changed, and indeed how much we have stayed the same. It is not, and does not aim to be, an overarching or definitive history of the country – such a thing would run to the length of the Encyclopaedia Britannica – but rather a broad and hopefully light-hearted look at what the censuses, surveys and other official statistics have thrown up.

It is divided into three main sections: who we are, what we do and where we live.

‘Who we are’ looks at, among other things, how family arrangements have changed, how we spend our free time, our religious and cultural beliefs, and what the state of education can tell us about what young people do and don’t want to do with their lives.

‘What we do’ examines how our working lives have evolved over those two centuries, a period which has spanned not just an Industrial Revolution but a technological one too. It looks, among other things, at the jobs that exist now but did not in the past, and vice versa; at the effects of automation; and at the extent to which gender roles in work have changed.

‘Where we live’ covers not only changes in local areas but also the wider country too, and in particular the shift to predominantly urban ways of living, and also how housing tenure has altered. This is a small and crowded island, and yet there are still substantial swathes that are, to all intents and purposes, scarcely inhabited, as our look at population density shows.

These are followed by two shorter sections – ‘A Census of Enlightenment’, looking back a hundred years to the 1921 census, held in the aftermath of the First World War and the devastating Spanish flu pandemic, and ‘Back to the Future?’, where I look forward a hundred years and speculate a little about what a 2121 census might look like.

Of course, there are limits to what is, or ought to be, collected in official statistics, which are after all funded out of the taxes we all have to pay to the government. Thus, among the questions that have stumped the normally indefatigable ONS press office down the years were: ‘How many rats and squirrels are there in the UK?’, ‘What’s the number of people in the UK who sing in a choir?’, ‘What percentage of the UK are aristocrats?’ and even ‘Do you have statistics on how many new statistics start getting collected or published every year?’ But while we don’t really need to know how many people sing in a choir, things like the number of people who are born every year, how many get married, how many are in work or what we are dying of, are things that the country and its decision-makers really do need to know.

This book was great fun and rather illuminating to write, and I hope you feel the same way about reading it. If you do, and you’re approached by the ONS at some point in the future to take part in one of its surveys, please bear in mind that, without people like you helping, much of the information here just couldn’t have been compiled.

* A ‘hide’ was an Anglo-Saxon unit of land measurement, originally reckoned as enough land to support one family.

† These were the traditional officials that parishes appointed to see to law and order.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.