The ONS gets criticised: is it trying too hard to defend Osborne?
Amidst all the dramatic events of the last week or so, this letter of 16th August, from the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority (the regulator) to the Director General of the Office for National Statistics, does not appear to have been picked up on in the blogosphere.
The letter concerns the media controversy over the way in which the ONS reported on the Q2 GDP Statistical Bulletin, referring to several ‘special factors’ as reasons why the growth figures was only 0.2%.
The Bulletin by the ONS went as far as to suggest that, without these special factors, growth ”may” have been 0.7%, although an important caveat is added:
These estimates must be regarded as broad brush and illustrative. There can be no certainty as to the impact of the special events and there may be other factors at play.
The letter from the Chair of the Statistics Authority in response is carefully worded but, amidst the niceties, this section stands out:
There may be benefit in further developing the commentary so that it is fully understood by all commentators that a discussion of special factors will routinely be published regardless of whether the effects of those factors is to increase or decrease GDP. It may also be that any quantified estimate of the net effect of the special factors should only be published as part of a full analysis, if at all.
It is hard to read this as anything other than a slap on the wrist from the regulator, who is clearly concerned that ONS is being drawn into a defence of the Coalition, through the use of “quantified estimates” which are totally unbacked by any justifying rationale, but appear to have been plucked out of the air as a way of helping the Coalition explain away the poor growth.
The Director General of ONS has replied to the regulator with an equally carefully worded letter, in which he slips in what is effectively an admision of guilt, under the guise of an update about methodoligical review:
We will in the autumn be reviewing with the GSS Methodology Advisory Committee the approach we are taking on the estimation of the effects of special factors. I will ensure that review takes account of the points you have raised.
It’s good to see the National Statistics regulator on his toes, but I for one will be taking an interest in whether and how this methodological review is carried through.
If the Coalition starts to think that it can get away not just with undue influence over the media, but also – however discreetly – over quintessential aspects of the country’s civil service machinery, trouble surely lies ahead.
---------------------------
| Tweet |
Paul Cotterill is a regular contributor, and blogs more regularly at Though Cowards Flinch, an established leftwing blog and emergent think-tank. He currently has fingers in more pies than he has fingers, including disability caselaw, childcare social enterprise, and cricket.
· Other posts by Paul Cotterill
Filed under
Blog ,Economy
12 Comments || Add yours below
Reader comments
“…undue influence over …quintessential aspects of the country’s civil service machinery, trouble surely lies ahead”. Already long and firmly established, surely? Clarify “quintessential?
The Royal Statistical Society has publicly challenged the validity of the ONS Consumer Price Index, first introduced by the coalition for pension inflation-indexing, then described as its “preferred” (ie calculated to be lower than RPI) , now described by the ever-so objective Beeb as the “main” inflation index. The higher RPI of course remains ‘preferred’ for rail fare rises, MPs pension-indexing, Bank of England staff pension indexing, and index-linked Bonds. Orwell, thou shouldst be living at this hour.
Quite right too that ONS were slapped down.
The analysis they presented was partial and ignored one-off factors that increased Q2 growth (e.g. widespread travel disruptions in Q2 2010 inflating the annual Q2 2011 growth rate), giving the impression that ONS were “making excuses” for Osborne.
I’m more sympathetic as to why they published the context though – it clearly was a continuation of the helpful and necessary analysis arising from Q4 2010 methodological problems (economic impact of snow meant they had to change their first release methodology), through then explaining that Q1 2011 were inflated due to return to ‘business as usual’ after the snow melted.
A good article. Given how ONS have acted here, you do wonder how impartial the GDP figures themselves might be. There appear to be people high up in ONS who are scared of upsetting politicians, and if they’re doing that at one level it might well be occurring at other levels. It certainly raises questions.
the ons was set up by the government so its hardly a surprise its spin on the statistics is and will be sympathetic to the government.
You may be correct that the ONS responded to political pressure, but that is pure supposition. All you have here is the regulator suggesting that the ONS should not be in the business of publishing quantitative counterfactual estimates (what ifs). You have nothing here to suggest, apart from your suspicions, that the estimates themselves were dodgy, nor that they were plucked out of thin air. I bet there was a perfectly standard model that generated that number, just like any counterfactual estimate, caveats apply. Of course perfectly standard models can be abused, crap in crap out and all that, but there no reason to think the ONS “made up” those estimates.
Let’s see if when the Olympics rolls round they say GDP would have been lower if not for that special circumstance, and put a number on by how much. If they haven’t been told to stop doing that by then.
N.b. If you believe bad news is a self fulfilling prophecy, if GDP data is depressed by one-off events, wouldn’t you want the statistic office to say so, in the national in test?
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
- Liberal Conspiracy
The ONS gets criticised: is it trying too hard to defend Osborne? http://t.co/2DQUlwh
- Lee Hyde
The ONS gets criticised: is it trying too hard to defend Osborne? http://t.co/2DQUlwh
- Roddy Martindale
The ONS gets criticised: is it trying too hard to defend Osborne? http://t.co/2DQUlwh
- Penfold
The ONS gets criticised: is it trying too hard to defend Osborne? http://t.co/2DQUlwh
- David Davies
The ONS gets criticised: is it trying too hard to defend Osborne? ~ http://t.co/uCzvf36
- Web Only: the best of the blogs
[...] 2. The ONS gets criticised: is it tryin… [...]
- Mr Osborne’s poodles? | Malcolm Redfellow’s Home Service
[...] A couple of days back that excellent blog Though Cowards Flinch raised an eyebrow that the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority had lobbed a warning shot at the Director General of the Office for National Statistics. The nub of any difficulty is that second-quarter GDP Statistical Bulletin, and — specifically — the ONS suggestion that “special factors” may have distorted the outcome. That original post re-appeared on liberalconspiracy. [...]
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Workfare – what does the evidence show?
» The real agenda behind Telegraph’s abortion investigation
» How Scotland Yard monitors prying bloggers and journalists
» When disabled people want to work – employers can hold the back
» Revealed: the reality behind Workfare and why it doesn’t work
» Job snob? No, I’ve got the T-shirt
» Why country-by-country reporting matters to our wellbeing
» If Unions want to become stronger, they need to modernise
» Why work “reforms” in Spain are a warning for workers across Europe
» Five things you need to know about the NHS bill
» Bigger. Fatter. Gypsier. More Racist.
|
62 Comments 15 Comments 23 Comments 10 Comments 24 Comments 19 Comments 17 Comments 83 Comments 204 Comments 85 Comments |
 |
LATEST COMMENTS » pagar posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » the a&e charge nurse posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Spike1138 posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Spike1138 posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Spike1138 posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Robin Levett posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Robin Levett posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Bob B posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » pjt posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » pjt posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » pjt posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Spike1138 posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Paul posted on YouGov changes that deflate Labour's polling » Spike1138 posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Watchman posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? |
