Samuel Brittan has written this in the FT this morning:
One of the better permanent secretaries of HM Treasury, the late Douglas Allen, used to respond to requests for more official data by saying that such vast amounts of data should be published that commentators would drown in them and cry for help.
His desire has been granted in spades, judging by the many dozen (if not hundreds) of tables and charts in the recent so-called Autumn Statement, published last week, and the accompanying new report of the Office for Budget Responsibility. But I would add that there are far too many percentages and rates of change in them, and not nearly enough absolute numbers.
Can I reiterate his last point? Far, far too many of the statistics published by the Treasury are utter mumbo jumbo expressed as a percentage change on previous data without giving any clue whatsoever what the base data is.
If the Treasury is intent on imparting useful information this is not it.
But then, maybe they're not intent on imparting useful information.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It would be interesting to know the cost of and numbers of staff involved in the production of this data. I certainly believe that the production of such vast amounts of data is a deliberate tactic used by civil servants to confuse and/or overwhelm the reader. The end result is that it is increasingly difficult to draw meaningful conclusions or challenge the veracity of the report/publication.
Published statistics are a form of recent history. History depends on the quality and range of sources and the nature of analysis and interpretation. As for the future and forecasting I find reading the runes to be more reliable.
This government generally is interested only in propaganda that highlights any and all problems with which to whip up bad feeling while ignoring the successes that far outweigh the failures, eg talk about failings in GP surgeries to pile pressure on the NHS but ignore the fact that only previously known problem practices were re-inspected – no mention of the practices that had improved; or pretend that fraud in the social security system – no I won’t use that horrible word welfare – is as much more significant financial problem than maladministration; or suggest through implication, if not direct words, that untrained teachers do a better job than ALL trained teachers.
This is positively Goebbelsesque but few seem to note the historical similarities of demonising selected sections of the population or acknowledge what that ultimately led to eighty years ago. There’s plenty of evidence that many members of this government are perfectly prepared to use casual brutality to define and isolate the “enemy”, the poor, the vulnerable, the non-British. I fear that there’s only one plausible outcome, violent resistance which will be met with equally or more violent crack down.
Despite all the analysis, I’m not sure I understand how this country sank so low?
It is the road to Mont Pelerin
https://www.montpelerin.org/montpelerin/index.html
So when the Treasury produce statistics that seem to show the Government’s policies are working, we should be suspicious of statistics but when a cancer research scientist produces statistics that seem to show the Government’s policies are not needed, we should believe them.
That’s handy.
Well, actually yes
You see, stats are no independent of the producer
Only positive economists claim they are