Britain produces vast amounts of official data, funded by taxpayers. But statistics should do more than fill government publications. They should improve decisions and hold those in power to account.
A little while ago you did a report with a comparison of the education standards between England and Wales and it reminded me that many politicians don't want statistics which go against their agenda. Katherine Birbalsingh did a piece about the row which erupted when Michael Gove started his education reforms. After your post I looked it up and it seemed to me that Gove has been vindicated in his reforms. England is now in the OECD top ten for 15 year olds and there have even been headlines in the Guardian no less to the effect that England has bucked the international trend. England's education rating have been rising at a time when most of the world's has been falling. So given that Gove's reforms have succeeded why is the present government changing school education again. I can see that there might be scope for further improvement but I don't think that's why they are doing it. I think they are doing it for ideological reasons and not on real evidence.
Another example is Net Zero. We know that the drive to electrification and renewables is putting up electricity bills but the government puts the blame elsewhere. They are ignoring real data. They don't want the truth to get in the way of their preferred policy.
I completely agree. I know someone who works for an agency which collects and compiles statistics about education. I've asked him who looks at the data and he doesn't know. I'm sure that the people who look at the data are often only looking for statistics which support the current agenda. I'm currently reading a book called "Wrong number" by Aaron Brown who is a statistician and poker player. He describes the many ways that published statistics are misinterpreted or just plain wrong. It's a very recent book and the examples are mostly about the US but is fascinating anyway. I got Aaron's name when he appeared on Triggernometry with Konstantin Kisin.
As we know all stats are only as good as the data. And that’s always based on the supposed reliability of those who gave to register or who have to collate them.
On Policing for example they keep changing the groupings and whether those arrested are in any particular group or under any particular heading!
I personally think that when Teresa May was Home Secretary and castigated the police’s performance at their union meeting they have been underfunded and they have more or less worked to rule. But I digress.
If they change the stars constantly it’s hard to be precise. And different forces collate in different ways. So it’s a minefield of disaster.
Take inflation. We all know prices have largely increase higher than the inflation figures suggest. We know it’s true! But not everything that is looked at, is kept strictly correct.
For example supermarkets have let milk bread and other staples conveniently low! I wonder why? Is it to keep inflation figures low? Or is it because there has been no rise in farming costs in milking cows? Or is wheat grain so abundant farmers don’t need much profit? No of course it’s been suppressed it must have. They haven’t risen at the same rate as say beef or lamb!
So factors are so abstract that it makes the stats irrelevant for any good use.
As much as stars are genuinely good for the reasons you state Jamie they can also give a false situation. And give the wrong impression.
I like to see things through my own eyes. To use my experience as a check rather than be guided by stats that are incorrect.
Manipulation of criteria can be damaging.
The best stats are unquestionable. And with fully digital economy that can’t be manipulated is probably the best for us to gain the upper hand of votes.
If we had a fully digital money system based on actuality of spending and receipt we can check and trace all money. We can then know answers to most questions of government because the figures would be precise.
But for now it’s all subject to manipulation and incomplete or misleading figures.
A little while ago you did a report with a comparison of the education standards between England and Wales and it reminded me that many politicians don't want statistics which go against their agenda. Katherine Birbalsingh did a piece about the row which erupted when Michael Gove started his education reforms. After your post I looked it up and it seemed to me that Gove has been vindicated in his reforms. England is now in the OECD top ten for 15 year olds and there have even been headlines in the Guardian no less to the effect that England has bucked the international trend. England's education rating have been rising at a time when most of the world's has been falling. So given that Gove's reforms have succeeded why is the present government changing school education again. I can see that there might be scope for further improvement but I don't think that's why they are doing it. I think they are doing it for ideological reasons and not on real evidence.
Another example is Net Zero. We know that the drive to electrification and renewables is putting up electricity bills but the government puts the blame elsewhere. They are ignoring real data. They don't want the truth to get in the way of their preferred policy.
I completely agree. I know someone who works for an agency which collects and compiles statistics about education. I've asked him who looks at the data and he doesn't know. I'm sure that the people who look at the data are often only looking for statistics which support the current agenda. I'm currently reading a book called "Wrong number" by Aaron Brown who is a statistician and poker player. He describes the many ways that published statistics are misinterpreted or just plain wrong. It's a very recent book and the examples are mostly about the US but is fascinating anyway. I got Aaron's name when he appeared on Triggernometry with Konstantin Kisin.
Excellent piece Jamie.
As we know all stats are only as good as the data. And that’s always based on the supposed reliability of those who gave to register or who have to collate them.
On Policing for example they keep changing the groupings and whether those arrested are in any particular group or under any particular heading!
I personally think that when Teresa May was Home Secretary and castigated the police’s performance at their union meeting they have been underfunded and they have more or less worked to rule. But I digress.
If they change the stars constantly it’s hard to be precise. And different forces collate in different ways. So it’s a minefield of disaster.
Take inflation. We all know prices have largely increase higher than the inflation figures suggest. We know it’s true! But not everything that is looked at, is kept strictly correct.
For example supermarkets have let milk bread and other staples conveniently low! I wonder why? Is it to keep inflation figures low? Or is it because there has been no rise in farming costs in milking cows? Or is wheat grain so abundant farmers don’t need much profit? No of course it’s been suppressed it must have. They haven’t risen at the same rate as say beef or lamb!
So factors are so abstract that it makes the stats irrelevant for any good use.
As much as stars are genuinely good for the reasons you state Jamie they can also give a false situation. And give the wrong impression.
I like to see things through my own eyes. To use my experience as a check rather than be guided by stats that are incorrect.
Manipulation of criteria can be damaging.
The best stats are unquestionable. And with fully digital economy that can’t be manipulated is probably the best for us to gain the upper hand of votes.
If we had a fully digital money system based on actuality of spending and receipt we can check and trace all money. We can then know answers to most questions of government because the figures would be precise.
But for now it’s all subject to manipulation and incomplete or misleading figures.