> What do you think of this? Below is a proposal that will be put to the
> Radical Statistics Group (RSG) annual general meeting at its
> conference at LSE on February 24th for consideration by members
> (subscribers to the newsletter).

This statement posted on 11th January by Ludi Simpson is old-fashioned
rather than radical.   It belongs to the 1960s rather than to the 21st
century.    It is full of do-goodery and self-contradiction.  Most
important, the statement does not do justice to variety of contributions
made by people associated with Radstats.

What is a 'radical campaign'?    Radical in my dictionary means fundamental.
So does this statement mean that the Radical Statistics Group supports the
overthrow of capitalism?

What is 'progressive social change'?    If the statement called for greater
equality in society it would be appropriate, defendable, and consistent with
the main theme of 'The Widening Gap' book.   But 'progressive change' seems
more like a Thatcherite kind of equality of opportunity.  Opportunity to be
rich and opportunity to be poor.

> Most of us hold that the needs of the community can never be fully met
> by a system based on the pursuit of profit.

Agreed!    That sentence convincingly identifies capitalism as being a major
part of the problem.   But the statement says nothing about the economic
statistics that express the ideology of capitalism.   Why not?

> Rational, democratic and
> progressive planning is needed to tackle the injustices of poverty,
> inequality and discrimination, and to help the least powerful groups
> realise their full potential.

The soviets had 70 years of planning and there were a lot of achievements.
But even the Russians don't want to got down that road again, and in two
elections have voted decisively against any going back.    The UK  had a
national plan in 1964 but it was abandoned because it did not work.   The
government publishes five year public expenditure plans.   But it is not
clear how such plans can be influenced outside the normal political system,
and these plans are expressed exclusively in terms of governmental
categorisations.

Britain has a extensive system of town planning, but it would be fair to say
that the main function of this system is to preserve property values.
Nothing much radical or progressive there.   Britain did have a remarkably
successful system of positive planning in the new and expanded towns in the
1950s and 1960s.  Milton Keynes, where I live, was the outcome of that
system.   But the idea of new towns was abandoned in the late 1970s without
much more than a whimper of protest.

So what on earth is 'progressive planning'?    We may not be happy with
capitalism.   But there is no need to commit the Radical Statistics Group to
an alternative that the available evidence suggests may be much worse.

The one thing that any planning does require is statistics.    And here the
statement fails to face up to the nature of the problems of using
statistics.    Statistics, as pointed out in the demystifying book in 1979
and in quite a lot of writings since, serve governmental purposes, and that
means they don't necessarily serve social justice, or social science, or
'progressive planning' (whatever that is).    They support the
administration of government policies whatever they are.

This point of this contrast between 'progressive planning' and the nature of
statistics is expressed in the 'Statistics and Society' book.   The preface
of the book included exhortations such as that 'Only rational, democratic,
and progressive planning can tackle the manifest injustices in our present
society ...'    But the conclusions of the book are quite different in
character.   The conclusions are actually about statistics.

The conclusion points out that governments commission statistics, that they
control the collection, compilation, and dissemination processes.   Those
outside the GSS can be critical of these processes, but they have difficulty
in influencing these processes.

The only really positive and optimistic part of the conclusion focuses on
the interpretation, analysis, and understanding of statistics.   In these
kinds of matters there is a clear role for thought guided by philanthropic
considerations.   Or as I put it in an earlier message there is scope for
the use of statistics for the amelioration of the human condition.

The conclusion of the Statistics and Society book (written by Simpson and
Dorling - two of the signatories of the current statement!) could well be
the starting point for a statement of the aims of the Radical Statistics
Group.   I don't think that chapter includes fairly meaningless phrases like
'radical campaign', 'progressive planning', and 'progressive social change'.

So can you please go back to your keyboards, Anderson, Simpson, Dorling,
Ginn, Shaw, Pantazis and Gordon, and draft something more intelligent,
intelligible, and actually descriptive of what Radstats members actually do
and believe in?      A good starting point would be something that accords
with what the 50 or so authors involved in Statistics and Society book (who
can reasonably be expected to be representative of Radstats member and
sympathisers) actually wrote about?

Ray Thomas, Social Sciences, Open University
Tel: 01908 679081 Fax 01908 550401
Email: [log in to unmask]
35 Passmore, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY

******************************************************
Please note that Radstats is currently set to 'reply-to-list', not reply-to-sender..
That means if you press the 'reply' button on your mailer your message will go to
all members of the list.   If you want to reply to the author of a message on
the list you will have to delete the list address and substitute the address of
the author.  The setting is a matter of some controversy and is under review.
The setting may well be changed to 'reply-to-sender' because of the persistence
and repetitiveness of a few members of the list.
*******************************************************