I put the following questions to Len Cook on 7th March (see message to this
list of same date).
******************************************
1/ What has been the cost of surveys conducted by the ONS about
public confidence in official statistics?
2/ Why have these surveys been limited to other countries, and to
focus groups and 'opinion-formers' in Britain?
3/ What evidence was used to decide that in Britain public confidence
did not depend upon the quality and qualities of official statistics?
I have of course already noted the evidence given in ONS papers, cited
from other countries and the evidence cited for a general decline in trust
in British government, that might be considered relevant to question 2/.
So I do not require repetition of these points. My question 3/ relates
specifically the quality and qualities of official statistics in Britain.
****************************************
I received a rather lengthy reply on 21 March. Len Cook's reply addresses
questions 1 and 2, but I don't think that his reply demonstrates
understanding of question 3.
I would be pleased to forward a copy of Len Cook's reply to anyone who
would like the full detail. But I would like to pick up just a few points
on this list. In this message I report on what I think is the reply to
questions 2.
Len Cook writes:
"You have come to some quite incorrect conclusions on this, and I hope I can
give you less concern.
"Firstly, I have some ambivalence about the measure of guidance in official
statistics from such direct processes. It may well be that survey response
rates, coverage in the media, and the levels of understanding of official
statistics, is more relevant.
"Secondly, there has been past activity in this area, and its early
discontinuation by me was subject to criticism, by both the Treasury Select
Committee, and by The Statistics Commission."
I think that Len Cook uses the term 'direct processes' to mean interaction
between the ONS and individual users and critics. In other words the ONS
does not want any direct interaction with users, individuals, or groups such
as Radstats.
The ONS response is very understandable. It must be very time consuming and
seemingly inefficient to deal with specific criticisms.
Len Cook's reply appears to indicate that the ONS is reverting to its
historic practice of 'consultation exercises'. Typically the ONS puts out a
paper making proposals and requires responses within a given period. The
ONS makes a general summary of the replies and usually more or less
reiterating its original proposals. After the ONS has made its decisions
and published its summary and proposals, perhaps with revisions, the ONS
sometimes makes the responses it received public by posting on its website.
The ONS has never shown any awareness of the irony that can be read into the
word 'exercise' to describe this highly controlled process. But such
'consultation exercises' can justify ONS claims that users have been
consulted.
Ray Thomas
35 Passmore, Tinkers Bridge, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel/Fax 01908 679081
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|