The 60,000 figure is in the table (well, 60,300) as the difference between a mid-year population estimate using the old methodology and the new methods over the period 2002-2005.
For Westminster, the difference is a difference of 15,500 or 6.3% of the original mid-year estimate.
This means that Government grants have been paid to Westminster on the basis of, cumulatively, 6.3% more population than they have.
This is a serious overpayment which, following Tax Credit type rules, Westminster should repay. I'm sure Peterborough, Hull and Sutton would like the money.
-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Folkert van Galen
Sent: 24 May 2007 16:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: dubious migration figures.
If only......
people would be willing to read the full detail of the releases.
Then we would have less people believing the lies launched by journalists,
who don't give themselves the time to consume the matter.....
The BBC was at fault here claiming that London lost 60,000 migrants per
month, whereas the press communiqué was a bit more precise on the matter.
As long as it is against the government it doesn't seem to matter too much.
Some LA's have an axe to grind and will use "anecdotal" arguments to prove
that the figures (these are estimations acquired from more than one source)
are wrong. Some journalists don't seem to recognise this. Any statisticians
that want to work for the BBC? Please ring them !
Here is your reading: the full release on corrections to migration figures
over the past four years. And nowhere it says that international migration
into London goes down.....
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=14834
Folkert van Galen,
Office for National Statistics
******************************************************
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]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
******************************************************
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]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|