Ray, I'm not clear what is Barbara's reply and what is your comment. If she is saying that the Commission already knows radstats members' views on the need for good quality statistics, I think that is fair enough. Alison -----Original Message----- From: Ray Thomas [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 11 March 2005 08:09 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Fw: CONFIDENCE IN OFFICIAL STATISTICS I've had a reply from the Statistics Commission - given below. Those unaccustomed to doublespeak may have difficulty in understanding it. So I offer a translation. Barbara Buckley is saying that there are no quality problems with official statistics. They are produced in accordance with a code of practice. They are self-certificated as being of the highest quality in accordance with international standards. So the question of what SHOULD be the level of trust in official statistics is not of interest. We should assume that the level of trust SHOULD be 100%. Unfortunately the general public, and people like MPs, are not very numerate and do not understand or appreciate the nature of the work that goes to make British statistics the best in the world. And there are lot of intermediaries, especially journalists, but also near election times a lot of politicians, who do not use statistics in the respectful way that their quality deserves. Journalist often use statistics casually and in general they use statistics for the stories they tell and are highly selective, to say the least, in the slant they give in their reports. And even Mr Blair uses statistics to make party political points! The Commission needs to know why journalists and politicians and other opinion formers don't trust statistics - because we need to enlist on our side opinion formers who can instil into the public a proper respect for official statistics. The Commission doe not need to know the views of those like radstats member who are well informed about official statistics because radstats members know that trust in official statistics should be 100%. How could radstats members possibly think that their governmental colleagues do not conduct their work according to the highest standards? The Commission recognises that those well informed about official statistics, like radstats members, may have statistical needs that are not met by official statistics. But that not a matter of quality, but is probably a matter of resources. If radstats and others give the Commission support we may be able to get the required resources from the Government top fulfill these needs. The description of the Statistical Commission as a watchdog on the ONS always seemed a bit meaningles. But the meaning now seems clear. The Commission has become the guard-dog protecting and defending the ONS. Strange things happen at election times! Ray Thomas ************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Buckley Owen" <[log in to unmask]> To: "Ray Thomas" <[log in to unmask]> Cc: "Richard Alldritt" <[log in to unmask]>; "Rosalyn Harper" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 5:26 PM Subject: RE: CONFIDENCE IN OFFICIAL STATISTICS Ray The public confidence research was designed to find out the level of trust that the general public ACTUALLY had in official statistics, as well as the views of those who influence their trust. We weren't looking to assess what the level of trust SHOULD be in the light of the quality of the data. However we are planning to do more work on user needs and would be happy to canvass the views of Radstats at that point. Best regards Barbara Barbara Buckley Owen Secretary to the Commission Statistics Commission 10 Great George Street London SW1P 3AE 020 7273 8012 [log in to unmask] www.statscom.org.uk With effect from 29 March 2005 our postal address will be: Artillery House, 11-19 Artillery Row, Victoria, London, SW1P 1RT All telephone numbers will remain the same. The Statistics Commission is independent of Ministers and of the producers of official statistics. It operates openly and transparently. -----Original Message----- From: Ray Thomas [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 08 March 2005 11:39 To: Barbara Buckley Owen Subject: Re: CONFIDENCE IN OFFICIAL STATISTICS Many thanks, Barbara. My next question would be 'Why did not the Commission put the question to the Radstats email list?' This audience would have been less arbitrarily chosen than the members of focus groups or that of opinion formers. It would have cost nothing except staff time to put the message, to participate in ensuing discussion, and to make a report on conclusions/summary of the interaction. It would have been using the e-technology that is now widely available in a constructive way. It is not too late! Sincerely Ray Thomas 35 Passmore, Tinkers Bridge, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY Email: [log in to unmask] Tel/Fax 01908 679081 ************************************ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Buckley Owen" <[log in to unmask]> To: "r.thomas" <[log in to unmask]> Cc: "Alison Eve" <[log in to unmask]>; "Richard Alldritt" <[log in to unmask]>; "Maryanne Kelly (E-mail)" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 11:05 AM Subject: FW: CONFIDENCE IN OFFICIAL STATISTICS Ray Further to your email below, Richard has asked me to send you details of Statistics Commission expenditure on the public confidence research. Official Statistics: Perceptions and Trust Report Research undertaken by MORI ?38,000 + VAT Printing of reports ?1,550 + VAT We also contributed ?10,000 towards the cost of the qualitative focus group work undertaken by ONS. Best regards Barbara Barbara Buckley Owen Secretary to the Commission Statistics Commission 10 Great George Street London SW1P 3AE 020 7273 8012 [log in to unmask] www.statscom.org.uk With effect from 29 March 2005 our postal address will be: Artillery House, 11-19 Artillery Row, Victoria, London, SW1P 1RT All telephone numbers will remain the same. The Statistics Commission is independent of Ministers and of the producers of official statistics. It operates openly and transparently. -----Original Message----- From: Ray Thomas [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 06 March 2005 22:53 To: len.cook Cc: Richard Alldritt Subject: CONFIDENCE IN OFFICIAL STATISTICS Dear Len I hope that the headline in 'Statistical News' - 'Len Cook to retire' is untrue. I can recommend retirement from personal experience. Bit I imagine that you have many years yet of useful service to employers, and I wish you every success in this area. The main point of this message is different. |I want to ask some questions under the Freedom of Information Act. 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. Yours sincerely 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] ******************************************************* ****************************************************** 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] *******************************************************