 |
 |
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]
*******************************************************