I agree with Ludi's comment - 'What is the fuss about?' The proposals of
the White Paper for a Statistics Commission are very modest. But surely
having a Commission is by itself a significant advance?
Should not Radstats be welcoming the Commission? Making nominations for
its membership? And making suggestions for its priorities? Does not the
future of the Commission depend in part on the reception in gets within the
statistical communitity?
If there is to be created an organisation devoted to national statistical
policy, does not that require Radstats to formulate and formalise its own
statistical policies so that it can effectively influence national
policies??
My reservations about the White Paper are quite different - that the
emphasis on 'building trust' is misplaced. And that emphasis could dominate
the activities of the Commission. I'll comment on that in a separate
message.
Ray Thomas, Social Sciences, Open University
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: 01908-679081 Fax: 01908-550401
Post: 35 Passmore, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
*************************************
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ludi Simpson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Sunday, November 14, 1999 11:14 PM
>
>I have read Ray's piece, and the White Paper, and wonder what the
>fuss is about. I wouldn't want to write off the 7-person appointed
>National Statistical Commission before it has started. But it is
>hardly likely to be the independent voice that can sway government
>to do X instead of Y.
************************************
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|