Trendspotting – guess the next number

Many people in their personal or professional lives have to do a bit of forecasting. You know the sort of thing: given this run of data what’s the next number? We’ve done it since we were kids: 2, 4, 6, 8 ….., yes, 10. Join me on a brief journey to guess the best numbers to come next in this series. This exercise matters as I think that a group of people who ought to know better have made a mistake that harms their credibility and the structure they work within, and is affecting both our trust in supposedly independent experts and decisions we all take in our lives.

Media coverage of excess deaths

I feel the ONS calculation of excess deaths is flawed and too high but, not surprisingly, most reporting media run with the high numbers – other estimates of excess death are available but get less attention. Here is a selection of comments from the mainstream media on the latest release of 10 January 2023 – universally the outlets present the story as an omni-crisis in the NHS. Social media either follows that line or takes a more extreme view – essentially the anti vaxxer line that the mysterious, unaccounted for deaths are a consequence of having taken the vaccine. This shows how important it is that ONS does make it easy for its releases to give the wrong impression. It also shows how the supposed system checks and balances – be that the UK Statistics Authority board, the OSR regulator, or fact checkers (at the BBC or elsewhere) – do not seem to be on top of such topics.

The excess death failure of ONS

The weekly death data from ONS, which include the excess death figures, have been hugely misleading in 2022. It is impossible to know if it is institutional, academic or political pressure to keep the death figures high or the ONS just slavishly following naïve practices that are not fit for the times we live in. It seems very unfortunate that the ONS excess death figures suggest that 10s of thousands more have died during the pandemic than best estimates might suggest. It is a terrible indictment of the ONS and its regulator, the OSR – just when the Hallett Inquiry needs some accurate figures they produce questionable data.

Producer price errors

For those of us who have had a ringside seat for the RPI debacle over the last decade it is worth noting the current Producer Price Index (PPI) issues. In statistical terms producer prices and consumer prices face many common issues so a sign of problems in one always sends a chill down the spine – though ONS says that these issues are affecting only the PPI. It’s not yet clear what the problem is though it’s serious enough to have the next month’s figures pulled. While any mistake is unfortunate, it does look this time as if the ONS has identified the problem, been (fairly) honest and open about it, and withheld publication. This is good. If only, many will say, they had done the same with the RPI a decade ago. So much pain could have have been spared. Meanwhile we will have to do without PPI data for 2022 on oil and food – two of the more interesting sectors – until some point the new year.

Churn, vacancies and job confusion in ONS?

A close look at the various org charts shows not only a lack of attention paid to keeping basic facts up to date (as discussed before) but a degree of churn and missing personel in key jobs that must be a cause for concern. To be without key personnel on population (when the census is being published and there’s much worry about the levels of immigration) and lack of leadership on data science seems careless.

The UKSA review

A number of my recent posts have mentioned the promised review of UKSA, and latterly the delay in producing it. Activity seemed to have gone quiet but progress is now being made. A letter was sent last week from Baroness Neviille-Rolfe, the Cabinet Office minister responsible for “Sponsorship of UK Statistics Authority”, to the chair of PACAC, the parliamentary committee that inherited the responsibility of UKSA oversight. It says that “this is the right time to press ahead with a public-facing review to enable the UKSA to prepare for the strategic challenges ahead”. The provisional themes it will cover are efficacy, governance, accountability and efficiency. This is a suitably broad and wide-ranging draft remit. We await news on who will chair the review and its time scale.

UKSA and GSS hierarchy

Who are the big cheeses of the government statistics world? I have no idea which is a shame as that would seem to be the field of plausible “internal” candidates in the race to become National Statistician. Three possible places are the upper reaches of UKSA, the heads of profession in the wider Government Statistical Service (GSS) and existing non-execs. The non-execs are easy to find, the UKSA org charts are messy and it seems that there is no published list of leaders in the GSS so we can not comment on who might be there. As an aside, a close look at the UKSA org charts shows ambiguity and misinformation, and a comparison with the annual accounts and ONS “Leadership team” web page endorses that view. UKSA chooses not to publish its org chart in the same place as many other government departments and equivalent bodies. If it did, the information it published would need to be more accurate. (Blog updated 28 November to add info on leadership page.)

(Re)new National Statistician

I recently wrote about the mechanics of the hunt for the new National Statistician (NS) but there is speculation that the result is already all but settled. It seems that the incumbent, Sir Ian Diamond, will apply. This matters as such competitions ought to be a level playing field and fair for all candidates. Yet having made his intention clear it is hard for others to throw their hat into the ring and have a realistic hope of success. This will be the latest twist in the rise of Sir Ian Diamond who was appointed to the position out of competition. This leaves two further questions. First, if he wants to stay on, why did he not get another extension under the process that has him in post now? Second, if there was pressure to run a competition for the role, why did it not happen sooner? Whatever the outcome we should hope that the UKSA secretariat can get the office’s paperwork in order – it seems like the annual report and CSC submissions, both important public documents, tell an inconsistent story. It’s odd to see such sloppy number work in a statistics office.

Wanted: National Statistician

The job ad for the next NS is out but what does it tell us? The ambiguities that define the role of National Statistician are as clear in this ad as they have been at any time since the 2007 Statistics Act was passed. Compared to the much simpler ad of 2014, it feels as if the civil service is capturing the role – there is a more explicit reporting line to ministers (via senior civil servants) and a broader remit (as the boundary between hard data and “analysis” is further blurred). If the UKSA board remains as passive as it has been in recent years, and given the current lack of any parliamentary oversight, the hope of genuine gains in “public good” for users of data outside government seems to be slipping away. Worse, the promised review of the statistics system that was clear some months ago when the new UKSA chair was appointed does not get a mention. Neither of the two possibilities – government policy being announced in job ads or there being a huge omission from the spec – is appealing. If the politicians and policy makers are slowly taking control of statistics they would not want a review that might expose as much.

“Bad data” – the book

I was lucky enough to be asked to review Georgina Sturge’s excellent book for Literary Review. As the cover says, it explains “how governments, politicians and the rest of us get misled by numbers”. I have never seen such a collection of examples of bad data, and its use, in one place, and in that respect it is a terrific piece of work. My only grumble with the book is that it gives no hope as to how things might get better – no real prescription as to how the systems that produce the problematic data will be improved or reformed. Parliament and the civil service use bad data to make bad policy: they control the legislation and bodies that produce it and yet show no interest in having better evidence. So, I’d ask the civil servants and parliamentarians – is it a lack of ability or lack of interest in having better data that holds them back?