The monthly release of the inflation figures (due tomorrow Wednesday 16th) is always a reminder of the futile attempts by ONS/UKSA to suppress the RPI. The RPI is the most popular statistic produced by the ONS (as measured by web hits, calls to ONS etc.) yet there’s no commentary on the RPI and the numbers do not appear in the 11 page press release. The breakdown of the RPI is hidden away in the back three pages of the 19 page data pack (just after the table that gives the rates for Lithuania, Slovakia and other EU states that the ONS presumably thinks are more interesting to users). To note the madness of this continuing practice, please find below a fairytale. Continue reading The king and his fish: the RPI fairytale
I spoke at an event about the Retail Prices Index (RPI) last week and made three points – that there is a misunderstanding about the formula effect, ONS is too influenced by economists’ ‘group think’ and weaknesses in governance. These can all be resolved easily, returning RPI to full use, if ONS and UKSA wants to. It was widely agreed that “the mess” had to be sorted out, and as the RPI cannot be killed off some modest changes to it are required. Continue reading The truth about the RPI – some brief comments
This is about a bad trend in some questionable data: the official data says that the UK has a huge balance of trade deficit in goods, it’s getting worse and the driving force behind the trend has been the growing deficit with the EU. True? Probably. This trade deterioration needs to be noted, diagnosed, discussed as part of the Brexit negotiations and reversed. Continue reading The UK’s trade deficit in goods
Can the Retail Prices Index be killed off? Should it be killed off and, if so, for what reason? Or is reform needed? A meeting is coming up (at the RSS in London, on 13 June, book here) to discuss the future of the RPI and the changes needed to all consumer price measures to keep them fit for purpose. Why not come and hear the views of John Pullinger, the UK’s National Statistician, and other experts?
UK Statistics Authority issued a statement today saying that it was “disappointed” in the way the £350m figure (of the cost of the UK’s EU membership) is being used and that it “undermines trust in official statistics”. I am sure that that much is true but it is also true that had UKSA presented the numbers “better” in the first place, the Leave campaign might never have used it in the way it has. UKSA could also have moved more quickly to clear up the ambiguity. Instead it left this statement to the 11th hour and risks making itself look political. A lesson should be learnt by all who feel that such numbers are important to democracy, accountability and good policy making. The reputation of numbers has taken a hit in this debate and every effort should be made to make sure they are presented properly in the future.
Trade is at the centre of the EU referendum debate and yet there is a question mark over the accuracy of the numbers. It’s widely reported that 44% of the UK’s exports go to the EU. The true figure is almost certainly a few percentage points lower and the figures for bilateral flows between some countries are said to be “seriously misleading”. This note asks how wrong an official statistic has to be before the UK Statistics Authority ceases to call it a National Statistic? The ONS has a consultation out on trade figures closing this week and the next and final set of monthly UK trade figures before the EU referendum are due on 9 June. Continue reading Trade statistics – are they good enough?
The Bean Review has been published and, it seems, has been universally acclaimed as a thorough report with widespread support for its recommendations. It is now official: the 2007 statistics legislation has failed to deliver. Yet, Bean was published over two weeks ago and still we have little idea of what will change as a result. This blog explores the options.
For anyone unable to get through 250 pages of the Bean Review report on government statistics this blog highlights the main issues raised (as I see them) from chapters 4 and 5, regarding the ONS effectiveness and governance. It’s not nice reading. There were positives but they were overshadowed by the negatives. It’s a sad story about a lost decade.
The eagerly awaited review of government statistics by Professor Sir Charles Bean, published this morning, is an landmark report that should help the ONS refocus on core activities and do them more professionally. It advocates access to new data sources and the use of state of the art technologies.
The report sets out the problems that the ONS has had in recent years – some elements of which are shocking – and says that a cultural shift is required for change. It is an opportunity for all stakeholders and users to debate ONS work priorities priorities in advance of Bean’s final report in March. That report will tackle governance arrangements. Given the state the stats are in and the task list now facing the ONS, UKSA is going to have to change if it is to survive in its current format. Continue reading Bean: initial findings
This blog proposes a change in the way the UK Statistics Authority operates. Pretty much anyone (outside UKSA) who has a view on the matter feels that it is not operating how it was envisaged at the time of the legislation. With very modest cost (and without revisiting the Act) the UKSA board could implement a structure with clearer responsibilities and greater effectiveness. The reinvigorated stakeholder relationships with enhanced transparency and trust would set up the government statistics machine to play a central role in producing data both for policy making and the public good. Statistics should be about so much more than producing the same figures as last year and the Bean review can point the service in that direction. Continue reading UKSA structure – change and deliver