The ONS gets criticised: is it trying too hard to defend Osborne?


by Paul Cotterill    
2:10 pm - August 22nd 2011

Tweet       Share on Tumblr

Amidst all the dramatic events of the last week or so, this letter of 16th August, from the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority (the regulator) to the Director General of the Office for National Statistics, does not appear to have been picked up on in the blogosphere.

The letter concerns the media controversy over the way in which the ONS reported on the Q2 GDP Statistical Bulletin, referring to several ‘special factors’ as reasons why the growth figures was only 0.2%.

The Bulletin by the ONS went as far as to suggest that, without these special factors, growth ”may” have been 0.7%, although an important caveat is added:

These estimates must be regarded as broad brush and illustrative. There can be no certainty as to the impact of the special events and there may be other factors at play.

 

The letter from the Chair of the Statistics Authority in response is carefully worded but, amidst the niceties, this section stands out:

There may be benefit in further developing the commentary so that it is fully understood by all commentators that a discussion of special factors will routinely be published regardless of whether the effects of those factors is to increase or decrease GDP. It may also be that any quantified estimate of the net effect of the special factors should only be published as part of a full analysis, if at all.

It is hard to read this as anything other than a slap on the wrist from the regulator, who is clearly concerned that ONS is being drawn into a defence of the Coalition, through the use of “quantified estimates” which are totally unbacked by any justifying rationale, but appear to have been plucked out of the air as a way of helping the Coalition explain away the poor growth.

The Director General of ONS has replied to the regulator with an equally carefully worded letter, in which he slips in what is effectively an admision of guilt, under the guise of an update about methodoligical review:

We will in the autumn be reviewing with the GSS Methodology Advisory Committee the approach we are taking on the estimation of the effects of special factors. I will ensure that review takes account of the points you have raised.

It’s good to see the National Statistics regulator on his toes, but I for one will be taking an interest in whether and how this methodological review is carried through.

If the Coalition starts to think that it can get away not just with undue influence over the media, but also – however discreetly – over quintessential aspects of the country’s civil service machinery, trouble surely lies ahead.

   Tweet   Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Paul Cotterill is a regular contributor, and blogs more regularly at Though Cowards Flinch, an established leftwing blog and emergent think-tank. He currently has fingers in more pies than he has fingers, including disability caselaw, childcare social enterprise, and cricket.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Economy


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. James

“…undue influence over …quintessential aspects of the country’s civil service machinery, trouble surely lies ahead”. Already long and firmly established, surely? Clarify “quintessential?

The Royal Statistical Society has publicly challenged the validity of the ONS Consumer Price Index, first introduced by the coalition for pension inflation-indexing, then described as its “preferred” (ie calculated to be lower than RPI) , now described by the ever-so objective Beeb as the “main” inflation index. The higher RPI of course remains ‘preferred’ for rail fare rises, MPs pension-indexing, Bank of England staff pension indexing, and index-linked Bonds. Orwell, thou shouldst be living at this hour.

2. Sevillista

Quite right too that ONS were slapped down.

The analysis they presented was partial and ignored one-off factors that increased Q2 growth (e.g. widespread travel disruptions in Q2 2010 inflating the annual Q2 2011 growth rate), giving the impression that ONS were “making excuses” for Osborne.

I’m more sympathetic as to why they published the context though – it clearly was a continuation of the helpful and necessary analysis arising from Q4 2010 methodological problems (economic impact of snow meant they had to change their first release methodology), through then explaining that Q1 2011 were inflated due to return to ‘business as usual’ after the snow melted.

3. jungle

A good article. Given how ONS have acted here, you do wonder how impartial the GDP figures themselves might be. There appear to be people high up in ONS who are scared of upsetting politicians, and if they’re doing that at one level it might well be occurring at other levels. It certainly raises questions.

4. paul

the ons was set up by the government so its hardly a surprise its spin on the statistics is and will be sympathetic to the government.

5. Luis enrique

You may be correct that the ONS responded to political pressure, but that is pure supposition. All you have here is the regulator suggesting that the ONS should not be in the business of publishing quantitative counterfactual estimates (what ifs). You have nothing here to suggest, apart from your suspicions, that the estimates themselves were dodgy, nor that they were plucked out of thin air. I bet there was a perfectly standard model that generated that number, just like any counterfactual estimate, caveats apply. Of course perfectly standard models can be abused, crap in crap out and all that, but there no reason to think the ONS “made up” those estimates.

Let’s see if when the Olympics rolls round they say GDP would have been lower if not for that special circumstance, and put a number on by how much. If they haven’t been told to stop doing that by then.

N.b. If you believe bad news is a self fulfilling prophecy, if GDP data is depressed by one-off events, wouldn’t you want the statistic office to say so, in the national in test?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    The ONS gets criticised: is it trying too hard to defend Osborne? http://t.co/2DQUlwh

  2. Lee Hyde

    The ONS gets criticised: is it trying too hard to defend Osborne? http://t.co/2DQUlwh

  3. Roddy Martindale

    The ONS gets criticised: is it trying too hard to defend Osborne? http://t.co/2DQUlwh

  4. Penfold

    The ONS gets criticised: is it trying too hard to defend Osborne? http://t.co/2DQUlwh

  5. David Davies

    The ONS gets criticised: is it trying too hard to defend Osborne? ~ http://t.co/uCzvf36

  6. Web Only: the best of the blogs

    [...] 2. The ONS gets criticised: is it tryi&#110… [...]

  7. Mr Osborne’s poodles? | Malcolm Redfellow’s Home Service

    [...] A couple of days back that excellent blog Though Cowards Flinch raised an eyebrow that the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority had lobbed a warning shot at the Director General of the Office for National Statistics. The nub of any difficulty is that second-quarter GDP Statistical Bulletin, and — specifically — the ONS suggestion that “special factors” may have distorted the outcome. That original post re-appeared on liberalconspiracy. [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.