By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
The BBC's Mark Easton has been leading the story that Chris Grayling, the Tories' shadow home secretary, used "profoundly misleading" statistics in order to promote the Tories' so-called "Broken Britain" agenda.
With David Cameron reportedly thinking of removing Grayling from his shadow cabinet, Easton has now got hold of a letter to Mr Grayling in which Sir Michael Scholar of the UK Statistics Authority rebukes his actions as "likely to damage public trust in statistics."
In an email to Mark Easton yesterday, Grayling had said:
But those figures compare statistics before 2002 to those after, despite a big change in the relevant measurementused since:
This final image was not from Sir Michael Scholar. Somewhere else:
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Hope the appointment goes OK. It sounds as if quite a lot of people are suffereing health problems at present. Not good.
You are of course quite right that the really important thing is to be able to direct help at people who need it. - You are also right in saying that you need people on the ground to be able to see the need and call for the help.
No system is going to work well without this responsiveness.
One of the things that I am playing with at present is Hyperlocal websites, which would allow us to have the kind of conversations we are having here, but at a much more local level.
I am interested to get community police officers using these kind of tools, as I think they could be a really powerful way of allowing people to see clearly where problems exist, and working together to find the right local solutions.
I haven't got there yet, but I believe it has potential.
The starting point of this discussion is the stats. The way that the stats have been misused in a way that is either incompetent or deliberately politically manipulative.
The stats matter, because they are the way that we can see at a local and national level if the things that you want done at a local level are justified, if they work, and if they should be properly funded to give the level of cover you would like.
I think I have already said that the different parties seem to have this fundamentally different approach to stats.
I think the reason Labour like them is because they actually do want to know if what they are doing is working. That is beacuse we genuinely see them as Our services, for us, and for the people that vote for us. Labour are always going to be on the side of services and they need to be able to justify this by the figures.
The Conservatives start from a different perspective. Many of the most powerful people in the Conservative party do not depend on public sevices. There interest in crime is largely to ensure that it does not come through their gates. - that they are not bothered by it.
I think they would in many cases much rather not be burdened by the knowledge that what is being done in the way of state services might actually be making things better for people. This is an inconvenience, as it would make cutting these services so much harder!
So where as the Conservatives might be prepared to leap at the chance of figures they (in this case mistakenly) think prove that we are managing things badly, they have very little interest in the detail of how to manage things well.
I am interested in this particular case because this was the "once too often" in terms of the Conservative party "crying Wolf". They have been caught out. People see the game.
I am also interested in it because it simply demolishes the central post of the Conservative's "Broken Britain" claim. We can now clearly see that this is based on nothing more substantial than a misreading of the statistics.
But I am interested in good statistics in their own right, because they are essential tools to allow a Labour government to continue to justify the spending that will give you the service you rightly ask for in your own area.
The cynic in me thinks that the governemnt has changed the way that these things are calculated so often that it is actually impossible to compare these figures with any sense of real accuracy. If I ws really cynical I could suggest that it was done like this on purpose! In order to muddy the waters and point the 'Witchfinders' finger at anyone who tries!
Elizabeth may have hit on something with the PMQ thing. I think this is a key part of the picture too. The two minute sound bite is the only politics that most people see, and as I have mentioned in previous posts somewhere it is entirely un representative of what happens in the rest of parliament.
Seeing more, and understanding more are all ways towards making people less angry and less alienated.
I talk to a lot of people who are interested in the things I have come to know, and realise that that is all stuff they simply did not know.
Understanding how things work is in many cases all that is needed to take peoples sense of anger and powerlessness away.
Things can be moved forward. It is not that hard. It is just a matter of having more people with the time to talk with people.
In the short term - between now and the election, I think the best we can do is actively encourage journalists to ask good questions, and be prepared to contest statements that we believe to be untrue - with vigour.
I think there is a bit of a tipping point. Cameron has been caught out once too often. I sense real anger from journalists at the way they have been taken for suckers.
There are rumours on twitter about sacking Chris Grayling.
Don't know if there is any truth in this. This of course does not get to the heart of the matter.
I think it may pay to encourage journalists to look at some of the other issues where misinformation has been used. This is all about PR. That is I suspect where the real problem lies.
There were twitter rumours again of role re-distribution in the PR department after the airbrush photos.
My own feeling is quite strongly that if David Cameron wants to come through this with his integrity reasonably intact he needs to ditch the agressive PMQs, ditch the agressive briefings to the media, especially when it involves manouevering inexperiences PPCs into doing the dirty work for him.
If he genuinely believes that he has good ideas which can take the country forward he needs to be fighting a positive campaign based on the facts.
Winning based on falsehood and manipulation will lay the foundations for a great deal of anger.
Another thing that can help is the raw data.
The new open raw data will change things over time. There are lots of (mildly) obsessive people like myself - I come across plenty on twitter - who will like nothing more than getting stuck into the data and analysing it.
If you are in a position where you are having to make statements on statistical matters and know that other people have access to the raw data, you might think twice before making statements about things you don't quite understand.
So regular doses of embarrassment can help!
Maybe I am starting to answer my own question. It may be that you chip away at the circle from a number of different points.
There is of course a plus side to all this. If we had actually set out to say - by the way violent crime statistics have fallen by 41% dont suppose anyone would have listened!
Far too often people here are grasping at straws, looking to rubbish their opposition, but ignore the reality of the UK today and what has to be done to get us working again. Time to raise your game.
There is a problem that the public don't believe stats if they are given by politicians.
It is a shame because there are a lot of really good sound studies out there which do stand scrutiny.
I have just been reading through a number of the National Audit reports, which are excellent. Impartial, noting improvement when improvement exists, Slating people where things are wrong pointing to the more that always needs to be done.
These are a good basis for the evidence based politics that i want to see.
We need to have the courage to want to see clearly.
I suggested somewhere below on this that what is really needed is an authoritative advice service where people can check if the statistics they are inclined to use really do say what they think they want it to say.
In the crime statistics case it is cut and dried. They compared stats that weren't comparable and they were wrong to do so.
In many other cases it is confusing.
It is unrealistic to expect MPs, or Journalists to put the in depth research into each report that passes through their hands to see if they think it fully reflects the facts.
there needs to be some independent trusted body that they can ask for impartial advice.
I have enjoyed reading your contributions here. For me as a candiate speaking to someone who was burgled the Monday before last. I got the police to commit more under cover officers to that area. Then explain to the people that they are going to be there to protect them.
That is as a candidate, not as an elected rep.
I don't need stats I do need to address the problems when and where they arise.
Admittedly people want info nationally but this stuff is very compex and stats are clumsy here.
The difference between perception and reality is pretty important. A huge amount of that must be accounted for by journalists running under-researched stories. - and they will feel - as some of you do here that it is no use them going to politicians, because they might be given a politicians answer.
This goes back to my other hobby horse, which is that at some point we need to discourage the press from printing some really serviously misleading material.
I am wondering what the remit of the UK statistics authority is. Clearly they are as independent as it is possible to be. - but it is clearly unusual that they have had to speak out on this occasion.
The fact of the matter is that there are precious few statisticians in either politics or journalism. These are both people professions, and statistics simply isn't.
It is far too easy for people to be confused. I know most people here are making the assumption that we are dealing with something deliberate here. I think muddle is just as likely!
It there was a statistics advice line, that politicians and journalists could consult before putting out statements, maybe it would be possible to move towards a requirement to check facts before rushing into print!
Ralphs point that people may be more likely to trust their own experiences or the media, is true, but in someways unhelpful.
This is a circular thing. The media causes the perception of "high crime", which causes it to be a hot topic politically, which causes the political advsiors to misinterpret data, which causes Con HQ to use PPCs as a conduit for the misinformation, which means that the PPCs perhaps genuinely believe these figures and go to the press with a convincing patter, which means the media print it which means the public perception of high crime levels is fueled.
what I am looking for is the point at which you can most effectively break the circle!
"The media causes the perception of "high crime". I agree, their unresearched storytelling has to stop.
I get my politics by following "Parliament Channel" & I know the Commons is informed exactly how "crime figures" are obtained by The Home Office. So Grayling did know.
The Tories have been getting away with murder & only in the last few weeks,they have been challenged by the Government ie when Darling printed their economic mistakes. The media now know Brown & The Government mean business & will expose Cameron & Tories for trying to mislead the voter with inaccurate information.
@ what I am looking for is the point at which you can most effectively break the circle!
The Country seems to enjoy PMQ. They love to see the head to head with Brown & Cameron & the winner is always the one with most soundbites, eg.( A short but complete and emphatic statement that is most likely to be incorporated into a news broadcast).
Through the extension of Digital TV & Broadband into every home, Parliament channel should have more live coverage of Commons & Committees etc. What we find now is BBC & SKY are going more & more to Parliament for live coverage. This is a better way for people to know the truth about how they are governed.
Gordon Brown's first shot at youtube was because he couldn't get his message out on expenses. He needed a way to inform the public that he had initiated an investigation into MP's expenses.
The media were furious that he had found a way of getting his message out by using the internet & of-course used his funny delivery against him(I must say it was funny).
However, it hasn't stopped him, & he's used the internet with more success since.
cheers
I just find it very hard to see how we can actually break through a culture of misinformation by governments and oppositions with creative facts and convenient and particular statistical trends.
If I mention the word "database" everyone goes nuts.
So lol, I am unsure what we really do here because whenever we discuss information in politics there always a vain and very temporary manipulation somewhere along the line.
I agree with Diane getting to the truth would be wonderful. For the sakes of giving policy makers an idea of what the problem is, rather than perpetuating a cycle or process as defined by Diane.
I don't know.
My comment is only unhelpful if you don't try to rebuild trust.
How then do we break the very cycle you describe? Do we rely on Corporate sponsored think-tanks? Do we rely on the media you describe?
PPC's could of course actually do their own research, formulate their own views and visit the people affected by crime. They could always visit the areas the police inform them are "trouble-spots" to speak to local residents about their experiences.
I am not sure stats are the solution to this problem and we only need a general idea as to whether crime is getting worse/better. For in the context of reality there will always be crime and politicians and the police will always have to seek to fund and research ways of addressing the problems that cause it.
Hope that is more helpful I could go on.
With the trust in Politicians so low at the moment I think people will rely more on their own experiences and on the media than they will on any government stats devised by any party.
I think I would be more appalled if I thought that this was unusual. Isn't the misinterpretation of statistics par for the course in modern day party politics? How is Grayling substantially different from the others - only that somebody has challenged him on it?
How shameful that I am not remotely surprised.
Like the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, for example.
``Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman has been criticised by an official watchdog for exaggerating the pay gap between men and women. UK Statistics Authority chief Sir Michael Scholar said Ms Harman's use of figures was potentially misleading.''
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8096761.stm
Or the Labour Home Secretary:
``Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has apologised for releasing knife crime statistics too early. She told MPs the government had been "too quick off the mark" in releasing figures suggesting a 27% fall in hospital admissions with stab wounds. Last week ministers said there had been a sharp fall in both in targeted areas. Statistics chief Sir Michael Scholar welcomed the apology but was still disappointed the figures had been published only in part.''
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7784094.stm
Cameron needs to get rid of Grayling, bury the hatchet and bring back David Davis. This has happened too many times with Grayling.
I believe that the numbers themselves produced by ONS are an honest attempt to paint the picture with no intended distortion or bias by ONS.
The big problem is what politicians - and the media - do with the numbers afterwards ....
As far as "perception of crime/fear of crime" is concerned, there is often a disconnect between actual levels and perceived levels.
Here in Cheshire, a few years ago, people in Congleton and Macclesfield (measurably lower crime than Chester and Ellesmere Port) expressed the same "fear of crime" as people in Chester and E Port.
Don't get me wrong, its right that mistakes should be highlighted and it does say it all that statistics have to be presented in a certain way to suit the Conservative's argument, but I don't see this making a whole lot of difference to the average person.
One of the problems I've come across is I essentially meet myself when I'm talking to people about the Conservatives. I say they are not being entirely honest and I'm greeted with the reply "Neither are Labour", so okay, I try a different angle with the Conservatives not having the answers to make Britain a better place. I won't bore you with the response because you know what I'm going to say.
One point I would like to pick up on with Diana is the PPC thing. From the interviews Alex has conducted with Labour PPCs here on the LL, I believe the public are justified in thinking potential MPs are up to no good. Not necessarily for the same reasons as you're highlighting, but so many of them have a very warped view and promote themselves badly. I remember one lady who believed that voter's should listen to her views and vote for her if they agreed with her, whilst what should be happening is that she listens to the voters and offers to represent their needs in Parliament should she be elected. Their own worst enemy as far as I'm concerned, especially when you have a PPC believing that giving people benefits increase respect and dignity in his local community. Truely bizarre.
You have spared me the trouble of writing an article on this. I think it is a totally fascinating story.
What really pleases me is that Mark Easton has really got stuck into investigating the story thoroughly.
The further story on Radio 4 this morning about the research into child deaths is even more telling.
All of this plays into my perception of how the Tory PR machine works.
They want to use sensationalist stories to fuel the "voices of discontent". and they seem to have a really odd relationship with statistics.
This is exactly what we saw here in Stafford. The Conservative party fell hook line and sinker for a lady with a grievance and graphic stories to tell, they seemed to be either oblivious to the complexity of the statistical material, or deliberately manipulative. I don't know which - maybe a bit of both. The press here are at last slowly modifying their line as they wait for the inquiry to come out, but I note Cameron is still in there, hoping that this is a story he can use!
The people I actually feel quite sorry for in all of this is the PPCs. We have a situation where the public believe that the MPs are all up to no good - largely because the media tells them so.
All the candidates want to be seen as clean and new and above spin.
They will be dealing with the constant barrage of news stories that they should be commenting on, and will want to follow the party line. They have probably made the assumption that they can rely on information fed to them through HQ. They must be feeling a lot less certain of that now!
It is pretty rough on those candidates who have picked up on these statistics and put them out to their local press. They are now going to be left exposed as people who accept the Conservative party headquarters line uncritically, and cannot be trusted to make an independent assessment of the facts.
Good assessment. The Tories are in a real state at the moment. They have a lot to worry about as they are looking very thin on substance and value. Their economic competance is the sourse of their woes and they need to sort this out to be able to even begin to challenge Brown.
They should have relied more on Ken Clarke regarding the economy but their faith in him was weak and now they pay the price of contradicting a wiser and smarter man.
They can still turn it around but they lack any real creativity and Gb (sadly I am not yet convinced of any sincereity from this man) has shown some sense of radicalism, his greatest flaw is his pig-headedness on policy which like the Tories is to self-centered to be of any use to any of us.
Now if GB and the Cabinet employed the Party we would wipe the Tories out no worries with a radical agenda that could be met, but they are too busy looking after their own "careers" to notice us unless they are stealing our ideas in some shallow and ineffectual manner.
AV is a prime example of this. Many of us have a contextual idea for reform but the Minsters lack the imagination for this and can only take a component and push it forward for cynical (and totally transparent and clumsy) strategic purposes.
They are all so jealous of sharing power or listening to anyone they have paralysed themselves on policy. I suspect there are as many Tories out their frustrated with Cameron and his little circle as there are in the Labour Party.
I appreciate the mock poster says "I" and not "We". But Cameron is ultimately responsible for his party and its message; the buck stops with him.
If I wanted a Tory government, I would want Grayling out. He can be a liability at times. But actually I don't want a Tory government, so I don't mind at all if he stays, though I think he should apologise and set the record straight on his "error".
Grayling has made a big mistake but I think it a bit rich for the party of spun and downright incorrect statistics to be crowing.
Yes I think from what I can gather that the stats are fine.
What I think has gone on- maybe other people will have views on this - is that the conservatives seemed not to have a great deal of interest in measuring the performance of services. A lot of this seems to have been allowed to deliberately run down under Margaret Thatcher. so when the Labour Government came in they found they had lots of statistical systems that didn't really give them the depth of information they wanted.
The labour party are I suppose quite obsessive about wanting to see the quality of the service and wanting to measure - so that they can make judgements about what woks and what doesn't - what is cost effective and what is not.
They brought in new statistics in a number of different services. This is sometimes presented by the media as being a way of making things look better. - in this instance with the crime statistics it was precisely the opposite.
Previously it was "violent" if the police officer said so. Now it is "violent" if the victim says so. - so it includes things like verbal agression, the threat of using a dog etc.
What I would like to see at some point is the media starting to examine the other assertion that the Conservatives generally make that everything that is wrong with public services is as a result off the "targets".
There is a real difference between the parties with regard to measuring things.
My own feeling is that it is not good enough to start making policy on a whim. We want evidence based politics. Most things should be tested by pilot schemes before they are implemented on a widespread scale, and there needs to be good quality measurement of systems to see what is working and what is not.