Unemployment falls to 7.4%

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Really - "independent" civil servants. The ONS a "wholly owned subsidiary" of what?

Next you will be telling me internet communications are safe, secure and private.

well, I guess we can agree that things would be better if we closed down most state activities and outsourced to the private sector

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

well, I guess we can agree that things would be better if we closed down most state activities and outsourced to the private sector

Yep we could just be charged for providing inaccurate figures, that they didn't produce instead. I think the ones for tagged prisoners would be very accuate as just one example not to mention declared profits of coffee retailers etc.

It is one thing to be misled it is another to be fleeced for the privilege.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Yep we could just be charged for providing inaccurate figures, that they didn't produce instead. I think the ones for tagged prisoners would be very accuate as just one example not to mention declared profits of coffee retailers etc.

It is one thing to be misled it is another to be fleeced for the privilege.

there's no evidence that private sector lies cost more than state sector lies

in any event I don't see the parallels are relevant, as stats about one's own paid activities aren't comparable with collecting and analysing stats about quantities with no financial benefit

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

there's no evidence that private sector lies cost more than state sector lies

in any event I don't see the parallels are relevant, as stats about one's own paid activities aren't comparable with collecting and analysing stats about quantities with no financial benefit

Didn't say they would cost more to provide inaccurate results or poor services. I am sure they are well versed at producing it.

Who pays for the ONS?

Who benefits or loses from the statistics published by the ONS?

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Who pays for the ONS?

Who benefits or loses from the statistics published by the ONS?

If 'they' are just making up data doesn't it make you wonder why 'they' allowed unemployment to be 7.4% in the first place or inflation above target?

gazter

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Didn't say they would cost more to provide inaccurate results or poor services. I am sure they are well versed at producing it.

Who pays for the ONS?

Who benefits or loses from the statistics published by the ONS?

The ONS dont manipulate or fudge statistics. Many people who read them present them in a way they like.

For example, a recent debate about homelessness.

Figures for those 'accepted homeless' show a rise of 40% since the beginning of the coalition.

Shock horror. Obviously the coalition is evil and more people are sleeping rough than ever before. Clearly shows Cameron and Osbornes policy is failing etc etc etc.

However, those same statistics show that the number of people accepted homeless is lower this year than all but three of the last thirty years. In fact the 'accepted homeless' figure is barely a third of what it was ten years ago.

The ONS have not manipulated the figures. They tend to do the job as they are tasked. And, they dont work for the Government. They work for the Crown. They have no ministerial oversight and operated entirely independent of the Government.

If you have evidence that the Government is interfering with the ONS and thus breaking the statistics and registration service act 2007 i suggest you contact your local police station and lodge a complaint.

gazter

wotsthat wrote: »

If 'they' are just making up data doesn't it make you wonder why 'they' allowed unemployment to be 7.4% in the first place or inflation above target?

Im all for believing that stats can be manipulated and presented in a particular way. So whats important is direction of travel. Has the methodology changed that determines inflation and unemployment, between the figures used to measure them.

Ie. if 100,000 more people are in employment in the last three months, as long as the methodology hasnt changed, then that figure can be trusted.

Thrugelmir

gazter wrote: »

The ONS have not manipulated the figures. They tend to do the job as they are tasked. And, they dont work for the Government. They work for the Crown. They have no ministerial oversight and operated entirely independent of the Government.

Having on one occasion completed a 50 page return of detailed analysis for the ONS. I can assure you that the figures aren't manipulated. Due the nature of the business That I worked for. I regularly applied for and was granted 2 month extensions to file ONS returns. As the analysis required wasn't information we recorded for accounts or internal management purposes.

Being the 2nd largest company in the sector. We received every return to complete that was imaginable.

So I for one, understand why GDP figures get revised. Not least that our data wasn't consistent compared year to year. With turnover determined by market prices not ourselves.

grizzly1911

gazter wrote: »

The ONS dont manipulate or fudge statistics. Many people who read them present them in a way they like.

.

They no doubt keep incredibly accurate figures as they are instructed to do.

gazter

grizzly1911 wrote: »

They no doubt keep incredibly accurate figures as they are instructed to do.

They do. Are you able to show otherwise? Others may present the information they collate in different ways, but lets not fudge around the issue. The facts clearly show that unemployment is dropping and the economy is growing.

You dont like these facts because they run counter to your own political ideology therefore you try to discredit independent civil servants who collate the figures in an impartial way as possible.

We should all be careful of statistics as methodologies can change giving the incorrect impression.

So the question remains, as there been a recent change that would account for the astonishing drops in unemployment we have seen over the last twelve months?