The war of numbers revisited
Stats watchdog Sir Michael Scholar said he didn't want to get involved in "political controversy" in the run-up to the election, but tonight he finds himself squarely in the middle of a campaign spat.
Two days ago, Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary and the man Sir Michael ticked off earlier this month for his use of crime stats, to suggest that the prime minister had used a provisional immigration statistic which "will, if unchecked, damage public trust in official statistics."
Mr Grayling wasn't the only person to point out the error. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the lobby group Migration Watch UK, also "to make a formal complaint about the mis-use [sic] of immigration statistics".
Today, pointing out that he had not used "comparable data" when he talked about migration trends.
In , Mr Brown said this:
"Some people talk as if net inward migration is rising. In fact, it is falling - down from 237,000 in 2007, to 163,000 in 2008, to provisional figures of 147,000 last year."
The first two numbers are fine, but the third is problematic as it is not calculated in the same way as the first two. It does not include asylum-seekers or people who overstay their visa.
The prime minister made the same point in a speech today - but this time he did give all the proper caveats. He said:
"Net inward migration has also fallen. In the 12 months to December 2007, net inward migration as measured by the ONS long-term international migration series was 233,000. In the 12 months to December 2008, it was 163,000. We don't yet have the long-term migration figures for the 12 months to the end of 2009.
Ìý
"However, we do have provisional figures for the 12 months to June 2009, based on the international passenger survey, which constitutes the largest part of the long-term inward migration figures. On IPS figures, in the 12 months to June 2007, net inward migration was 170,000. In the 12 months to June 2008, it was 168,000. And in the 12 months to June 2009, it was 147,000."
It might be convoluted, even a bit dull. But it is statistically sound and :
I suspect Gordon Brown didn't mind spelling out the statistics in all their complexity. It was a sly dig at those who chose to alert the UKSA to his original slip by producing data that make a similar point.
As for Sir Michael, he may well have been content to send a warning shot across the prime ministerial bows, however muted in tone, to demonstrate he is neither partisan nor intimidated in his determination to ensure that this election campaign does not damage trust in numbers.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.