Statistics, use them or abuse them

Two items of statistics have caused debate over the past few days. As usual the Government has gone to much trouble to explain that as they do not fit the government narrative it is because they don't mean what they seem to show.

One issue was the crime statistics. Horror of horrors, serious crime seemed to be increasing, but never fear it hasn't. It was simply that the police forces were confused and in previous years some had put crimes in different categories to those of other forces. So we can relax. But if there is little control over how returns are completed were the figures really increasing in previous years although the government was claiming reductions.

What confidence can you have in any statistics issued by the Government if control is so slack. They have given the Police so many targets, surely they could cope with one or two more on recording crimes? (I am aware that there there is a whole range of attacks - from someone being pushed over, to fisticuffs,to kicking, to beer bottle in the face, to gun and knife attacks, and it needs careful definition to distinguish categories into which they should each be put.)

A second issue arose from the appearance of the head of the Civil Service, Sir. Gus O'Donnell, before the House of Lords Communications Committee. Asked to comment on the fact that the overall number of "communication staff" in government more than doubled between December 1998 and September 2008, Sir Gus attributed it mainly to the increase in political blogs and in journalist numbers.

Have the bloggers and journalists put in extra work, or have there been changes of definition - the men who drive the newspaper vans, sells on street corners or makes tea for staff redefined as journalists? Or is the explanation that most of the extra communication staff are really spinners or else counter-journalists?

The fact that the total figures increased from 1,628 to 3,158, and in all continuing departments significantly, suggests that there is a slight outside chance that the government may be engaged in presenting the news as they would like it rather than as it is. We used to call this spinning, but as our Sub-Prime Minister announced on accession that he too was a straight kind of guy and would be open and honest, it surely can't be due to a spinning ethos!