The Spectator, 56 Doughty Street, London WC1N 2LL Telephone 01-405
1706; Telex 27124; Fax 242 0603
. . . AND STATISTICS
The Government maintains that only 12 per cent of social security recipients will be losers in real terms under the changes. Charity groups and Opposition politicians have put the number of losers as high as 75 per cent. (Times)
According to government data, 43 per cent of claiMants will be worse off . . The Policy Studies Unit says the figure is 48 per cent . . . and the Citizens' Advice Bureaux say 55 per cent. (Sunday Times) Peter Barclay, chairman of the Govern- ment's Social Security Advisory Comthittee, admitted that 43 per cent of benefit claimants could be worse off after the changes. (Daily Telegraph) The main difference between the Govern- ment's claim of 46 per cent gainers and 35 per cent losers, as against their opponents' figures of 17 and 60 respectively . . . (Obser- ver) Eight million of the poorest people in Britain will start living under a new regime — and at least half of them will suffer. (Observer) Mr Portillo, a government social security minister, said . . . even without taking into account transitional protection, 57 per cent would be no worse off in real terms. (Sunday Telegraph) THESE are some of the figures quoted about the Government's recent social security changes. The Spetator sought further enlightenment from Mr Stuart MacPherson, director of the Benefits Re- search Unit at Nottingham University. He explained that government claims that 90 per cent of claimants would be better off or no worse off were true, provided that changes in welfare payments in mid-1986, and the transitional payments over the long terni, starting last Monday, were ignored. These sound like rather important pro- visos.
Here is another comment: The Social Fund could increase the poverty of up to 60 per cent of claimants, said Mrs Shirley Goodwin, general secretary of the Health Visitors' Association. (Daily Tele- graph) The Social Fund is one aspect of the changes brought in on 11 April. It replaces the old system of statutory grants to welfare claimants for one-off purchases of essential items with a more discretionary system, mainly of loans. The Spectator checked Mrs Goodwin's figure with the Department of Health and Social Security, which expressed surprise. The DHSS said that only nine per cent of benefit claimants got single payments from the Social Fund's predecessor anyway. Did she mean that 60 per cent of Social Fund (or its predeces- sor's) claimants would be worse off, or 60 per cent of all benefit claimants? The Nottingham Benefits Research Unit said that it would not be the case that 60 per cent of claimants of the Social Fund would be worse off. The Health Visitors' Associa- tion said that Mrs Goodwin was on holiday and they were not sure about her figures because she was using data which were in her 'personal domain'.
The statements quoted above should be enough to show that no one on either side of the debate about the social security reforms (unless it be the Benefits Research Unit at the University of Nottingham) understands what is happening. And what it also shows is that this lack of understand- ing does not produce a modest reluctance to use statistics but a determination to spray them about more liberally than ever before.
One of the skills for which Mrs Thatcher is much admired is her mastery of detail. It is indeed quite remarkable that she can hold in her head such vast knowledge of the arrangement of modern government, administration and law. But when, as so often, she uses her knowledge of statistics, one should recognise that she is doing so not to impart information, but to throw critics off the scent. This is not a new political technique, of course, and it is not peculiar to one party, but it is more prevalent and more dangerous than ever.
There are so many forms of statistical untruth. Leaving aside the simple inven- tion of a figure, we can identify three main ones.
First, there is the straightforward non- sense. 'Crime has gone up by 20 per cent.' Twenty per cent of what, over what period? This sort of mistake is childishly obvious, but it is not confined to children. It appears in public debate every day.
Second, the true figure placed in a false context or without a context at all. 'Crime has gone up by 20 per cent over ten years: we are facing an explosion of epidemic proportions'. How much has the popula- tion increased in that period. In particular, how much has the population in the biggest crime-committing age bracket increased? Further, have the numbers of police in- creased greatly so that more crimes are discovered, and have people changed their attitude to the reporting of crime? The 20 per cent increase might be very frighten- ing: it might be completely unremarkable.
Third, the attribution of importance to figures which are statistically insignificant. `Two years ago, there was one murder in Tunbridge Wells. Last year, there were three. "The increase is horrific," said a police spokesman.' The murders were in- deed horrific, the 200 per cent increase was not, since the base of the figure was too small to give any real indication of trends. It there is only one murder the following year, it would be equally statistically un- sound to rejoice at the reduction.
No doubt there are numerous other ways of using statistics in a potent but misleading way. One would not necessarily want to accuse all who do so of deliberate decep- tion. They may only be guilty of being more concerned to make their point than to speak sense and truth. But the abuse of statistics is now constantly practised by a great range of 'experts' who want to change our medical, moral, social, dietary, drinking, smoking, reading, living habits and by propagandists and politicians of all descriptions.
As a modest counterbalance, The Spec- tator this week begins a small regular feature, . and statistics', which will highlight leading examples of the genre we complain of above. The feature appears this week on page 19. Although we shall continue to provide our own instances, success will mainly depend on our readers. They should send examples, where neces- sary supported by explanation of the non- sense involved and further research to unearth it. The examples should be quota- tions from newspapers, magazines, televi- sion, recent books, official documents. There will be a prize of £20 for the best entry each week and of £10 for every other entry published. Entries should be sent to: . and statistics', The Spectator, 56 Doughty Street, London WC1.
Previous page
