Politicians In Addition To Statistics

We should all know never to accept a statistic quoted past times a politico on trust. But at that spot is a huge divergence betwixt the ways inwards which politicians tin (mis)use statistics.

Take, for example, when Labour before the 2015 election kept proverb people were £1,600 worse off than they were v years earlier. As Tim Harford notes, at that spot are a lot of issues inwards making whatever full general claim based on net data. But every bit Geoff Tily post of mine. George Osborne had derived the terms of Brexit past times taking the gross domestic product loss in addition to dividing it past times the number of Great Britain households. Fraser Nelson, in addition to subsequently Anthony Reuben at the BBC, objected that this was dishonesty (Nelson) or confusion (Reuben) because alone virtually 2 thirds of gross domestic product was household income. Typical y'all mightiness intend for this Chancellor to misuse statistics to exaggerate. Yet every bit I explained inwards the post, what the Chancellor had done was criterion exercise past times economists, because less regime spending or investment are also inwards an of import feel costs to households. In that instance too, a politico was using a summary statistic inwards a reasonable way.

You mightiness nation that it is best for politicians to avoid quoting numbers, exactly numbers are oftentimes crucial. Take the claim, oftentimes made past times opponents of immigration, that it reduces reward of depression earning workers. There are studies that honour that, exactly every bit this groovy nautical chart from the CER shows the magnitude is pocket-size relative to other influences on earnings. (See Jonathan Portes for to a greater extent than discussion on this.)

Magnitudes are oftentimes crucial. It is true, for example, that financial policy before the financial crisis was a trivial on the lax side. But the magnitudes involved could withdraw maintain been corrected past times whatever novel Chancellor inwards ane budget amongst hardly anyone noticing. They are a the world away from the magnitudes required to claim Labour were profligate before the crisis, in addition to that austerity was required to clear upward the mess that Labour had created. Given the importance (to the result) of that claim before the 2015 full general election, it is strange indeed to focus instead on Labour’s claims virtually existent net losses.  

The other examples Tim discusses inwards his article - Trump’s offense statistics in addition to Jeremy Hunt’s figures for excess weekend deaths - are indeed totally or highly dubious, for reasons Tim makes rattling clear. Or an instance that is to a greater extent than or less my heart: the Prime Minister claiming that they had non cutting spending on alluvion defences, which could hold upward made to hold upward truthful exactly hardly describes reality. These are all examples where the politico wants to mislead people. It is this misuse of statistics that nosotros should focus on.