3 ms·

Am I missing something or is there no "blunder" described in the article? I'm my view, a blunder would be something like the missing rows in the Excel formula t

by spuz 3y ago

Am I missing something or is there no "blunder" described in the article? I'm my view, a blunder would be something like the missing rows in the Excel formula that was used as a basis for the austerity policy in 2010 or indeed the row limit being exceeded which led to thousands of COVID test results being lost. https://theconversation.com/excel-errors-the-uk-government-has-an-embarrassingly-long-history-of-spreadsheet-horror-stories-147606 https://theconversation.com/excel-errors-the-uk-government-h...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nindalf 3y ago
Completely agree. They did the best with the data they had. I’m glad they didn’t fudge it upwards earlier. If anything, this gives me more confidence in the ONS because they did the right things. I know unsophisticated people only look at the result, not the process. These folks are quick to blame whenever they perceive a mistake. Disappointed to see this take from the Economist.
madaxe_again 3y ago
It’s being called a blunder in order to undermine the credibility of the ONS, as given the state of affairs in the U.K., it’s hard to see that this is anything other than a result of political pressure - Ian Diamond has some skeletons in his closet (beyond his “overlooking” a few hundred thousand pounds he was overpaid by UoA) that make him a straightforward target for a quid pro quo.
- dash2 3y ago
  Is anyone calling it a blunder other than The Economist, which has little interest in undermining the ONS (and the article is quite respectful of it)? A simpler explanation would be that "blunder" makes an exciting headline. Have you any evidence to support your explanation?
  - madaxe_again 3y ago
    The last 13 years, and personally knowing people who have had their arms twisted by the current government. One cowed, one did not. One lives, one does not. This government is all about extortion and information manipulation.
    - dash2 3y ago
      This is nothing but a long, evasive way to say "no".
      - madaxe_again 3y ago
        It really isn’t, but I understand that you’re a died-in-the-wool Tory and you won’t see the state criticised. I knew a judge who was pressured to put politics before justice and refused, and he was destroyed for doing so, and a speechwriter for a recent prime minister who was threatened with dire consequences if he leaked a story which would have made said prime minister subject to a criminal investigation (not Johnson!), and decided to stay stumme as a result. But you go on believing that conservatives can do no wrong.

by spuz 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nindalf 3y ago

Completely agree. They did the best with the data they had. I’m glad they didn’t fudge it upwards earlier. If anything, this gives me more confidence in the ONS because they did the right things. I know unsophisticated people only look at the result, not the process. These folks are quick to blame whenever they perceive a mistake. Disappointed to see this take from the Economist.

madaxe_again 3y ago

It’s being called a blunder in order to undermine the credibility of the ONS, as given the state of affairs in the U.K., it’s hard to see that this is anything other than a result of political pressure - Ian Diamond has some skeletons in his closet (beyond his “overlooking” a few hundred thousand pounds he was overpaid by UoA) that make him a straightforward target for a quid pro quo.

dash2 3y ago
Is anyone calling it a blunder other than The Economist, which has little interest in undermining the ONS (and the article is quite respectful of it)? A simpler explanation would be that "blunder" makes an exciting headline. Have you any evidence to support your explanation?
- madaxe_again 3y ago
  The last 13 years, and personally knowing people who have had their arms twisted by the current government. One cowed, one did not. One lives, one does not. This government is all about extortion and information manipulation.
  - dash2 3y ago
    This is nothing but a long, evasive way to say "no".
    - madaxe_again 3y ago
      It really isn’t, but I understand that you’re a died-in-the-wool Tory and you won’t see the state criticised. I knew a judge who was pressured to put politics before justice and refused, and he was destroyed for doing so, and a speechwriter for a recent prime minister who was threatened with dire consequences if he leaked a story which would have made said prime minister subject to a criminal investigation (not Johnson!), and decided to stay stumme as a result. But you go on believing that conservatives can do no wrong.