Posted: Oct 21, 2018 4:43 pm
by Thommo
Scot Dutchy wrote:Why are you quoting EU data? Where does the EU get its data from? Nuf said. You are comparing ONS non-data with other more accurate data collected not estimated. Or dont you understand?

In order:
  • I'm quoting EU data because you brought it up for no reason. Perhaps you could answer your own question and say why you brought it up?
  • The EU gets its data from member states.
  • "Nuf said"? You haven't said anything at all here. Please explain.
  • No, that's incorrect, the data from all member states uses the same international standard, as I indicated in the quotes you clearly ignored. This standard is the guidelines of the International Labour Organization.
  • I do understand. You appear to be quite misguided. You certainly appear to be quite wrong to say that the ONS uses a different standard to the EU, and wrong to say non-ONS sources are more accurate data. If you wish to continue to put forward your erroneous thesis, you should provide your sources.

Scot Dutchy wrote:ONS made a complete balls up when asked how many foreign students were over staying their student visa.

Whether or not that is the case has no bearing on unemployment data, which is what the thread is about. Specifically your claim that ONS data standards are different to those used in the EU.

You've been provided sources showing that both data sets conform to the same standard.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Home Office accused of basing foreign student policy on 'fantasy'

Only after ONS made the estimates using different methods was the mistake shown.

It's not a mistake in the figures. Read the article again. The dispute is a political one, highlighting the difference between students who overstay their visa and students who remain in the country after their course is complete*.

Both figures are broadly accurate, and there are two different schools of thought, namely:

(i) There are people who believe the net migration figure should represent the total number of people into the country minus the total number of people out of the country.
(ii) There are people who believe that student net migration should be removed from the figures (usually the net migration target of less than 100,000) because they believe student migration is a positive benefit to the country.**

Scot Dutchy wrote: Do you trust British government data?

Of course, it's collected by a well-reputed organisation to the same international standard as the rest of the data from the EU, and is recognised by that international body and the EU itself as being accurate.

So I repeat my request: At the moment you're lobbing around baseless and inaccurate accusations, neither the Independent article, nor the Business Insider articles (which were widely pooh-poohed by qualified economists) contain or support your contentions so far. On what sources do you rely?

*Often by transferring to a new visa type related to employment or marital status.
**There are technical as well as principled objections to this view, since the data for "student net migration" is not currently collected, which is obliquely referred to in the Independent article and its primary source: "The above work concludes that looking at net migration without full consideration of challenges of measuring emigration by original reason could mislead. Using current methods, net migration by reason for arrival is not a robust statistic. We would caution users from subtracting emigration after study numbers from immigration to study numbers without full consideration of the issues set out here."