Having just commented on the link between benefits and the rate of single parenthood, hot off the press comes this news from Scotland. Number of one-parent families up by 24%
"The government's critics say that it is the benefits system that has contributed to the increasing number of single parents. David Laws, the Lib Dem work and pensions spokesman, also blamed the benefits system for the rising number of lone parents. There is a financial "disincentive" for lone parents to take a new partner, Mr Laws said."
The Prime Minister, Tony Blair says that the long-awaited Green Paper on welfare reform, due for release today, "will put pressure on single parents to seek work".
Who’s More Stasi: Britain or Germany?
44 minutes ago
5 comments:
In your Scoop column today you state:
"Under both Labour and National governments the number of one-parent families has continued to rise from 135,800 in 1996 to 166,400 today."
Are these figures taken from the family projections cited in your post below? If so, it is quite misleading to claim that there has been an ACTUAL increase of 23 percent!
The government's critics say that it is the benefits system that has contributed to the increasing number of single parents.
As Mandy Rice-Davies famously said: Well, they would, wouldn’t they?
Seriously, the Scotsman article also says that the increase in the number of lone parents UK-wide was 17 percent. Assuming that the benefit system works in the same way across the UK (does it? I have no idea), there must be other factors that account for the higher rate of growth in Scotland. Food for thought?
Anonymous, Nobody can claim any family population statistics as literally actual - ever. The closest we get is after a Census and even then, we rely on the accuracy and honesty of self-reporting. Between times (a five year period) Statistics NZ use population projections. They produce a series using various inputs. Here I used one of the most conservative projections, chosen because it most closely matches Territorial Authority projections. The increase detailed by the 2006 Census will probably be higher.
Now, you can endlessly throw red herrings into arguments without putting your name to them. I try at all times to use the most accurate figures I can. And I put my name to my statements. If you won't, why should I spend time dealing with them? Are you going to tell us who you are and expose yourself to the same type of scrutiny I am prepared to?
Projections are useful as a guide to likely future trends. I don’t think it’s appropriate to use them retrospectively as you did. Some Statistics NZ surveys contain data on families that can be used to estimate trends between censuses.
I don’t believe my challenges to your figures are red herrings at all. Researchers must surely expect to be questioned about their data and methods. I may not have questioned your percentage change figures in the Scoop column had you given the source and put caveats around them as you have above, rather than report them as categorically as you did.
I DO think it is a red herring to ask who I am. I subscribe to the view of another blogger who says:
"Concentrate on the ideas and think for yourself. It shouldn't matter who says it. All that matters is whether it is true or false and you have to decide that for yourself."
If you don't want anonymous commentators perhaps you should restrict your blog to registered users only.
What appeared on Scoop was a media release, not a column. It had my contact attached. I was rung by one newspaper and we discussed the release and at their request I faxed through the sources of my figures. That is a media release serving its purpose. A 5-700 word column might be an appropriate place to explain the sometimes quite lengthy process of establishing figures. A media release is not.
Post a Comment