UK stats gangbustersgate: We’re all trying to find the guy who did this

From the Guardian this morning:

The UK’s statistics watchdog has opened an investigation into remarks made by Rishi Sunak about the economy “going gangbusters” amid concerns that politicians could misuse economic data in the run-up to the election.

Sir Robert Chote, chair of the UK Statistics Authority, will examine whether the prime minister repeated comments that were “taken out of context” and exaggerated the Conservative party’s economic record.

Readers may remember a month ago, when Grant Fitzner, chief economist of the Office for the National Statistics, made this comment in a briefing to journalists following news that the economy had grown 0.6 per cent in Q1:

To paraphrase former Australian prime minister Paul Keating, you could say the economy is going gangbusters.

It is unclear what further context could really be needed (other than perhaps some clarity over what gangbusters should mean in journalese). Without wanting to get all how-the-sausage-is-made about this, if you tell a bunch of journalists that they “could say the economy is going gangbusters”, there’s a decent chance some of them are going to write “the economy is going gangbusters”.

Fitzner’s comments were, obviously, quickly picked up by sections of the media…

. . . . and — again obviously, because it’s a fantastic soundbite — quoted by Sunak shortly afterwards. The PM told BBC Radio 4:

You had, I think, the person from the Office for National Statistics talking about the economic growth that the country produced in the first quarter of the year.

He said what he said about that and I think he used the term ‘gangbusters’, so I will leave it at that.

As far as we can tell, Sunak hasn’t directly used it again since. So what’s to investigate? The Guardian continues [our emphasis]:

[Chote] is expected to take charge of the review into Sunak’s comments, which could result in a warning to Conservative central office to stop using the term “gangbusters” in election broadcasts and debates or in printed and online material.

A spokesperson for the ONS said: “We have clarified to any outlet or journalist that has approached us that [gangbusters] is not a word we would use to describe the UK economy.”

[…]

Chote may be forced to admonish Fitzner for straying into commentary about the economy that could be interpreted as biased.

What is that quote from the ONS supposed to mean? Is this, perhaps, just the UK Statistics Authority (which oversees the ONS) attempting a bit of severely post-hoc arse-covering?

We contacted the ONS for extra clarification on exactly what it has “clarified”. A spokesperson told us:

The use of the word ‘gangbusters’ was a passing reference used when our Chief Economist was discussing the first quarter’s economic growth with journalists at our press briefing on release day.

The reference was made – paraphrasing a remark by a former Australian Prime Minister – as Q1 growth had come in stronger than commentators expected, with broad-based growth across services and manufacturing industries, and with quarterly growth at its strongest pace since the pandemic.  

It was certainly not intended as a comment about the overall state of the economy and when the comment was made it was immediately clarified to those present that this was not a word that the ONS would use to describe the first quarter’s growth. We also put the comment in context for journalists who followed up afterwards.

They added, when we asked what the material difference is between a word the ONS would use and a word its chief economist did use:

Grant was paraphrasing. It is not a word either he or ONS would use to describe the overall state of the economy and when the comment was made it was immediately clarified to those present that this was not a word that the ONS would use to describe the first quarter’s growth.

OK, but like… he did say it.

We do accept that the quote could be (and probably, somewhere, is being) misleadingly applied to the wider economy beyond growth in the first quarter but come on — sometimes, you make a comms boo-boo and have to own it.

The Guardian euphemistically says Fitzner’s comments could end up “[c]omplicating the outcome of the review”. Well, yes.

Update 7pmish: We’ve got a pretty material response from UKSA, who say The Guardian has got the wrong end of the stick — they say that a review was conducted into Fitzner’s use of “gangbusters”, but that Sunak is not being investigated.

A spokesperson said that the Office for Statistics Regulation had looked into the briefing itself, not the use of the phrase “gangbusters” by others including Sunak