A week of hot air
This week has been a puzzling one for pundits. On one hand you have Minister Clement holding tight to his decision to abolish the long form of the census. On the other you have just about every organised group in the Country and all those who rely on the data inside the long form complaining very loudly. Finally you have the Head Statisticion resigning in a very public manner saying not only can he not be part of a system that uses skewed data but complaining that he may be subordinate to the Minister but the information isn't.
The move to abolish the long form and replace it with a voluntary survey that will be sent to more homes will not provide reliable data and is based on dogma. That's the view of the opponents. Minister Clement says that the form is intrusive and punishes those who refuse to participate with jail terms.
The move to abolish census forms is a conservative phenomenom that is being replicated by newly elected NeoCon governments. Posh-boy Cameron even vows to abolish the census all together in five years. The reason is that because governments set public policy on statistics if you have no stats then you can freely enact silly but neo-con legislation. The classic example is the Harpercrits move to spend billions of our tax money on crime bills when crime is declining. Without the StatsCan figures nobody can contradict the mantra that crime is rising, when it is obviously not.
It is not certain if the Cons will change their minds, perhaps they won't until internal polling shows that is either a winner or a loser. All it does is expose the hamhanded political moves of our Prime Minister, enough of them will dent his reputation, and we can hardly wait for it to happen.
8 comments:
A brilliant post, Ben. Bravo!
How does the census determine the crime rate or changes in it?
Miss the point did we?
It's certainly not surprising that Clement, as one of the three Poncho Harris villains (Mucho Baird and Tiny Flaherty being the others) who slid into federal front bench seats with an ease befitting the amount of grease they surely must enjoy, just digs in his heels and denies that any statistician ... Canadian or otherwise ... could possibly know as much about what our citizens want and need as his esteemed leader, a trained economist! Ben is bang on here when he sees this typical, arrogant, ignorant Harper maneuver for exactly what it is ... a heavy handed attempted to avoid having to accept responsibility for governing Canada based on facts, rather than dogma. Mind you, when the Libs have a leader who, basically, says to the PM, "What do you think about that?" before making any public Party statements of his own making, the NDPrs haven't a policy in place to get in touch with more voters at the community level, and the Greens have absolutely no credibility after "Maybe" May decided to take on the McKay dynasty in Nova Scotia, why shouldn't "Stick-it-to-em" Harper feel he is a God? And if that's the case, then Harper help us all.
taking party loyalties out of this, please explain your statement "The classic example is the Harpercrits move to spend billions of our tax money on crime bills when crime is declining. Without the StatsCan figures nobody can contradict the mantra that crime is rising, when it is obviously not."
How does the census in its long form tell us about crime RATES?
Anonymous seems determined to miss the point here. Obviously the crime rate info doesn't come from the census, it is being used as an example of the kind of info collected by government that can and should be used to make decisions on allocation of resources. Just like the census!
Of course if you are just trying to discredit the writer you'd claim there was no connection.
Talking about playing politics, anonymous, you are a prime candidate in this debate. Now, go polish your gun or something.
to understand the reasons behind this decision one would have to have a magic 8 ball but I believe this is all in an effort to get "new" Canadians to their fold. It seems to me that people who come from places in the world where their governments cannot be trusted fret the most about the "intrusion" into their private lives.
Our long form census is needed to ensure that all programs supported of funded by all levels of government receive the proper consideration. We as Canadians need this information to determine tax structure and financing for everything from police services to garbage pick up. In order to determine if populations have increased or declined. Yes some of the information is personal but we need it to understand the true makeup of our communities and country as a whole.
Every country in the developed world requires this from their citizens to keep this information current and accurate. Without this information how do we determine the make up of our communities and the services they require. We have no other way, should we all rely on the conservative parties "magic 8 ball"
I believe this is another attempt on the part of our current government to limit their accountability. If one doesn't have all the information then one cannot be held to account for lapses in services or people being left behind.
Less government intrusion means less regulation and we all know where that leads us "recession 2008" anyone.
Mr. Harpers conservatives promised openness and transparency yet they continue to come up with new ways to shut the public out of the process. We need to let these elected "representatives" know that this is yet another unacceptable decision.
one anonymous says of another anonymous "Anonymous seems determined to miss the point here. Obviously the crime rate info doesn't come from the census, it is being used as an example of the kind of info collected by government that can and should be used to make decisions on allocation of resources. Just like the census!"
a third anonymous says to the second anonymous, 'Why then use an example that has no connection to the point when there should be so many examples available that make the point succinctly, other than for the purpose of making a cheap and silly political point rather than illustrating the point of the post?' No matter how you spin it, it's just plain government bashing at its silliest.
Post a Comment