Cutting the Census

[Corsair 115]

The problem is, "what works" is not necessarily a black-and-white/Either-or option. In most cases, there are trade offs, with no real solution being considered perfect for everyone.

Examine the data, review the evidence, pick what works best. In some cases it might a so-called 'conservative' approach; in other, a so-called 'liberal' approach; in yet other cases (most cases I'd wager) it'd be a blended approach of ideological solutions.

What I take issue with is when a perfectly good solution is rejected because it is not of the correct prevailing ideological leaning.

You know, it seems to me that you have a bias against the conservatives (not a good or bad thing...

Blame that on the Conservatives who have done nothing to earn my vote. And who have, on various occasions now, entered into the same kind of wedge-issue politics that are so prevalent in the U.S. these days. Granted, not yet to the same degree as stateside, but certainly they appear to be laying that groundwork.

As to my political leanings, at various times I've voted PC, Liberal, NDP, and Green in federal elections, depending on various factors. No party has a hold on my vote. But with the old Tories dead and buried, and the new Conservatives doing little to earn my trust, I'm down one option.

The Liberals are just as ideologically driven as the conservatives, you just happen to favor the ideology that they are pushing.

Strange, I don't recall ever endorsing the Liberals in this thread. Or any other party, in fact. One can criticize the Conservatives for their actions without that criticism meaning support for one of their rivals. The Conservatives are the current government, after all, so I'm going to pick on them first because their choices will have the most immediate impact.

Ummmm... every ruling party has voted into law that was either A: not part of an election issue, or B: contrary to what the party campaigned on. Consider for example the issue of gay marriage... Now, I have no problem with same sex marriage, but the issue was never a major campaign issue in the election before it was voted into law.

But that arose as a result of legal decisions. Unless one opts to invoke the Nothwithstanding Clause to override the courts, one has to abide by what the legal rulings.

Its called "political spin". Every party does it.

I'm not talking about what they called it, I'm talking about the fact they made the decision to dump a major event into the downtown core of a major city, apparently unconcerned with the impact that decision would have on the businesses and resident living near the convention centre. And then try to sugar coat it with nonsense that, in all honestly, I have a hard time believing they could say while keeping a straight face.

Ok, first of all, while you are right in that the information is already known by the "tax man", by also giving the information to a second group of individuals (stats can) you are basically doubling the chance that such information might end up 'leaking out'. (Remember,

Secondly, given the information contained in the long form, it might actually be possible for someone to identify an individual. Remember, the census contains the postal code (used for geographical information), racial information, etc. If you are an ethnic minority with an unusual income in a particular area, someone might be able to identify your answers that way.)

Now, if that census data was leaked out as an individual pieces of information, maybe you'd have a point. Given that it is used for statistical analysis purposes, such an purely individual data point is not of much value. Also, see Captain.Sassy's reply in post #56.

 

[Corsair 115]

The Liberal party has been unable to unseat a populist regional faction from its own historical stronghold in Quebec.

The political landscape has changed. Quebec's is now the BQ's to lose in an election. I don't see that changing any time soon, unless the BQ does something spectacularly stupid and self-destructs.

Also, I notice the current brand of Conservatives aren't doing well in Quebec either. Unlike their PC predecessors, who scored big majority government wins in 1984 and 1988 with solid seat counts in the province.

 

[stilicho]

ORLY?

Colour me puzzled.

Coincidence? I think not!

Which given the recent (post-long-form-hatchet-job) polling done suggests the polar opposite of what you're positing.

Could you kindly explain your black-is-white read on things?




Ah! So bloody revolution's the level that the public needs to express itself to get Steve to listen? Gotcha! Figured as much.

You're not Tony Clement, are you?

I am having a hard time following you. The Long-Form Census is not of vital interest to most people who vote. Or is it? Where does it fit on the list of election issues?

On the other hand, when the government--any government--announces it's doing something to save money (whether they are or aren't in truth) they are generally making the announcement to generate a positive reaction.

The Long-Form Census doesn't serve the same purpose nowadays that it would have, say, 100 years ago. There were no other information collection methods then but there are now. Record-keeping and data storage is also entirely different. Schools, for example, collect more data than they did a century ago when child labour laws were just enacted. So do employers.

So, to conclude, it's an "easy win" to drop it and make the announcement that you're doing it to "save money". I don't think this is the issue that's going to change anyone's mind when they go to into a voting booth but is instead intended to help create a positive image that may persist along with others.

 

[stilicho]

The political landscape has changed. Quebec's is now the BQ's to lose in an election. I don't see that changing any time soon, unless the BQ does something spectacularly stupid and self-destructs.

Also, I notice the current brand of Conservatives aren't doing well in Quebec either. Unlike their PC predecessors, who scored big majority government wins in 1984 and 1988 with solid seat counts in the province.

I wouldn't favourably compare the freak Mulroney landslides in Quebec with the loss of an historical base of support. The federal Liberals have now accomplished the loss of an historical electoral base twice--first in the West after the Depression--and now in Quebec.

The Liberal Party used to be able to answer the question: What does Quebec want? All they need to do is return to that question and they'll revive their chances in Quebec.

Anyhow, none of this is going to resolve the Long-Form Census controversy. And the fact it's that easy to get distracted from the "issue" shows how trivial it really is.

-----------

@fitzgibbon:

Did you read the comments section on that article? What a bunch of froth-at-the-mouth lunatics.

But seriously, it looks like a demographic shift in female voters is causing some uneven results in the opinion polls. Look for some political announcements geared towards women in the near future.

You read it here first.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I am having a hard time following you. The Long-Form Census is not of vital interest to most people who vote. Or is it? Where does it fit on the list of election issues?

My point was pretty simple and straightforward: to whit, the Tories clearly ideology-driven idea of undermining StatsCan is being seen for what what it is and is driving potential voters away from them. It isn't as if there has to be just one fatal flaw that, if fixed, will make things all sweetness and light for Harper. There're plenty of individual flaws that (taken in isolation) aren't going to rank as of "vital interest" to the electorate.

The issue is clearly that the Tories are pursuing an action of questionable facility about a topic that was most assuredly a non-topic before and they're humping it with all the misplaced intensity of a dog humping a football.

On the other hand, when the government--any government--announces it's doing something to save money (whether they are or aren't in truth) they are generally making the announcement to generate a positive reaction.

But this has been shown that it's not only NOT going save money, it's actually going to needlessly undermine a government department, hamstringing it in the future, thereby making it less efficient. It's clearly ideology at play and try as he might, Scooter Clement isn't able to wash that stink away.

It's single-handedly reminding people why it is that the Tories've only been given minority status.

The Long-Form Census doesn't serve the same purpose nowadays that it would have, say, 100 years ago.

Golly! You mean there's actually a government function that does? Fancy that!

There were no other information collection methods then but there are now. Record-keeping and data storage is also entirely different. Schools, for example, collect more data than they did a century ago when child labour laws were just enacted. So do employers.

Thrilling! But you're equating an apple with an orange and wondering why everyone looks at you funny. And I don't recall the last school or employer that asked the sort of questions that are on the Short Form Census let alone the Long Form.

So, to conclude, it's an "easy win" to drop it and make the announcement that you're doing it to "save money".

Which hasn't been the case. Tony wrapped himself in the whole cloth of framing the Long Form as a needless imposition of people's privacy that has seen untold hundreds sent to Kingston Pen for some righteous refusal.

Reality has an unfortunate habit of outting such liars.

I don't think this is the issue that's going to change anyone's mind when they go to into a voting booth but is instead intended to help create a positive image that may persist along with others.

It clearly is having quite the impact despite your protestations to the contrary. Or are you suggesting the drop-off of Tory support was merely coincidental? Because the numbers seeing the Tories in a "positive" light are diminishing (at least within the timeframe of this particular poll).

As I said earlier, people look at the sum total of flaws and give them a total weight, voting for a party being the all-or-nothing affair it is. It seems to me that the Tories are Hell-bent on pursuing the nothing end of that equation.

On that I wish them God speed and all success in attaining it.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Anyhow, none of this is going to resolve the Long-Form Census controversy. And the fact it's that easy to get distracted from the "issue" shows how trivial it really is.

And the fact that the Tories're humping it like a dog on a football is giving people pause as to how "trivial" it actually is. Clearly Munir Sheikh didn't see it as "trivial".

 

[stilicho]

My point was pretty simple and straightforward: to whit, the Tories clearly ideology-driven idea of undermining StatsCan is being seen for what what it is and is driving potential voters away from them.

Is this the issue that caused you to change your vote? Do you know anyone who changed their vote because of this issue? Has there been an interview with anyone who used to be a supporter of the Conservatives and changed their mind? Who are these "potential voters" being driven away by scrapping the Long-Form?

Thrilling! But you're equating an apple with an orange and wondering why everyone looks at you funny. And I don't recall the last school or employer that asked the sort of questions that are on the Short Form Census let alone the Long Form.

What decisions is your firm making based on the Long-Form? Our marketing and product development people use a combination of census and third-party data collection companies. I asked the director recently what effect he anticipated and he told me that it would increase costs somewhat. On the other side of the coin is the economic benefit accrued to third-party data collection services. Will their deliverables be better than StatsCan's? Too soon to tell.

Which hasn't been the case. Tony wrapped himself in the whole cloth of framing the Long Form as a needless imposition of people's privacy that has seen untold hundreds sent to Kingston Pen for some righteous refusal.

Often the stated reason for a policy change is not the same as the real reason.

It clearly is having quite the impact despite your protestations to the contrary. Or are you suggesting the drop-off of Tory support was merely coincidental? Because the numbers seeing the Tories in a "positive" light are diminishing (at least within the timeframe of this particular poll).

The poll the newspaper article cited explained several different interpretations for the uneven results. The particular demographic that had changed was women voters. Are women more sensitive to the Long-Form Census than male voters? Or is there another reason for this not included in the poll question?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Will their deliverables be better than StatsCan's? Too soon to tell.

Actually because of the way they're doing this, it will be impossible to ever tell.

Well, unless they've got some data from the past that they could use to do an ex-post comparison with the census data from the past, like 'What would we have gotten if we had tried to develop census-type data from our database in teh nineties?'

 

[fitzgibbon]

Is this the issue that caused you to change your vote?

I haven't voted Tory since the days of Lyin' Brian which I suspect predates your treading terra firma. For me, that's when the Progressive Conservatives stopped being progressive.

Do you know anyone who changed their vote because of this issue?

Why the **** does an issue have to be a singular deal breaker to merit your attention? Just because it's another brick in the wall doesn't naysay the wall.

Has there been an interview with anyone who used to be a supporter of the Conservatives and changed their mind? Who are these "potential voters" being driven away by scrapping the Long-Form?

Uh.....common sense would posit that they'd be people who might've otherwise voted Tory. Yet again, it doesn't have to be one single issue that divides the sea; it really can be a multitude of sins.

What decisions is your firm making based on the Long-Form? Our marketing and product development people use a combination of census and third-party data collection companies.

That's nice. Meaningless but nice.

I asked the director recently what effect he anticipated and he told me that it would increase costs somewhat.

OK. Maybe not so nice

On the other side of the coin is the economic benefit accrued to third-party data collection services. Will their deliverables be better than StatsCan's? Too soon to tell.

Hmmmm.... more expensive...questionable veracity....you see the hole you're digging for yourself?

Often the stated reason for a policy change is not the same as the real reason.

Oh definitely this isn't about the multitude imprisoned for not filling out the long form. Did it really take you this long to surmise that?

 

[fitzgibbon]

Goodness. Even professional statisticians think this is a bad idea!

But I guess Harper and Clement have a better understanding of the value of statistics than professionals in the field.