The Tories' War On Data

[cybercoma]

Have you looked at the long from census? It has questions about race, education, unpaid/self employment work and prior addresses. It is gross exaggeration to say this information is necessary for 'proper functioning of the state'.

Do you know how much research is done with the long-form census data? Everything from health studies to education to jobs and the economy. Ending the long form destroyed a lot of ongoing research projects and that's not even touching the policy analysis projects that continuously examine the progress of government programs. From your post, I have to wonder if you even know what people do with the long form census after the data is gathered.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Have you looked at the long from census? It has questions about race, education, unpaid/self employment work and prior addresses. It is gross exaggeration to say this information is necessary for 'proper functioning of the state'.

They sound like very basic and important metrics to me.

[Argus]

How precisely does less accurate census data save money?

The census wasn't decriminalized to save money. It was done because some conservatives (not me) felt it was an invasion of privacy, and unreasonable to demand, with the threat of criminal sanction, that people tell them all the things the government wanted to know.

Allow me to giggle, though, that those most outraged over the fact telling the government whatever they wanted to know is no longer a criminal offense are also the ones most outraged about government snooping on their privacy...

Edited September 22, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

That census business was so weird at the time and positively comical post-Snowden, now that we have some inkling of the warrantless and intrusive surveillance going on across the country.

What's comical is the same people who revere Snowdon and get red-faced and furious about government snooping on their privacy are the ones furious that the government can't put people in prison for refusing to answer all their questions.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

I meant the govt created a public fuss about the intrusiveness of the census while secretly doing far worse things through CSIS at the same time.

Far worse? Like what?

[SpankyMcFarland]

What's comical is the same people who revere Snowdon and get red-faced and furious about government snooping on their privacy are the ones furious that the government can't put people in prison for refusing to answer all their questions.

That would not describe me. I understand surveillance has to be secret and extensive in some cases, but there has to be proper parliamentary oversight which in this country we do not have.

Edited September 22, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[Argus]

Have you looked at the long from census? It has questions about race, education, unpaid/self employment work and prior addresses. It is gross exaggeration to say this information is necessary for 'proper functioning of the state'.

I never understood what the big deal was, frankly. Most of the stuff in there is pretty innocuous, and the rest is stuff you would mostly have to put down on any kind of application for a loan or credit card. It's confidential and harmless anyway.

[TimG]

Do you know how much research is done with the long-form census data?

Well if all they had is the census data they would not accomplish much. If they are correlating the census data with data collected via some other mechanism then the validity of results would depend on the non-census data collection (which is often voluntary). I have also heard that census data is used to 'correct' for data collection errors but if someone has to resort to 'correcting' their data by correlating it with a 'known good' dataset then any subsequent results would be dubious at best.

Basically, over the top rhetoric is not helpful. I understand that statisticians think a mandatory census is valuable but it is ridiculous to say that we can't manage social programs without it.

Edited September 22, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Well if all they had is the census data they would not accomplish much. If they are correlating the census data with data collected via some other mechanism then the validity of results would depend on the non-census data collection (which is often voluntary). I have also heard that census data is used to 'correct' for data collection errors but if someone has to resort to 'correcting' their data by correlating it with a 'known good' dataset then any subsequent results would be dubious at best.

Basically, over the top rhetoric is not helpful. I understand that statisticians think a mandatory census is valuable but it is ridiculous to say that we can't manage social programs without it.

So you don't understand how statistics work or how and why the census is used, but you're all for scrapping the long-form. Perfect. I love it when people who don't know what they're talking about take intransigent positions on things.

[TimG]

So you don't understand how statistics work or how and why the census is used, but you're all for scrapping the long-form. Perfect. I love it when people who don't know what they're talking about take intransigent positions on things.

Who says I am for it? Personally I think it was a stupid thing for Harper to make an issue of. I also think it is tempest in teapot and the people claiming it is end of the world are full of crap for the reason I stated. Incidentally, you did not even try to refute my arguments for why the data can't be as important as you claim. Edited September 22, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I didn't try to refute your claims because, as I said, you are intransigent on these things. Hundreds of researchers, statisticians, policy analysts, and more have explained why scrapping the long-form was a serious problem. If you don't get it by now, there's nothing I'm going to say to convince you. This is just like having environmental policy discussions with you and if you haven't noticed, I don't bother with that anymore either.

[Smallc]

Nice platitude, but having accurate longitudinal data on the various health and social wellness metrics is crucial to a properly functioning social welfare state.

I'm talking about things that we fund. I have no opinion either way about the long form census. I actually think that we should spend the money to keep better information databases like the Scandinavians, making the whole thing obsolete, rather than funding some painter somewhere.

[TimG]

Hundreds of researchers, statisticians, policy analysts, and more have explained why scrapping the long-form was a serious problem.

They are not saying we cannot manage social programs without it. You are. There is a difference between saying "our jobs would be easier" and "government cannot function without it". The former is understandable - the latter is ridiculous.

[Evening Star]

The big question - is it day-da or dah-da? I heard one fellow on CBC use both pronunciations in the same paragraph. Most Canadians prefer the American pronunciation, I think.

Which do you think is American? Most people in MA seem to say "day-ta". (This is how I usually say it, although I grew up in Ottawa.)

[Evening Star]

Allow me to giggle, though, that those most outraged over the fact telling the government whatever they wanted to know is no longer a criminal offense are also the ones most outraged about government snooping on their privacy...

If you don't see the difference between these things, I'm not sure what to say.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

I love how Argus makes assumptions about what people thought about a government that hasn't been in power for over 12 years. Reason and logic indeed. "I haven't heard you criticize a government from 15 years ago, therefore you mustn't have any criticisms of it."

Yeah, I haven't posted here nearly as much as Argus but even I know that ToadBrother is far from a partisan of either the Liberals or the NDP.

[ToadBrother]

They are not saying we cannot manage social programs without it. You are. There is a difference between saying "our jobs would be easier" and "government cannot function without it". The former is understandable - the latter is ridiculous.

That's not what they're saying. They're saying the lack of data makes certain kinds of projections all but impossible. As it was, Stats Can has had to waste taxpayer money on voluntary reporting programs (I partook last year), to try to recover at least some of the lost data.

The end of the mandatory long census was nothing more than populist policy to fool the foolish partisans. This at the same time as they were putting forward what amounted to spying charters.

Only a partisan could somehow attack scientists for wanting more detailed census data while forgiving their party for intrusive spying policies.

[TimG]

Only a partisan could somehow attack scientists for wanting more detailed census data while forgiving their party for intrusive spying policies.

I was not attacking 'scientists'. I was criticizing a poster for saying the data is 'essential to managing social programs'. I don't question the value of the data from the POV of an academic.

In any case, there are no good choices in this election. We have someone who talks the talk but heads a party filled with economic illiterates, another who has completely tossed out any pretense of fiscal discipline and finally a guy with a long history of questionable policy choices but with OK economic policies.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Which do you think is American? Most people in MA seem to say "day-ta". (This is how I usually say it, although I grew up in Ottawa.)

I have heard both in US and UK. I think researchers tend to be fonder of dah-da and computer guys of day-da. Of course, in Britain the 'd' is a 't' - da(y)h-ta.

I think of day-da as American because of the Star Trek character and what I hear on TV..

Edited September 22, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[cybercoma]

They are not saying we cannot manage social programs without it. You are. There is a difference between saying "our jobs would be easier" and "government cannot function without it". The former is understandable - the latter is ridiculous.

Hey everybody, TimG is making up positions for other people and arguing against those again.

I never said we cannot manage social programs without. I said we're operating in the dark and using ideology to make decisions. But hey, I guess you think wasting a crapload of money by managing government programs through trial and error is a good thing; or perhaps you think we should waste even more money (and more importantly time) by having to gather data from a vast number of disparate sources, which by the way do not work together for longitudinal analyses.

Tim, put the partisan BS aside for a second and read what kind of damage this has caused. I have no idea how anyone can support making decisions in the dark, especially not a so-called libertarian conservative who thinks the government should spend as little money as possible on things.

[TimG]

I never said we cannot manage social programs without.

What you said:

Nice platitude, but having accurate longitudinal data on the various health and social wellness metrics is crucial to a properly functioning social welfare state.

We can quibble about the implications of word 'crucial'.

I said we're operating in the dark and using ideology to make decisions. But hey, I guess you think wasting a crapload of money by managing government programs through trial and error is a good thing;

Since when are social programs tailored because of demographic data? They are generally brought in because because government thinks people want them and the priority is appearing to do something. In many cases, the programs are designed to not function efficiently because political optics are more important that utility.

Now if you want to argue that it will be harder to argue for new social programs because the data to justify them will be harder to get. Well that is a benefit - not a problem.

[Argus]

Yeah, I haven't posted here nearly as much as Argus but even I know that ToadBrother is far from a partisan of either the Liberals or the NDP.

When I say "you" in the context of those types of claims I mean "You on the left". I would have thought that would have been fairly obvious.

The things the Left is shrieking about now will continue to be done under the next government and if that government is not conservative the left largely won't care. They certainly won't gasp in horror at how the evil government is destroying democracy and freedoms.

[Evening Star]

When I say "you" in the context of those types of claims I mean "You on the left". I would have thought that would have been fairly obvious.

The things the Left is shrieking about now will continue to be done under the next government and if that government is not conservative the left largely won't care. They certainly won't gasp in horror at how the evil government is destroying democracy and freedoms.

I still don't think it's obvious in context but I'm not going to argue against generalized assumptions about what the nebulously defined 'left' did in response to a government that predates my first post here by half a decade or what they/'we' might do in response to a hypothetical future government.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Evening Star

[Argus]

I still don't think it's obvious in context but I'm not going to argue against generalized assumptions about what the nebulously defined 'left' did in response to a government that predates my first post here by half a decade or what they/'we' might do in response to a hypothetical future government.

Don't. But I have been a close watcher of politics and the media for about thirty years now, and I know that the reaction of the chattering classes to Harper is far different than it was of Chretien, Mulroney or Trudeau. Nor can this be explained by a change of government policies under Harper.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Don't. But I have been a close watcher of politics and the media for about thirty years now, and I know that the reaction of the chattering classes to Harper is far different than it was of Chretien, Mulroney or Trudeau. Nor can this be explained by a change of government policies under Harper.

What is it explained by?