Responding to Paul Wells…

Today Paul Wells wrote a piece in which he supported the thesis of a post I wrote back on July 22. However, he thought he noted a bit of an inconsistency between my post and later tweets,

I’ve been mystified by Stephen Harper’s willingness to squander so much political capital on an issue as trivial as the long-form census. Only slightly less so by the media’s piling on, treating this as a matter of great national importance, and by the level of emotional investment so many apparently attach to census-gathering.

The opposition? They’re just reveling in the unexpected bounty of low-hanging political fruit, and Tory self-inflicted injury.

I don’t get it. It’s just not that big a deal – either way.

— Charles W. Moore, New Brunswick Telegraph Journal, today

Stephen Harper seeks to diminish or destroy the Liberal Party to replace them with the Conservatives as Canada’s default choice for government. His greatest challenge is to dismantle the modern welfare state. If it can’t be measured, future governments can’t pander.

— Blogger Stephen Taylor, July 22.

That’s the choice, I suppose. Either what the Harper government is doing with the long-form census doesn’t matter, or it does. Obviously Moore has a lot more company than Taylor does. Indeed, lately Moore’s company includes Taylor: since July 22 this whole business has gotten too hot for Stephen’s liking and in his blog and on Twitter he’s joined the nobody-cares crowd, arguing that this whole business is an invention of the “push media,” by which he means news organizations that cover a story he doesn’t like for longer than he likes.

There is obviously a bit of confusion because after I wrote that blog post, I took to twitter and wrote this:

When members of Parl ConCensus Gallery aren’t push reporting stories on Census/Prorogation, they’re auditioning for Iggy’s PressSec on #lpcx — @stephen_taylor

I noted a similarity to that earlier sleepy story of the year called prorogation when the Toronto Star breathlessly plastered its front page describing a “fury” of Canadians against prorogation because 20,000 people had joined a Facebook group! Sure enough, while 20,000 people seeded interest in the story, the media took the ball from there and covered it and covered it for the next three weeks and it wasn’t too surprising that the millions of dollars in free media coverage netted that Facebook group over 150,000 members!

To address Wells specifically, he sees a bit of a disconnect between my suggestion that the PM is really using the census issue to dismantle the welfare state and my assertion that “nobody cares” about this story.

However, in my original article I wrote this:

QMI’s David Akin exclaimed surprise that from his cell within the beehive of special interests that is Ottawa, he was shocked to find that a full half — that other half — of Canadians aren’t upset about the changes to the census when it seems that’s the only thing the other bees seem to be buzzing about. The story that “just won’t go away” is a flurry of activity “inside the beehive”, because until you go outside, you can’t see the forest for the trees.

Two things: I still standby my thesis that I believe that chucking mandatory nature of the long-form is a move to dismantle the welfare state (and that this is a move in the right direction). And two, nobody cares outside of the beehive. It’s the media that is pushing the story outside of the beehive walls propelled by the loud buzz of special interests.

If you were to poll typical Canadians and asked them, “what is the biggest issue facing you and your family”, I’d venture a guess that most would not respond that “the changing of the long-form census to a voluntary survey” ranks high on their list.

“Nobody cares” is a simplification; nobody cares outside of the beehive. The swarm of special interests sure does care. Other Canadians? They’re at the cottage, or BBQing on their decks. Does bugspray keep bees away too?

As for my trouble-making behaviour, I make no apologies. Sometimes it’s fun to throw rocks at beehives.



  • Anonymous

    yes, they are quite similar. The 2010 prorogation was a cowardly sidestep to avoid any accountability in the Afghan detainee transfer issue, the census tweaking is an ideological pander with no positive outcome for ANYONE, except government haterz and the paranoid.

    I think you’ll find that quite a few of us were upset about these, long before any “direction” from your ‘Liberal’ media.

  • Anonymous

    They’re trying to clean up the stinking mess the Liberal$ left for the ROC.

    How? How are they cleaning it up?

    Harper has happily pulled every lever and pushed every button you accuse the Liberals of using:
    – stacking the Senate
    – prorogation to avoid trouble
    – stonewalling and shooting the messenger whenever he doesn’t like the message

    The few things that would really clean government up – running an open and transparant government, improving government accountability – Harper has avoided these like the plague. Despite promising this.

    The CPC has clearly shown the same propensity for self-serving, self-promoting actions that you loathe the Liberals for. The Liberals did however move the country FORWARD, politically, ethically and economically, while the CPC tries to return Canada to just a compliant supplier of primary resources, and panders to white rural Canada.

    The Liberals were a heck of alot more fun, too.

  • Anonymous

    Well-said. All your points here are on the money.

    Making government stupider cannot make it better.

  • Anonymous

    there is nothing accurate about StatsCan data

    Bullshit. Try to produce one shred of evidence to show that StatsCan isn’t a well-regarded organization, and that their statistics aren’t of the best quality that could result from their current data-collection methods.

    Of course, after the 2011 census, you will be able to say that statistics derived from the long-form census aren’t truly representative… because the form was now voluntary. That’s been the idea all along, isn’t it? Poke StatsCan in the eye, then accuse them of poor vision.

    This is good governing… how?