hahahahaaa
Census 2021
- Thread starter brogdale
- Start date
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
You use postal services don’t you? You said LMs involvement there didn’t stop you, so there seems to be an element of contradiction there.
and yup, those 30k are recruited by adecco. So what? I’m sure you think you’re making a point but all you’re doing is admitting you were wrong before. As you have been on pretty much every point.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
That’s cos it isn’t ‘the next couple of weeks’ yet
About the census: About Census 2021 - Census 2021
All about Census 2021 - the next census in Northern Ireland. Find out about what's new for this census and why it's important to take part.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
I'm really not clear at all about what point you think you're making about the post?
The point about Adecco is that they are contracted to recruit, train and pay the census workers, unless you claim that's not correct.
Can't quite see why you're personally so invested in this outdated exercise that the state itself is about to disown.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
I reckon the enumerators will have to contend with a lot more freeman of the land types this time.
Last edited:
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Are they planning on a nationwide collection of demographic data as well, then?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I can’t see why you are supporting the Tory states desire to abolish an important tool that helps society to plan. Still less why you are using the fact that a right wing state wants to abolish it as a justification for your position. It’s just bizarre.
as to adecco - I was pointing out you were wrong about census workers being Lockheed Martin employees. They’re not. Yes they are recruited trained and paid by adecco, but so what? They are civil servants for the period of employment, that’s in the contract.
Sorry, but you’re a mess of contradictions and false arguments here.
Is the guidance on the sex question different from previous years?
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
You’d think Lateinos & Romiith had got the contract rather than Adecco
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Saying that successive neoliberal governments have expressed the desire to ditch the census in it's current form does not necessarily equate to support or opposition to that position.
And it's certainly not just tory administrations that have signalled the demise of the exercise:
And my primary objection to the compulsory return of the census relates not to the state's lack of faith in the collection, but the involvement of the military-industrial complex in the exercise.
No more straw men, eh?
...and 2012 saw the introduction of the bedroom tax.
brogdale : It's ultra-rare that I differ from your posts and politics here in general 
But!!!
I do think you're completely wrong about boycotting the 2021 Census.
I think it's hugely important that all people, all classes, all heritages, all sexes, all genders, all identities about sex/gender (and all cats!
), get recorded
I'd rather not argue with you
But to me, belboid 's posts about all this, seem to make plenty of more sense to me!
But!!!
I do think you're completely wrong about boycotting the 2021 Census.
I think it's hugely important that all people, all classes, all heritages, all sexes, all genders, all identities about sex/gender (and all cats!
), get recordedI'd rather not argue with you
But to me, belboid 's posts about all this, seem to make plenty of more sense to me!
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
I think it's hugely important that all people, all classes, all heritages, all sexes, all genders, all identities about sex/gender (and all cats!
dunno really
from the perspective of an (amateur) historian, census data is a pretty good way (now) of seeing what was going on in the past, and presumably someone will feel similar in 100 years time.
i can see plenty of advantages to the tories if a lot of people on inadequate pay, in inadequate housing, people with disabilities / long term health conditions, unemployed people and so on, just quietly disappear.
i can see 'visibility' arguments for the LGBT questions, but with this government slowly morphing in to the national front, i'm not sure i want to commit anything to paper...
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
That’s OK William of Walworth ...when you’re arguing against something that 94% of the population comply with it’s unlikely that many will agree with youbrogdale : It's ultra-rare that I differ from your posts and politics here in general
But!!!
I do think you're completely wrong about boycotting the 2021 Census.
I think it's hugely important that all people, all classes, all heritages, all sexes, all genders, all identities about sex/gender (and all cats!
I'd rather not argue with you
But to me, belboid 's posts about all this, seem to make plenty of more sense to me!
I genuinely can see the merits of an inclusive census undertaken by a welfare state keen to make evidence led, progressive plans to benefit working people. Unfortunately that’s not where we are in 2021.
I really doubt that I'd be able to sum up our differences of opinion about this so succinctly .....
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
the second question is new, so, yeah, the guidance to the first one is as well
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
It's no straw man when you are using the same arguments as the libertarians to oppose the census. I'm sorry, but you are a complete mess of contradictions, you have got most of the key facts wrong, and the basis of your argument keeps changing. Is it an 'outdated exercise' or is it one where you 'can see the merit'? Why do you object to the military industrial complex here, but not for the post office? It's just the usual mishmash of reasons for opposing the whole idea with some lefty phrasing. But this aint spiked-online.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
I know I’m arguing against something that you obviously feel personally invested in, but that doesn’t mean it’s accurate to cast that position as contradictory.
From the OP I’ve made clear my rejection of compulsory engagement with process involving and enriching a military industrial corporation like Lockheed Martin. The fact that privatised postal services have similarly outsourced their online ‘SmartStamp’ operation to Lockheed could only undermine that position if I was similarly compelled by the state under threat of sanction to use the Royal Mail’s online stamping service or, indeed, thought the contract was a good thing.
If I have got any key facts about Census 2021 wrong I’m sure you’d be happy to say which facts?
Last edited:
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I’ve pointed out where you have contradicted yourself. Start from there. It’s not personal, that’s a very lazy cop out from you.
you got who the employer is wrong, who it’s for wrong and when its data is used absurdly wrong. You do not understand what the census is used for and have given a disparate bunch of false reasons for not getting involved.
using LM as an excuse not to get involved is frankly laughable. It isn’t a protest, it’s just you not doing something. Your refusal to cooperate isn’t going to do anything at all to stop their involvement - especially if you are only going to advertise that fact here and are just gonna hide away when the ‘adecco goons’ come calling. All you’ll achieve is depriving your community of resources and helping the tories abolish something that is used every day, for free, by fairly ordinary people.
Last edited:
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
The involvement of Lockheed Martin is not an excuse; it's the reason why I am unwilling to co-operate with the state's data collection.
I don't think I have claimed that my decision is a protest...it's just my decision.
As to depriving my community of resources, I'm afraid that is a consequence of the neoliberal consolidator state's determination to outsource to a corporation with whom I'm unwilling to share my personal data.
As it happens I do understand the purpose of collecting censal data and who uses it; I have professional experience of using such data.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
except for the cases where you dont have a problem
so you agree it is entirely pointless?
It may amaze you, but sometimes there can be more than one reason why something happens! You are compounding failures. And this still isnt spiked-online.
which is why it gobsmacks me that you are talking such complete and utter drivel. If you do understand how the data is used, why did you talk so much crap about it? Frankly, you are sounding a bit like a conspiraloon.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Thought you might end up here.
So anyone with an objection to the state compelling us to engage with a US military-industrial corporation is a consprialoon?
Sounds like you want to close down the discussion more than anything.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
No, your arguments, or lack thereof, make you sound like one. You ignore all evidence that contradicts yours, simply repeat yourself over and over, throw in a couple of 'radical' sounding phrases, and dont seem a mile of calling people sheeple.Thought you might end up here.
So anyone with an objection to the state compelling us to engage with a US military-industrial corporation is a consprialoon?
Sounds like you want to close down the discussion more than anything.
If you refusal to take part in a socially valuable exercise isnt part of a campaign then it is just personal indulgence. You seem to accept it wont achieve anything, so whats the point?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Another useful discovery from the 2001 census - it might seem amazing that this wasn't already known, but while a vague general picture probably was the actual numbers involved weren't. And those numbers are important.
Informal care provided by 5.9 million For the first time, the 2001 Census made visible the work of 5.9 million people providing care and support to others on an informal basis; 1.2 million of these people provide more than 50 hours of care per week.
Caring is a phenomenon found all over Britain, and is very strongly related to the need for that care. These findings suggest that people in very different circumstances, rich or poor, young or old, working or not, from deprived or affluent areas, all care for their loved ones in response to those people’s needs. Measuring informal care “Informal care is a term which hides a rich variety of human relationships between spouses, between children and parents; between kith and kin, friends and neighbours. Most care without giving thought to the financial cost of caring. It somehow demeans them to reduce their dedication to cash amounts.”1
The 2001 Census was important in that it was the first to ask about self-reported general health (in addition to a question on limiting long-term illness, which was introduced in 1991) and it also asked about an activity directly related to poor health – the provision of informal care.
This additional question in 2001 asked: Do you look after, or give any help or support to, family member, friends, neighbours or others because of: • long-term physical or mental ill-health or disability, or • problems related to old age? Possible answers were: No; 1-19 hours a week; 20-49 hours a week; 50+ hours a week. The image above shows British Sign Language for ‘access’ 2
This question thus opens a window on people’s private lives, revealing the domestic activities and responsibilities of millions of people. Even though the 2001 Census was the first to measure caring, people have always cared for each other in the domestic setting of the home. However, the concept of ‘informal care’ emerged in the 1970s, recognising the continuing role of the provision of unpaid care within the home, in the context of the widening role of the welfare state and the National Health Service (NHS) as providers of formal care in the post-war decades. Britain has what has been described as a “mixed economy of welfare, in which the state, voluntary sector, the family and the market have played different parts at different times”2. Support for carers is high on the policy agenda and the current Labour government has a National Strategy for Carers.
For this analysis, as with the other reports in this series, the country is divided into counties, unitary authorities and former metropolitan authorities. For each of these areas, data were obtained based on responses to the health and informal care questions described above. Data from both health questions were used; firstly that which asked whether or not a person has a long-term illness, health problem or disability that limits daily activities or work and secondly the self-reported health question which asked the person to rate their health over the previous 12 months as ‘good’, ‘fairly good’ or ‘not good’. For this analysis, the group of people most in need of healthcare has been classified as those who reported a limiting long-term illness as well as rating their health as ‘not good’ over the last 12 months. Many, but not all, of these people may well be in need of some informal care.
Informal care provided by 5.9 million For the first time, the 2001 Census made visible the work of 5.9 million people providing care and support to others on an informal basis; 1.2 million of these people provide more than 50 hours of care per week.
Caring is a phenomenon found all over Britain, and is very strongly related to the need for that care. These findings suggest that people in very different circumstances, rich or poor, young or old, working or not, from deprived or affluent areas, all care for their loved ones in response to those people’s needs. Measuring informal care “Informal care is a term which hides a rich variety of human relationships between spouses, between children and parents; between kith and kin, friends and neighbours. Most care without giving thought to the financial cost of caring. It somehow demeans them to reduce their dedication to cash amounts.”1
The 2001 Census was important in that it was the first to ask about self-reported general health (in addition to a question on limiting long-term illness, which was introduced in 1991) and it also asked about an activity directly related to poor health – the provision of informal care.
This additional question in 2001 asked: Do you look after, or give any help or support to, family member, friends, neighbours or others because of: • long-term physical or mental ill-health or disability, or • problems related to old age? Possible answers were: No; 1-19 hours a week; 20-49 hours a week; 50+ hours a week. The image above shows British Sign Language for ‘access’ 2
This question thus opens a window on people’s private lives, revealing the domestic activities and responsibilities of millions of people. Even though the 2001 Census was the first to measure caring, people have always cared for each other in the domestic setting of the home. However, the concept of ‘informal care’ emerged in the 1970s, recognising the continuing role of the provision of unpaid care within the home, in the context of the widening role of the welfare state and the National Health Service (NHS) as providers of formal care in the post-war decades. Britain has what has been described as a “mixed economy of welfare, in which the state, voluntary sector, the family and the market have played different parts at different times”2. Support for carers is high on the policy agenda and the current Labour government has a National Strategy for Carers.
For this analysis, as with the other reports in this series, the country is divided into counties, unitary authorities and former metropolitan authorities. For each of these areas, data were obtained based on responses to the health and informal care questions described above. Data from both health questions were used; firstly that which asked whether or not a person has a long-term illness, health problem or disability that limits daily activities or work and secondly the self-reported health question which asked the person to rate their health over the previous 12 months as ‘good’, ‘fairly good’ or ‘not good’. For this analysis, the group of people most in need of healthcare has been classified as those who reported a limiting long-term illness as well as rating their health as ‘not good’ over the last 12 months. Many, but not all, of these people may well be in need of some informal care.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
you can do the portugese one which is being held the same day too
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
OK, it's good that I'm not being called a conspiraloon.
Regarding my decision not to engage with the 2021 census; I'm not really sure what 'arguments' you're expecting? I've got all the evidence I need to convince me that it is true that Lockheed Martin are contractually involved and I can't see that you, or anyone else for that matter, disputes that.
As far as I'm aware, unlike yourself, I've not called on anyone else to do anything wrt the Census return, and certainly haven't used the phrase 'sheeple'.
My refusal to take part is not intentionally part of any campaign, but I don't accept that it is pointless. The counter-position you appear to articulate is that any one citizen is powerless to resist the compulsion of the state to insist that we divulge personal data to a US military-industrial corporation. I reject that compulsion and hope that if enough like-minded folk do likewise the state will have to rethink its outsourcing strategy.
I hope that the thread gives everyone the opportunity its to express their view on this matter and, as I said to William above, I'm certainly not expecting many to necessarily agree with my position as last time, in 2011, around 94% of households did return their census.
Similar threads
- Poll
