News   May 14, 2024
Settlement Proposes Heritage Conservation Plus 32 Storeys Near Summerhill Station
 890     0 
News   May 14, 2024
News Roundup for May 14, 2024
 477     0 
News   May 14, 2024
Springtime in the Garden
 533     0 

Harper announces big cutbacks in leftish programs

but accountablity measures requires bureaucracy to support.
Click to expand...
But without accountability, how can we be assured that the money's being spent properly? In my work, if I want to undertake a project, I must present the idea, and set a measurable goal, and then hope for funding.

Look at how much $$ the Feds have thrown at environmental NGOs and think-tanks, while our emissions have continued to increase well past our Kyoto targets. One has to ask, if we hadn't invested all that $$ to these groups, would be worse off envrionmentally? I would argue no, we'd be in the same condition we are today.
 
And the public would be even less informed about the need for action on the environment and possible solutions.

Win-win, I guess.
 
Look at how much $$ the Feds have thrown at environmental NGOs and think-tanks, while our emissions have continued to increase well past our Kyoto targets. One has to ask, if we hadn't invested all that $$ to these groups, would be worse off envrionmentally? I would argue no, we'd be in the same condition we are today.
Click to expand...

Having think tanks and NGOs map out the policy landscape and alternatives doesn't mean any of them will be taken up seriously by the government and other actors, which ultimately are the ones responsible for translating knowledge into action. So that's a policy issue, not an issue resulting from the failure of NGOs to produce "results" - when that's all that they are asked to do.

Come to think of it, it's kind of like Harper saying we have to "consult" with the various players and expecting him to reduce emissions during this period of time.

AoD
 
And the public would be even less informed about the need for action on the environment and possible solutions.
Click to expand...
Definitely not a win-win. However, all governments should be wary of organizations that want taxpayer funding for "education" programs, such as telling us about polution, since these programs are generally not results-measureable.

Okay, so you've spent X-millions of $ on pamphlets and ads telling us that pollution is bad, and now you want X-millions $ more. But how can we measure your success with the first batch of $? Oh I see, you've distributed the information. That's not good enough. Any funding for the environment or other "causes" should be directed towards results generation, not soft-skill education programs.

By 2003, total federal spending on Kyoto reached $3.7 billion www.cbc.ca/news/backgroun...eline.html and still our emissions continued to increase. Imagine if that $3.7 billion was redirected from education to hard-results, such as tax-incentives to make Hybrid cars less costly versus their conventionally powered versions, or transferred Windsor to Cornwall truck traffic onto trains, or offering $ for home insulation projects (and not to cover some inspection as was done, but cover the actual work) or home/industry oil to NG conversions? How about some $ to get better diesel fuel and engines standard in Canada, like they are in Europe? An average energy-efficient home window will cost you about $800 installed. With just $1 billion, you could replace almost 1.2 million windows in Canada, reducing fuel waste and emissions.

I'm in full support of protecting and improving our environment. However, I have no time for environmental awareness and education programs that suck $ out of the government, while giving no results. Everyone in Canada who wants to know, already knows that the environment is in trouble. We don't need more think tanks or consultants. What we need is cash incentives to make the necessary infrastructual and equipment changes economically feasible and sustainable over the long term.
 
Abeja:

Do recall the Harper government cancelled Energuide and the home retrofit program on the argument that it is "difficult to measure effectivness" only to put it forward again.

AoD
 
Do recall the Harper government cancelled Energuide and the home retrofit program on the argument that it is "difficult to measure effectivness" only to put it forward again.
Click to expand...
I see nothing wrong here, they dropped the program, and then appear to be rejigging it to work to their standards.

It will be interesting after the Conservatives are gone how their record on the environment compares with the Creitien/Martin Liberals. Since Creitien's gov't signed the Kyoto agreement back in 1998, our emmissions and overall polution levels have continued to increase, and the country was never on target to meet its commitments. I hope Harper does better, but we'll see.
 
Abeja:

I see nothing wrong here, they dropped the program, and then appear to be rejigging it to work to their standards.
Click to expand...

They dropped the program on the basis that it is difficult and costly to evaluate the effectiveness, then chose to reimplement it without any comment on that very issue. Nothing wrong there? I thought that was exactly the kind of thing you're criticizing.

AoD
 
They dropped the program on the basis that it is difficult and costly to evaluate the effectiveness, then chose to reimplement it without any comment on that very issue. Nothing wrong there? I thought that was exactly the kind of thing you're criticizing.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I'm not familiar with the program. One would hope that they've relooked at the program, and reconsidered its value and decided that measurable results are attainable (i.e. we'll spend X on the program, and we know we'll gain a calculated drop in home heating related waste and polution). Don't get me wrong, I'm not Conservative apologist, my hope is that they'll make every $ count, and avoid fuzzy awareness campaigns.
 
I knew that was coming :p

Honestly though, I voted for Martin the first time, Harper the second. I voted for Harris the first time, and McGuinty the second. I vote for the candidate that I most think meets my expectations of IMO good governance.
 
How does one evaluate the "accountability measures" for something like public health care? Based on what variables? Based against what, and when?

How does one evaluate or develop accountability measures for investments in the arts? How does one objectively measure subjective experiences for rationalized funding?
 
bizorky:

Oh because the value of these things are difficult to measure quantitatively, they are probably not worth the effort anyways. Thus taking things to its' logical conclusions - they should be on the chopping block.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that's the modus operandi of the current government.

AoD
 
The first thing I look for in a government or possible government -- is priorities.

With public health-care, they usually have a list of procedures, they are generally prioritized, and below a certain priority they are not covered. In my case, I had eye-surgery (corrective) -- classified as "experimental" (even though it has been approved for 20?+ years). Even though it was corrective in nature -- it was not covered -- it is not a priority.

With all government programs you have to set priorities. Generally the top two priorities are education and medical (provincial domain).

Also, you generally have two types of government programs -- necessities -- that are covered by taxes and available to all regardless of means (education, medical care), and others which are not nessessities -- which are generally covered by fees (hopefully covering their cost -- licenses etc.).

No matter what the money is being spent on -- each should have their own "accountability measures". You have to identify what are your goals, and if the money is being spent to meet those goals, etc.

As far as arts, I would limit government involvement to libraries and museums (museams to house "national treasures" only). This can be classified under education.
I don't understand why something like ballet or opera -- would be government funded (at a professional level). This is just entertainment -- and not really a priority (IMHO). I don't want public money spent on housing them either (or hockey -- or any entertainment profession).
 
I wonder how "accountable" the process of identifying these priorities is. The "ultimately the voters are going to judge us" argument is a cop-out, because that's just avoiding the need to demostrate an evidence-based approach to governance. In addition, who are those policies accountable to, exactly?

Clearly, accountablity is something more complex than simple bean counting. Beware of simple solutions to complex issues.

AoD
 
Clearly, accountablity is something more complex than simple bean counting.
Click to expand...

Exactly! There is a fantasy that somehow everything can be reduced to the lowest levels of cost benefit analysis without recognizing that so many of the values for creating such measures are themselves bound to subjective judgments.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top