Cyclone Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 It's been apparent from the start, and a long succession of badly chosen policies producing the poor results predicted has confirmed this. However, not all politicians act this way - the current US administration has listened closely to its scientific and other advisors; many governments across Europe have a better track record, even previous governments in the UK have had more favourable relations with their advisory panels. When ministers do listen to their advisors and their decisions produce good results, it makes them look good. Makes me wonder why New Labour are just so thoroughly bad? How can we prevent this from happening in the future? Do you think we could predict how a future government will fare before electing them? They're so bad at it because they are under the impression that governing requires them to act as a super parent to every adult in the nation and to impose their own morality on society. They try to appear to be doing the right thing by getting scientific advice, but when it contradicts their own opinions on how other people should be forced to behave they ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Deleted by me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 The last time I recall something similar was Dr David Kelly and the WMD in Iraq, which unfortunately didn't tally with the desire to go to war. The time before that was with BSE being passed into the human food chain, which unfortunately didn't tally with the governments assertion that british beef was perfectly safe. Governments, both current and past, have never really been fit for purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 They're so bad at it because they are under the impression that governing requires them to act as a super parent to every adult in the nation and to impose their own morality on society. They try to appear to be doing the right thing by getting scientific advice, but when it contradicts their own opinions on how other people should be forced to behave they ignore it. Nail ... head ... hit ... What people want to do in the privacy of their own existence, providing it doesn't harm others, should be of no concern to government. Once upon a time drugs were legal, but homosexual sex was illegal. Perhaps it's not just coincidence that as the arguments that the "evils" of the latter were shown to be nonsense, the bigots turned their attention to other people's behaviours that they disapproved of. In the Horizon programme that I linked to earlier, Prof David Nutt gave an indication of what the future of drugs might be like. The presenter John Marsden experiments with a designer drug being developed that hopes to replicate all the benefits of alcohol without the dangers. It was administered by Prof Nutt, who then administered an antidote drug which immediately removed all traces. So it could be possible to take drug A and feel happy, and then take drug B to remove the effects and drive to work. Could this drug replace alcohol in the future? Well I have never smoked or taken drugs, but have never had the urge to ban others from doing so unless it harms others. I suspect such a perfect designer drug as that shown in the Horizon programme would never be politically acceptable whilst we have a primitive attitude to disapproval of what others do simply because we don't want to do it ourselves. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Prof Nutt's appearance in this programme led to his sacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 From a Parliamentary Report titled Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making which was published more than three years ago, a group of MP's recommended that ministers: should certainly not seek selectively to pick pieces of evidence which support an already agreed policy, or even commission research in order to produce a justification for policy: so-called "policy-based evidence making". Where there is an absence of evidence, or even when the Government is knowingly contradicting the evidence—maybe for very good reason—this should be openly acknowledged. Policy-based evidence making? Ha ha. From the same report: Evidence based policy making has been a watchword of this Government and is widely seen as representing best practice. However, in reality policies are developed on the basis of a myriad of factors, only one of which constitutes evidence in its scientific sense. We have argued that the phrase ‘evidence based policy’ is misleading and that the Government should therefore desist from seeking to claim that all its policies are evidence based. ROTFLMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianthedog Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 What's all the fuss about? This guy was paid to advise. An advisor who publicly criticises the government can't really expect anything else can he? Remember Mrs Thatcher's words to Norman Fowler - 'Advisors advise, ministers decide.' Absolutely. But shouldn't the public be allowed to know what the advice was, and the recommendation of said advisor? The public is smart enough to weigh up the evidence and form their own opinions on whether or not the minister in question was correct with their call. To sack an advisor for voicing his concerns over something he clearly feels passionate about is just censorship; regardless of whether or not the advisor has overstepped the remit of his role. If the whole process of advisors was more public then it would allow advisors a limited platform, whilst encouraging the ministers to consider the implications of reforms they put through - or fail to put through, as the case may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Absolutely. But shouldn't the public be allowed to know what the advice was, and the recommendation of said advisor? The public is smart enough to weigh up the evidence and form their own opinions on whether or not the minister in question was correct with their call. To sack an advisor for voicing his concerns over something he clearly feels passionate about is just censorship; regardless of whether or not the advisor has overstepped the remit of his role. If the whole process of advisors was more public then it would allow advisors a limited platform, whilst encouraging the ministers to consider the implications of reforms they put through - or fail to put through, as the case may be. the public knew the advice months ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianthedog Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 the public knew the advice months ago But not the opinion - that's my point. If a factual submission was made, along with the considered opinion of an expert (such as what was given that brought about his sacking) then it leaves us as well informed as the ministers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 But not the opinion - that's my point. If a factual submission was made, along with the considered opinion of an expert (such as what was given that brought about his sacking) then it leaves us as well informed as the ministers. the advice was the opinion having seen some of the damage cannabis causes i think the reclassification is a good thing and would be quite happy for cannabis dealers to be hung by anything other than their necks from the nearest lamp post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 the advice was the opinion having seen some of the damage cannabis causes i think the reclassification is a good thing and would be quite happy for cannabis dealers to be hung by anything other than their necks from the nearest lamp post. Because cannabis "causes schizophrenia"? Although as cannabis usage has risen, schizophrenia cases have declined? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.