Excellent.

Agree with every word.

When will they understand that ANY policy designed to engineer society or alter individual behaviour is unacceptable.

The election to the Tory benches of Nadine “smear Tim Ireland” Dorries … left me nonplussed, to say the least.

Damn that pesky democracy eh?

Even more amusing with the politicians jumping to obvious conclusions with causal statistics when the media seem to be taken the opposite step in dealing with the “Brushing Teeth” story.

Perhaps the universe has a natural balance when it comes to reporting such things

“Damn that pesky democracy eh?”

We musn’t criticise the democratically elected? I think you’ll find the opposite is true.

Just because someone is elected it doesn’t follow they’ll be predisposed to evidence based policy making, sometimes just the opposite. What’s your point?

When will they understand that ANY policy designed to engineer society or alter individual behaviour is unacceptable.

Well, that’ll simplify the legislative program…

Step 1: Repeal all existing laws.
Step 2: Go home.

Good article. The output of IDS’ Centre for Sociopathic Injustice (for such was the originator of the marriage tax break) is one of the main things that both Lib Dems within the coalition and lefties outside it should be campaigning against, in my opinion. I’m not sure yet what forms the campaign can take – others will be better at that bit. But if we can get some actual initiatives going, I reckon there are plenty of people happy to be channelled into activities. This is something that, as you hint, we can get the sceptic community involved in because it appears to be such a clear abuse of statistics. May I humbly offer up my own analogy of the cargo cult to describe the Tories’ “thinking” in this area:

http://fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/tax-before-marriage/

Actually, there are Tories who are embarrassed by the degree of policy-based evidence making on this subject, and they’d probably be silently cheering on any co-operative campaign.

Like the Methodrone ban, turns out Louis Wainwright and and Nicholas Smit hadn’t touched it, even this wasd apparently what killed them

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10184803.stm

Well I’d be happy for less meddling by the state in private life, but sadly, it does work, not for the advantage of the masses, however. My biggest bugbear is tax credits, (no surprises there), wages could far easily be increased to a basic national standard by increasing the minimum wage. Instead people have to give-out more information to the state and are compelled to do so in order to receive the benefits. Moreover, the masses have to pay, through taxation, for employers who will not pay a decent wage, the many subsidize the poor, and that’s why the state interferes, it usually benefits the financial elite and it’s a form of control over the many.

@ steveb

wages could far easily be increased to a basic national standard by increasing the minimum wage.

I’m afraid, Steve, that would come under……..err……….meddling.

Just heard the latest………

Cameron response to Bradford murders.

Legalise smack so women don’t have to prostitute themseves to feed their drug usage?

No.

Decriminalise street prostitution so the women can work more safely?

No.

Let’s clamp down on kerb crawlers.

Yes. That’ll solve it.

WTF

Mention of David Nutt gives me an excuse to point out that neither of the two lads who police claimed had died as a result of taking mephodrone had actually touched the stuff:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7139387.ece

“When will they understand that ANY policy designed to engineer society or alter individual behaviour is unacceptable”

Really? No Government policy should aim to alter individual behaviour? Are you quite sure that’s what you mean?

Oops – Dave beat me to it. Still, a point worth making twice.

Pagar at leat your not a libertarian hypocrite
Unlike tory shatterface

Thank you Dave and Shatterface, I agree its worth mentioning twice.

Mephedrone is not particularly dangerous, and I am sad to see further people’s tragic death further complicated by association.

Evidence is not important and rarely has been in government, I just wish people were more honest and admitted as such.

“My name is David Laws, and I will do whatever is politically advantageous, don’t pretend you want evidence you slags, I’ll do what you know is right.”

“When will they understand that ANY policy designed to engineer society or alter individual behaviour is unacceptable.”

So you will not be in favour of bribing people to get married?

And you will be against prison as well then?

You pretend libertarians do talk tosh.

‘Pagar at leat your not a libertarian hypocrite
Unlike tory shatterface’

I wouldn’t expect anything better from someone who’s pseudonym is an ad hom but you really are a tiresome little shit.

Why not back that ‘tory’ up with evidence seeing that this thread is actually *about* evidence?

9
I actually said less meddling.

“The evidence would thus suggest that we do not meddle in family structures as both family structures and child development are dependent on other variables”.

As any first year psychology undergraduate could tell you. Apart from the extremes of abuse and neglect there is no evidence that parents/teachers/the government/”nurture” genreally make any measurable difference to developmental outcomes. In general the children of the stupid and apathetic do badly in life, the children of the bright and ambitious do well. Didn’t of course stop the left wingers who took over the welfare state from “intervening” to engineer some sort of egalitarian wet dream with everything from the sublime (skewing the benefits system towards single parents) to the ridiculous (“advising” parents what to put in their kids lunch boxes).
You can’t have it both ways, defending left wing interventions, howerver flawed, as being driven by good intentions but then complaining when the right do the same. It’s payback time.

19
All state intervention in capitalist societies serves the interests of the financial elite whether or not it’s labelled ‘left or right’.
Of course the children living in poverty and in a single-parent household are going to be at a disadvantage to chldren living in an affluent environment.
If you really believe that this is nothing more than nature you need to read the works of Gregor Mendel.

19

Evidence please, or I shall ignore you.

@19

In general the children of the stupid and apathetic do badly in life, the children of the bright and ambitious do well.

So – if that utter nonsense is what you really believe – what is your solution? Sterilisation of the “stupid and apathetic”?

Ah, but previously there was this gem:

As any first year psychology undergraduate could tell you.

As any first year pysch student is still in thrall to Freud’n'Jung and pseudoscienctific “research” I can only assume you are a clever parody of yourself