ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Only if you agree that they should also have historical advisers. To put things into context for them.
UK will no longer seek 'scientific advice' in regards to their drug policy.
- Thread starter civver_764
- Start date
wrong - you right-wing Christian conservatives dreamed up the term, you define it, too. (i.e., we will not let you have the usual wiggle room).
I don't see how anyone is even mildly suprised by this. It's Democracy at its best. Goverment Ministers don't want to hear Scientists opinions they want to hear something that the general polulace wants to hear. And at this moment everyone wants to hear how horrible drugs are and anyone involved in drugs should be put in jail.
Or else as Chris Rock says they don't legalise drugs because coloured people might get wealthy.
Or else as Chris Rock says they don't legalise drugs because coloured people might get wealthy.
Firstly, this is a disgrace.
Secondly, the greater part of the blame should be laid at the feet of the previous government, which made this particular disgrace inevitable when they started sacking scientists for telling the truth. The incoming government knew it would have to do the same, or else cede ground to Labour in the ongoing battle for right-of-centre votes, and realised that a whole lot of unnecessary embarrassment could be avoided by not hiring scientists in the first place.
Simply, no honest debate can take place as long as Labour remains obsessed with winning the votes of Daily Mail readers who would otherwise default to the Tories. On this, as with any other issue where Labour tries to flank the Tories on the right, the result is to push both parties into ever more bloody-minded, reactionary stances.
Secondly, the greater part of the blame should be laid at the feet of the previous government, which made this particular disgrace inevitable when they started sacking scientists for telling the truth. The incoming government knew it would have to do the same, or else cede ground to Labour in the ongoing battle for right-of-centre votes, and realised that a whole lot of unnecessary embarrassment could be avoided by not hiring scientists in the first place.
Simply, no honest debate can take place as long as Labour remains obsessed with winning the votes of Daily Mail readers who would otherwise default to the Tories. On this, as with any other issue where Labour tries to flank the Tories on the right, the result is to push both parties into ever more bloody-minded, reactionary stances.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
And we were doing so well with actually discussing the topic.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/05/government-scientific-advice-drugs-policy
There's the guardian article. ParkCungHee, do you see anything there about the Minister seeking advice in her own way? If the opinion is that six scientists, from such diverse fields, are a waste of money and time, should there be a mandate (still) to seek highly educated advice?
There's the guardian article. ParkCungHee, do you see anything there about the Minister seeking advice in her own way? If the opinion is that six scientists, from such diverse fields, are a waste of money and time, should there be a mandate (still) to seek highly educated advice?
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I don't think there needs to be a mandate. It's useless in the first place because if the only way to get[/] a minister to listen to advice is to legally require him to hire a panel I don't think he's going to be all that attentive to what they have to say. Second, the panel is diverse but has either been rendered irrelevant or never was. I mean, I'm sure you'll agree that a Neurologist probably would be more useful in discussing policy on LSD than a dentist.
But is there really this problem of Ministers needing to be forced to have advisory boards? Isn't forming advisory boards one of the key responsibility of ministers, and the ability to form good ones one of the key distinction of good ministers? If that's true, why do we have laws that apply a one-size-fits-all solution to how the Minister is to receive advice?
But is there really this problem of Ministers needing to be forced to have advisory boards? Isn't forming advisory boards one of the key responsibility of ministers, and the ability to form good ones one of the key distinction of good ministers? If that's true, why do we have laws that apply a one-size-fits-all solution to how the Minister is to receive advice?
CivOtaku
Salmiac lover
British government = Huge Fail. That is all I have to say.
bathsheba666
Fast 'n Bulbous
I agree; some K would take our minds off it.
Drugs: the only way to take our mind off the fact that we aren't allowed to use them...
May I remind you of a certain UKK?
Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
Strictly speaking, there is no requirement that the government take its lessons from experts, either in the UK, the US, or elsewhere. They only ever do so in order to justify policies that they were planning on doing anyway.
In the US Constitution, there is no provision that mandates the use of experts on anything, and this has had some odd effects, in that laws and policies are based on their popularity and not necessarily on their efficacy. For example, the Supreme Court has had rulings that quite clearly state that the definition of insanity is not, and never will be, based on scientific understanding of mental illness, even if the scientific understanding advances beyond the legal understanding.
In the US Constitution, there is no provision that mandates the use of experts on anything, and this has had some odd effects, in that laws and policies are based on their popularity and not necessarily on their efficacy. For example, the Supreme Court has had rulings that quite clearly state that the definition of insanity is not, and never will be, based on scientific understanding of mental illness, even if the scientific understanding advances beyond the legal understanding.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The Tories draw something of a distinct between the Nanny State and the Father-Knows-Best. They don't want the working class to get their warm milk and cookies, but they're all for spankings and an early bed.I thought that Conservatives were supposed to be against the Nanny State?
Quackers
The Frog
The Conservatives are a big tent party. You can find tiny state Thatcherite libretarians in the ranks, followed by social conservatives and all along the way to "red tories" (David Cameron). The tories are too diverse to be defined by 1980s politics.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
No they just pretend to be, everything they've done since getting back in was deeply Thatcherite. There is a difference between pretending and reality you know.
Sounds like an open door to homeopathy and other quackery.
Shaihulud
Deity
People doesn't like facts finding if the results were opposite of their current view. Im sure some countries would act on the advice of scientific research, isn't the netherlands experimenting with delegislating of some drugs? Maybe UK observed the results and doesn't want to emulate it.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Similar threads
