« The long goodbye – Main – So anti-PC we discriminate »

There is a thought-provoking post at Stumbling and Mumbling on what role should empirical evidence play in policy making.

Chris Dillow's suggested answer is very little, and he makes a strong case for it. By and large, I'm swayed by it, on the basis of the argument made: if the public want one thing but the evidence says another, which should politicians go with? What if the evidence doesn't exist or is too short term to assist in assessing a long-term solution? And what about infrequent events (essentially a derivative of the former question)?

The main point is that politics isn't often about evidence. It's about values and beliefs. You only have to look at the vote on reducing the abortion limit to see this.

Update: And as if by magic, here's some nice evidence of why evidence is very often not the point.

Tags — General Interest Politics Society