Listen to any politician when they are on TV or radio. There are always buzz words, some have been referred to here. Beyond the buzzwords there are tools that are constantly referred to but are being used as the basis for policy making. Both are fraught with dangerous inconsistencies.
Modelling
Modelling in this case isn’t the glorified coat hangers that traipse down catwalks, but rather the software packages used to predict the success or failure of potential new policies. Problem is that these models can only predict and are not conclusive. They are limited by the data that is put in to the system. Even if we assume the data is absolutely correct it still cannot take into account many variables. At the very most modelling should be used as an aid and not the ultimate authority on the potential success of a policy.
Unfortunately there have been examples of late in the areas of climate change and economic stimulus where it has been proven that dodgy modelling was used to prove a point.
Advice
Of course any individual can’t know everything about everything, Rudd has tried. He has a team of advisors like most politicians and a lot of faith is placed in them. Perhaps it’s due to their facelessness that they gain reference in parliament. Most of the general public have no idea who these public servants are or their credentials to be the PM’s number 2.
I am sceptical about the quality of their advice sometimes. Is it true? Is it the best information? Or is it something that has a half-truth and sounds good in parliament? Or is it what their employer wanted to hear, regardless of fact. Perhaps the politician referring to “advice” is just giving himself an out if it turns out to be dodgy.
Either way it can give off the impression of someone that doesn’t think for themselves, instead relies on a bunch of unknown advisors.
Modelling
Modelling in this case isn’t the glorified coat hangers that traipse down catwalks, but rather the software packages used to predict the success or failure of potential new policies. Problem is that these models can only predict and are not conclusive. They are limited by the data that is put in to the system. Even if we assume the data is absolutely correct it still cannot take into account many variables. At the very most modelling should be used as an aid and not the ultimate authority on the potential success of a policy.
Unfortunately there have been examples of late in the areas of climate change and economic stimulus where it has been proven that dodgy modelling was used to prove a point.
Advice
Of course any individual can’t know everything about everything, Rudd has tried. He has a team of advisors like most politicians and a lot of faith is placed in them. Perhaps it’s due to their facelessness that they gain reference in parliament. Most of the general public have no idea who these public servants are or their credentials to be the PM’s number 2.
I am sceptical about the quality of their advice sometimes. Is it true? Is it the best information? Or is it something that has a half-truth and sounds good in parliament? Or is it what their employer wanted to hear, regardless of fact. Perhaps the politician referring to “advice” is just giving himself an out if it turns out to be dodgy.
Either way it can give off the impression of someone that doesn’t think for themselves, instead relies on a bunch of unknown advisors.
Posts
1 comment:
On Modelling:
As a structural engineer, I use computer models every day. Their accuracy is dependant not only on the data entered, but also on the assumptions made. I can make a model that shows the bridge will stay up, even if it won't. Moreover, even if I and my colleague produce a model for the same structure, the results we each obtain from them will differ. Models are simply an aid for computation, nothing more. They themselves do not make predictions.
On Advice:
Rulers need advisers because, as you point out, they cannot know everything about everything. It does not concern or surprise me that politicians act on advice most of the time. What concerns me is when politicians appoint for themselves foolish and/or obsequious advisers. They should appoint people who will think for themselves and will not just give them the answer they want. Trouble is, it is very difficult for the public to assess whether this is happening. I rather suspect it is not.
LB
Post a Comment