Evidence first, policy second

One of the reasons we’re so out of step with the modern world is that we do think that evidence first, policy second, is a useful manner of approaching that difficult task of governance. It’s possible that we’re the last people standing who do still think that the way to order things.

Take The Guardian:

Landlords accused of ‘making up stories’ in drive to change UK tax rules

Lobbyist who warned of landlord ‘exodus’ found to have acknowledged to allies sector is actually growing

We are then presented with evidence that more people are living in rental accommodation so what exodus could there possibly be? Thus is the idea that the taxation of landlords be reduced refuted.

Note, when less government - either revenue or power or interference - is suggested then the number of landlords is said to be increasing.

In the same issue of the same newspaper we also have:

Or they may sell up: there is evidence of landlords exiting the buy-to-let market, which may reduce the stock of rental properties available.

But this article isn’t talking about reductions in the taxation of landlords. This one is talking about an expansion of the state housing sector, about more spending - and power and influence - of the state over how and where people live.

Presumably this is something quantum. When the desired policy is no diminishment of the state then the number of landlords is increasing. When it’s convenient to the argument in favour of more state then the number of landlords is decreasing. A nice example of that policy-based evidence making performance art.

We can’t help but insist - however mansplaining, colonialist or even just plain evil that makes us - that better policy is going to be crafted by agreeing upon the facts first then allow them to inform the policy rather than the other way around.

Yes, yes, this is absurdly 20th century of us, possibly even 19th, but we do assure that it’s true. Evidence first, policy second.