Ecological Political Parties, Proving Their Policies (Information, Opinion)
Friday 19th May 2023
I recently had a meeting with members of a political party that are using the ideology of being ecological as their main feature. I discussed various aspects of their work and why they are 'ecological'. The party members answered a variety of questions, some listed here. When asked about how the Covid-19 pandemic was dealt with they stated they were very happy with the lockdowns, the 'vaccine' and the way in which the pandemic was dealt with locally and globally. I asked about the war in Ukraine and what they felt about it. The response was that everything was Russia's fault and that Europe and America must support Ukraine.
The reason for the above questions was that gaining someone's opinion on large scale and very important issues can give an overall impression of how the person lives their life, their strategy for finding conclusions and their life ethos. In this case I found that there were conclusions that were complete and would not be changed or altered even if new evidence contradicted their conclusion. However, I felt that the members I was talking to honestly believed they were trying to do something positive for the people. Which in itself can be a positive thing.
However, I asked about how they qualify their ecological findings. How do they know they are correct when it comes to a policy that relies heavily on ecological principles! Unfortunately they admitted that they have no way of qualifying or quantifying their ecological policies.
This then brings me to the real point of this article. At a time when trust in politics is at an all time low, politicians are facing more of a struggle in convincing the public that their policies are correct and will be carried out as promised.
When authoritative government departments are mostly funded directly by those who are to be controlled, it is becoming evident that there could easily be a conflict of interest. Coupled with the fact that the industry being controlled and the government departments meant to be controlling them interchange staff regularly, the public are bound to ask questions.
From our point of view there must be a way of funding, even in its present state, while proving that there is no conflict of interest or desire to be lenient etc. In our own contracts, CDMS makes it very clear that clients contracting our services will agree that there will be absolutely no interference with the work undertaken or the conclusions found. Using CDMS or not using CDMS can speak volumes as to the nature of the organisation refusing to work with those terms and conditions. An example is given below using the political party mentioned above.
CDMS offers its services to the political party. They read through and agree with the contract. CDMS works on the matter in hand and the conclusions are not what the political party were hoping for. But, this means the political party can look at what they had proposed and change their policy to comply with our scientific report. The other alternative is to change nothing and continue. But, CDMS will have completed the work in a scientific way, using and following the evidence, in a way that will be honest and with no bias. The party agreed to the contract, so they have no alternative but to receive our report no matter what it may state.
The above example allows the public to realise that a client of ours seeks us out especially because we take our fees from them, with them knowing we will only report correct and actual findings based on the evidence.