New Skeptics Wiki for the UK 2010 election

[ManOrAstroman]

Writer and blogger Richard Wilson, who authored the book 'Don't Get Fooled Again : A Skeptic's Guide To Life' has launched a new site and wiki called 'Skeptical Voter'. Here is a link to the front page

http://www.skeptical-voter.org/

The site has been created for the UK 2010 general election, and the wiki aims to be a useful resource for tracking MPs and their level of commitment to evidence-based policy-making. Here is a link to the wiki,

http://skeptical-voter.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

For anyone who may be interested, the site needs as much help as possible! Here is the press release for the new site:

http://richardwilsonauthor.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/skeptical-voter-launches-today/

Politicians to be asked for evidence of their commitment to evidence

New Skeptical Voter project hopes to hold MPs and candidates views on evidence-based policy to account

Author and campaigner Richard Wilson today launched a new campaign to hold to account the views of MPs and candidates standing at the next General Election with regard to 'evidence-based policy'. 'Skeptical Voter' is an apolitical grassroots project by the 'skeptic' community, those who have a scientific worldview who believe that evidence should be at the centre of all public policy making. The Skeptical Voter website intends to identify which parliamentary candidates embrace the use of evidence as a means to inform their decisions and which prefer to obfuscate, ignore or suppress the evidence for political convenience.

Today sees the launch of phase one of their plan, Richard is asking for contributions to a collaborative 'wiki' on the website and for suggestions for questions to ask to MPs, the best of which will be put into a survey that will be sent to all 2010 General Election candidates.

Speaking about the project, Richard said, "It's based on two principles and a hypothesis: The first principle is that everyone has a right to know where their MP stands on things like the role of scientific advisors, spending NHS cash on so-called 'alternative' treatments like homeopathy and the role of the libel laws in scientific discussion. The second principle is that MPs who stand on the wrong side of these issues ought to be held to account. Our hypothesis is that there are enough of us out there to make a splash if we get organised."

Those wishing to get involved, or find out more information can go to the Skeptical Voter website at http://www.skeptical-voter.org

 

[WolfAU]

An absolutely wonderful idea, though this is needed alot less in Australia, I would definately like to see a similar idea in Australia (to keep it that way), and in alot of other countries in the West, though I think in America, it would do little, it may be enough to get a bit more sense into these discussions.

I also love the way they address it, they're not going by the persons religious affiliations, but by WHY they believe, and how much they value evidence and science, which turns it less into an anti-religion thing, also I suspect quite a few religious people would be in favour of their leaders being more level headed.

 

[ManOrAstroman]

The core issues are scientific research and healthcare, and especially Alternative Medicine.

Politicians are too quick to support the latest quack remedy and they need to be held accountable.

The notorious British MP David Tredinnick goes one step further, and has in the past asserted that the phases of the moon influences the number of accidents and stops blood from clotting!

The point of the project is to provide a database for informed voters, journalists and bloggers to quickly assess an MP's commitment to science, or pseudoscience. It's also possible that MPs themselves might stumble on the Wiki, and learn to be a bit more careful about what they are seen to support in the future.

 

[dr_esteban]

An absolutely wonderful idea, though this is needed alot less in Australia, I would definately like to see a similar idea in Australia (to keep it that way), and in alot of other countries in the West, though I think in America, it would do little, it may be enough to get a bit more sense into these discussions.

I also love the way they address it, they're not going by the persons religious affiliations, but by WHY they believe, and how much they value evidence and science, which turns it less into an anti-religion thing, also I suspect quite a few religious people would be in favour of their leaders being more level headed.

Why do you view Australia as needing it less than the UK?