Arguing about the "benefits" or otherwise of social policies and practices, under the guise of science, is nonsensical and futile.

People have different values, so what benefits one might hurt another.

Yuyutsu,

Scientific evaluation can highlight both the positive and negative outcomes, and provide a comprehensive view that policymakers can use to balance different interests and values.

By understanding the varied impacts of policies, governments and organisations can make more informed decisions that strive to maximise benefits while minimising harm. This ensures that policies are not just ideologically sound but also practically effective.

Data and research provide a common ground to evaluate the effectiveness of policies objectively, which helps in creating policies that consider different perspectives and work towards the common good.

Thanks everyone
I think I understand a bit more now.
Part of the reason I described conservatism the way I did is the overwhelming "loudness" of the far right who really dont seem to represent the majority of people who identify as conservative.
I still mostly dont agree with conservatives but I think I understand a bit better.
Thanks again people of OLO and thanks Graham for enabling us to debate and talk about these important subjects.

John Daysh,

I was never talking about the introduction of welfare in general. There is no doubt that welfare payments like unemployment benefits, widows pensions and aged pensions were all necessary and reasonably successful. Indeed I'd argue that these were and are an integral part of conservativism in its aims to facilitate a functioning, fair society.

Equally I don't deny that in the case of single motherhood a need could and was identified by researchers. That wasn't my point. Having identified the need, the issue was the solution. And the solution offered was to chuck money at it. Sure that drags some out of abject poverty into mere poverty, but it wasn't a long term solution. And it wasn't a long term solution because it failed to understand the societal causes of the problem.

I guess its possible to claim that our current settings as regards some families being wholly reliant on the state for their very existence is a success. But the conservative wouldn't so argue. We see that these families are, on average, dysfunctional and that the children that are raised in these families are heavily disadvantaged and perpetuate the dysfunction. Society is the worse for making single parenthood a viable economic choice.

"it’s a shame you seemed willing to take Chesterton's at face value..."

Rather condescending. Its a shame that you look at a snippet of Chesterton and decide you don't like his politics and therefore reject his insights. Face value? I'd venture that I've read most of his rather enormous output and pondered on it over the decades. That you don't like the conclusions isn't the same as saying those conclusions are invalid.

"Part of the reason I described conservatism the way I did is the overwhelming "loudness" of the far right ...."

We're aren't far right.

Just right so far.

Evidence-based facts can always prove you wrong.