Simply Ignore the Scientific Concensus If it Loses You Votes?

News that Welsh farmers are also demanding a badger cull  (as is already the case in sections of England) to 'protect' their dairy herds from bovine Tuberculosis (bTB), in spite of the mass of evidence of its ineffectiveness (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45588403) seems to be at one with a current political trend (whether it concerns air pollution, climate change, vaccination rates or food safety et cetera). It seems to me that there is an increasing tendency by politicians (with their focus on the next election) to either ignore what their or independent scientists tell them if a powerful lobby group (car manufactures, farmers, fishermen, frackers, miners, oil companies et cetera) with its associated votes or finances is set on the opposite action (in the case of badgers and bTB, most experts working in the area believe that the cull has actually done nothing to reduce the actual incidence of disease in dairy herds and may, in deed, have had detrimental effects). Politicians seem to adopt one of two strategies namely a) find a minority dissenting voice in science and amplify it or b) more subtly, use a measure that obscures the lack of effect (most of the public will not look too closely).