tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post8812784859359778824..comments2024-01-23T16:53:02.428+00:00Comments on Mark Thompson: The public did *not* reject proportional representation last yearMark Thompsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-48708083386355233832012-04-24T18:37:14.354+01:002012-04-24T18:37:14.354+01:00Ah, Mr Thompson, I can see your mistake here, you&...Ah, Mr Thompson, I can see your mistake here, you're trying to argue against powerful propaganda on the basis of logic, consistency, facts and so on. You may have noticed that is not how things work. <br /><br />I suspect that politicians start off with the easiest to understand argument which has some popular appeal (even if it is deeply flawed and you'd have to be an idiot to believe it) and then work backwards from that and try and use that argument in favour of whatever they want to do.<br /><br />Compare and contrast:<br /><br />1. England is the [second] most densely populated country in Europe. 30,000 acres of greenbelt were lost under New Labour. Net immigration is hundreds of thousands of people a year.<br /><br />2. Less than 10% of England by surface area is developed, and nearly half of the developed bit is not concreted over, i.e. it's gardens or school playing fields. Under new Labour, maybe 0.01% of available agricultural land was built on. The UK population increases on average by 1% or so a year.<br /><br />The first argument - while probably factually correct - has people punching the air with rage and drawing all sorts of wrong conclusions. The second argument is a bit boring and doesn't really give us any steer as to what 'should' be done (probably nothing, leave well alone is usually the answer).Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-73579606428843240372012-04-23T13:27:41.863+01:002012-04-23T13:27:41.863+01:00What you say is quite true, of course.
But equall...What you say is quite true, of course.<br /><br />But equally if it was right to hold a referendum on changing the voting system for the Commons, how can it be right to introduce a new voting system for the Lords without a refererendum?<br /><br />Nick Clegg's line seems to be that it's not necessary because the proposals aren't controversial. I think he's going to have to come up with a better argument than that...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com