On consultations and referenda

The big local news is the government's U-turn on selling part of the forests. In the House Our Glorious Leader responded to putdowns with

"I would have thought the whole point about a consultation is that you put forward some proposals, you listen to the answer and then you make a decision. I know it is a totally alien concept but what is so complicated about that?"

Now call me silly but for me a consultation runs along the lines of "We're planning on doing this, what do you think?". We certainly got the first part, but does anyone recall the second? Unless, of course, what Mr Cameron meant was that it wasn't a public consultation. If that's the case is the plan now being halted because of what these other people said and has nothing to do with the half-million strong petition from the public?


Now this leads me on to referenda something that was being proposed should the government have decided to press on with this sale. What's important is how any question is worded; consider the difference between-

Should the government retain management of forests?

and

Should the government sell part of the forests?

At a basic level the results would appear to be the same either they can or can't; what difference does the phrasing make? Well going by public opinion the first question would result in an overall "Yes" and the second a "No" and that makes a big difference psychologically.

"Yes" is a positive action vote; "No" is a negative no-action vote. In the first case with a "Yes" response the logically action would be no-action - the government simply does nothing. However such a positive response dictates that something be done (Yes denotes action); in this case the expectation would be that legislation be passed that would make it more difficult for this type of proposal to undertaken in the future. For the second posed question with a "No" response the government can simply do nothing and there's no expectation on them for any action.

Where does this lead? Once action is taken it's difficult to switch that over to inaction. Again though the "Yes" vote to the first question in reality requires nothing to be done the association with action exists as such it's difficult to ask the question again. For the second "No" response question it's a switch from inaction to action which is easier and thus the question can be asked again and again until the 'correct' result is reached.

Now in terms of phrasing the natural response is to do so such that a response of "Yes" results in action and "No" in inaction, but it's worth looking closer at any questions that may be phrased. The result you don't want should always be tied to a "No" response.

So for the government who wants to take action- Sell our forests/schools/hospitals?

For the opposition- Save our forests/schools/hospitals?