Since Monday’s post appeared a number of people have asked me to clarify what I meant by the Government failing to make critics pay for constructing even the oddest arguments against their reforms. What am I suggesting? What should Governments, or any other major institution do when they are involved in an argument with opponents?
It seems to me that a proper argument is a bit like a tennis match. One side of the argument serves and the other side replies. The server returns again and so on until one side plays a better shot. The server then resumes. Sometimes the receiver will win the next serve depending on how quick, or how skilled, they are.
