Re~Stirred Forum

Governments do daft things. The Labour government did very many daft things. The coalition is also chalking them up.

A feature of this Government is that it has been happy to U-Turn, examples in the last couple of days include charity tax, pasty tax and static caravans. Other examples we've seen are the Forestry Commision privatisation (actually not a bad policy but badly presented), OFSTED no notice inspections, the partial retreat on child benefit cuts and I'm sure there are others.

So is a U-Turn:

- A good thing. The best thing to do when you've made a mistake is to admit it and make it right ASAP. Put it down as a learning experience, hammer home the point that it proves you listen, show humility and just move on.
- Political death. It makes you look weak, and appears as if (or even proves) that policy ideas aren't stress tested before being-brain farted out. You shouldn't do them - never apologise, never explain.

Frequency Guy, the problem is frequency. Currently the coalition is getting all Pete Burns with the amount of U-turns being executed.

Agree about the frequency thing. A few can look like considered changes of heart/ view. A lot can look like a lack of principles/ vision.

The obvious thing is to suggest that U turns demonstrate badly thought out policy that does not take all relevant views into account before making them. That old word concensus seems absent in such matters. The thing that has always pissed me off about polar opposite party politics, is that if party X has a clear and distinct policy of say how schools should be run, party Y totally disagrees, and when party Y comes to power it reverses that policy and sets back potential years of work/progress and creates so much damage. The pasty tax is small fry in this problem.

Its going to crash and burn.

Barnardhobbit, thread, is it tax on the pasty or about U- turns?

On U Turns, it is bad if they are frequent as LiKW notes, as it indicates poor consultation and testing of the risks involved in the policy and having considered any weakness in the ability to implement the policy.

It is a good thing on occasions to not implement a policy if you realise it will not work in reality or is not wanted by the people, such as the poll tax, which did have some equitable point in making everyone pay, but should have not included those that did not have the means to pay.

If it is in relation to the pasty tax, then I am not a tax specialist.

yes.


NO

U-turns tend to follow several weeks/months of the govt vigourously defending their original policy.
I think thats the bit that sticks in peoples mind and why the public view u-turns badly regardless of whether they agree.

The public and media dont like the 'pain' they have been forced to go through by being in an argument with someone who has been insisting for the last month that the emperors clothes are there , are a very fetching colour, are well made , are good value ......

frequency breeds greater cynicism for the next batch of policy anouncements - because people want to be smart and dont want to expend the energy on having to take 'x' seriously when theres an increasing likelihood 'X' will be dust next month.
why should neutral journos expend time on getting to grips with a policy argument when they can play it safe and comment on splits etc ?

frequency also breeds apratchik fatigue - increasingly ministers ,outriders, supporters etc will get the experience of being hung out to dry by Dave and his chums and having to 'take one for the team', only for the policy to be reversed the following week.
Pretty soon when the call to arms goes up you find there's only Louise Mensch , Jacob Reece Mog and Ed davey willing to climb out of the trench.

said this before guy the u-turns are because of Dave's style of govt and because the Tories ducked tough strategic decisions in opposition - the first wave was policy being resisted by interest groups ,the next wave is likely to be driven by tory backbenchers unwilling to play ball. With the slow rumble of the NHS clusterfuck getting louder and eventually breaking in early - mid 2013 .

Weirdly, I think ' Austerity' is a set of policies the govt can u-turn on without it damaging them too much.

Oh and in terms of Communications and media strategy its really bad news because governance is impossible enough, once you start having to deal with numerous unravelling policies it starts eating up your media resources and tips you toward defence and away from offence (inviting more attacks )and provides space for the opposition to pile in and keep you making press releases (noticed how Labour is increasingly looking sharper in the media agenda now with instant rebuttals and attacks that keep the govt hunkered down ?).


I spoke to Stewart Wood (part of ED milibands team) a couple of months ago who commented on the noticeable shift in journalists increasingly wanting to get hold of him for comment etc.

The one U-turn we are all waiting for is the one that stops us digging a bigger and bigger recession for ourselves. Since the ConDems came to power any sign of a recovery has been snuffed out as a direct result of the axe taken to public services. It doesn't take a Keynes to realise that slashing public expenditure has an impact on jobs and benefits. A bigger welfare bill makes our deficit bigger rather smaller.
Personally, I am starting to think it is a good idea to have Tory in charge once every 20 years or so as a reminder of just how much violence, misery and injustice follows on from their miserable ideology. But I am not sure if the country can afford to pay the bill.

So, aside from the obvious (i.e. just get it right first time) does all that mean you favour the Thatcher and Brown approach? ('Not for turning' and 'Never apologise, never explain')

The UK political cycle ensures it: Labour tax and spend - loads of people have a grand time. Economic law pops the bubble. Tories do deeply unpopular things to steady the ship. Loads of people have a bad time (and blame the Tories). Foundations are steadied. And loop.

I

Guido has produced a full list of u-turns.

http://order-order.com/2012/05/29/the-full-u-turn-list/

Some of this, such as the u-turn on 'selling off' the forests or the numerous u-turns on the NHS which are not listed here, were weak leadership. Others, such as the pasty tax, the charity cap and the child benefit cuts, were just badly thought through in the first place.

theres some merit in that approach - people still think of thatcher as 'not for turning' yet her govts managed quite a few - I think the key is that the amount and impact was manageable .

like LIKW said its the frequency of u-turns and policy gaffes with this govt that's the problem - thats why its a sign of weakness and incompetence. what i was getting at was your notion of u-turns as a positive (I understand this might not be your actual view) - I think they are almost always corrosive to govt's for the reasons I put forward .



I'd say what the political cycle tends to give us is that govts of whatever hue come in on a 'cut / hold public spending' mandate and manage this for about 2 years then they revert to spending.
I think Tories call it 'statecraft'

I'm a Tory and I call it pathetic.

Grossly simple take - I remember the Barber and Lawson boom/bust years for starters.

so which is going to be the u-turn for after half term ,maybe the skip tax ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18293210




some of the background




http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/

I think it's a bit of both.
Obviously a government changing it's mind when it has devised a dreadful policy is always welcome. Changing a plan that was clearly a mistake is always better. But the ones so far have been marginal, and in the case of charitable donations the government should have probably stuck to their guns.

However the government stubbornly refused to change it's disastrous NHS policy, so the idea that this government is weak or easy to pressure is laughable. Over small questions they make concessions to appear reasonable. Over the big ones however they have blundered the country headlong into oblivion.

As has been said, its poorly thought out policies that people are dead against and so the government has no choice but to change them. Such a pity that far too many people saw the media campaign that stated that benefit claimants were going to be robbed and voted for this bunch of greedy rich people!! Does no-one read the manifesto before an election?
Does no-one object to the things they have in store for the poorer people who are taking the brunt of their greedy policies? Does no-one realise they are giving money and money making opportunities to their mates such as ALREADY selling them NHS services!!

Exactly glynisrose, privatise , then give contracts to friends in the private sector, to be paid from our taxes.
The latest is council tax on a "granny annex" is going to be abolished, ? Labour are confused by this , as labour already abolished the extra council tax in the late 90's dah/doh

Uturns are fine where evidence shows an original policy wrong.

What we have seen here is a combination of policies made in haste and a budget now the worst in history. The budget can not be claimed to have been made in haste and yet three months on it still is ongoing.

People actually like strong government and a leader who may be wrong but strong. See Blair and Thatcher.

What people do not like is a sense of weakness and swaying in the wind we see now. this time reminds me of Major and whilst I think the govt will last until 2015, I am not sure.

Hunt will have to go and this is despite cameron saying he will stay, that will just heap it all on further,