Without involving any party political views (I know some will struggle with that) discuss:

It’s actually a good thing when a government changes it’s mind based on the views of the public it represents. A government who do not change their plans based on the electorate view is one which is not delivering a democratic process.

It can give the impression that the idea wasn’t properly thought out in the first place though.

Basically we have a government which will do whatever it can as long as it thinks it can get away with it. The sort of stuff which that arch non-you turner Thatcher wouldn’t have dreamt of trying. I don’t think it’s a good thing.

And “compromise” is often used as a means of achieving your real aims…….let your opponents think they have won small victories.

It’s actually a good thing when a government changes it’s mind based on the views of the public it represents.

Hmm but the public a) are thick and b) are easily led. Big problem with democracy as a concept.

Sometimes it is sometimes it isn’t. Depends on the reason for the original decision and change in decision.

Sometimes it’s a change in circumstances, a reaction/public opinion, bad decision, no clear direction.

Sometimes necessary decisions aren’t always popular.

i think u-turns arent such a bad thing, its just depressing that some of the ideas were so ill thought out in the first place

heres a list

Rape anonymity
Selling off the forests
Camerons vanity photographer on the public payroll
Gove’s plan to withdraw funding for the 450 school sport partnerships (SSPs)
Scrapping school milk for under-5s
Scrapping Bookstart
Scrapping the Financial Inclusion Fund
Cutting Housing Benefit for long-term jobseekers
Immigration target policy reduced to an “ambition”
Coastguard cuts
Circus animals ban
Reduction in BBC World Service cuts
Cutting support for disabled people in care homes
Scrapping the Office of the Chief Coroner
Automatic prison sentences for carrying a knife
50% sentence reductions for an early guilty plea
Scrapping the Youth Justice Board
Scrapping Domestic Violence Protection Orders
Plans to introduce unannounced Ofsted inspections
Watering down of Child Benefit cuts
Video games tax relief kept after all
Scrapping NHS targets
Scrapping NHS Direct
Joint Strike Fighter mess
Watering down plans to recall MPs
Rowing back on Secret Courts
Pasty Tax scrapped
Caravan Tax watered down

(sorry- it is from guido fawkes blog)

I thought they were made by Rock Shox?

The problem is the opposition (or anyone with an alternative agenda) will always attempt to use it against you and suggest you’re weak. The logical thing to do is propse an idea with some research, see the response from the people you represent and then weigh up what’s right for the country versus what the people want and move forward from there. Any government that does that is following a logical and reasonable step forward. Any government that sticks by its guns entirely or whines from opposition that someone changed their mind is living in cloud cuckoo land or just stubborn and stupid. I’d much rather a government that altered their view on every policy based on negative results than one that stuck by its guns on some, regardless of who they are.

I guess it brings in the problem of “I voted for you because… then you changed your mind” though.

It can give the impression that the idea wasn’t properly thought out in the first place though.

It can. But no government can claim perfection, and I would much rather have someone ruling the country who isn’t afraid to say when they are wrong. And do something because it’s right, rather than purely for votes.

It’s actually a good thing when a government changes it’s mind based on the views of the public it represents.

Agreed.

But only when they are genuinely the views of the public, rather than the views of a vocal few, stirred up by sympathetic media and clever publicity by interested parties.

(i.e. Pastygate)

But only when they are genuinely the views of the public, rather than the views of a vocal few, stirred up by sympathetic media and clever publicity by interested parties.

You can’t have a country-wide referendum for every possible action though.

[actually I’d be inclined to think we could fairly easily with online voting but that’s a seperate matter]

Yes, but only if the new proposals are what the public want. I’m fed up with “We’re going to cut off your heads”
*Public Uproar*
“Oh, ok, we’re only going to cut your left arm off now”
-“That’s OK then, as long as it isn’t our heads”

yes, as it lets all the opposing parties spend ages (and our money)whinging, complaining, criticising, guffawing and making it crystal clear they wouldn’t have made the same mistake. After all if they had to clearly specify what their policies were they would have had nothing to say.

Yes, but only if the new proposals are what the public want. I’m fed up with “We’re going to cut off your heads”
*Public Uproar*
“Oh, ok, we’re only going to cut your left arm off now”
-“That’s OK then, as long as it isn’t our heads”

As I said not bringing the current government or any others into it. But if the government that was (cough cough maybe) voted in decides a route is correct and tempers that by trying to limit the negatives, surely that’s reasonable. I mean switching round and going in a completely opposite direction may not make any sense and may make more damage so maybe they won’t agree with the opposition, so losing your arm may be the best that can be achieved? All these things are based on prediction so it’s going to require either adjusting based on new numbers or blind following based on old numbers, the latter being a bit daft.

You can’t have a country-wide referendum for every possible action though.

True (though other countries manage regular referendums on big issues).

But what we have at the moment is government policy being altered based on what gets good media coverage and has PR backing, rather than what the public actually say they want.

Plenty of people are upset about “pasty tax” but few seem to have any understanding about it other than “the nasty government want to increase the prices in Greggs”.

If you actually ask them if they think tax loopholes used by big businesses should be closed they say yes.

If you ask them if it is fair that the wee chip shop next door has to pay more tax than Greggs because it’s chips are served hot to eat whereas Greggs pasties just happen to be warm for other reasons then they say no.

Conclusion: people are stupid and easily led.
(which is pretty much the fundamental problem with democracy)

Are they actually U-turns? Or will they say they’ve changed their mind, believing they’ll gain more public support, then bring back the original policy under a different guise (an O-turn? or maybe a Q-turn to allow for a slight digression?).

Conclusion: people are stupid and easily led.
(which is pretty much the fundamental problem with democracy)

Easily led? Yes. Stupid? Partly, though I think you’re being a bit harsh. As you point out the media get in the way of any discussion of policies, so one day it’s big business avoiding tax, the next its pasty tax, but there’s very rarely any attempt to have an informative discussion on e.g. overall tax policies in general weighing up the pros/cons.

As a result “public opinion” actually means “media owners/editors opinion”.

You can’t have a country-wide referendum for every possible action though.

No, but we have these things called general elections which are generally seen as as referendums on a government’s record. Political parties put their policies to the people and the people decide whether to give them a mandate or not.

It is very hard to gauge “public outrage” and should not be used as a basis for the formation of government policy – although it clearly needs to be considered. It depends far too much on who has been outraged and how influential they are to the situation.

“We’ll do what we can get away with” is not a healthy attitude for a government to have and does not necessarily suggest a particularly democratic environment.

even the torygraph thinks this is the wrong decision they are actually saying hes worse than gordon!!!!!!!

Under Gordon Brown, 3m Britons paid 40p tax. By 2014 under George Osborne that number will rise to 5m.
In his Budget the Chancellor reduced the threshold at which taxpayers start paying 40p in the pound, dragging in hundreds of thousands more already hard-pressed Britons. This he did while reducing the 50p tax to 45p for those on over £150,000.

Under Gordon Brown, 3m Britons paid 40p tax. By 2014 under George Osborne that number will rise to 5m.
In his Budget the Chancellor reduced the threshold at which taxpayers start paying 40p in the pound

Why are you upset about people who fall within the edges of the richest ten percent paying more tax?

Why are you upset about people who fall within the edges of the richest ten percent paying more tax?

Sweet Jesus not this again.

Individual income != wealth.

People who pay 40% tax may be in households way below the national median income.

its the telegraph thats outraged, not me 🙂
im not one of the ‘hard-pressed’ britons earning enough to be dragged into such a ghastly tax hole 😉

its the telegraph thats outraged, not me

And apparently the Telegraph is outraged because Gordon Brown would not have done such a thing.

Yep, sounds to me like the Telegraph’s article in suggesting that Gordon Brown was better than David Cameron.

Who would have thought it.

who said he was upset he clearly says its whathe tory graph thinks.

Conclusion: people are stupid and easily led.
(which is pretty much the fundamental problem with democracy)

THIS ]as for U-turns it depends – you can on a fe things but then you look like idiots as you wanted to do something till you thought about it.

Being persuaded by facts your view is incorrect is not a bad thing [ except on STW where we never back down] Howevere declaring your wel lthought out and reasoned view as a policy to be implemented by a goverenment wto only abaondon it afew weeks later makes you look a bit stupid.

and another one….

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/30/buzzard-trapping-plan-abandoned-uturn

It depends…if New Labour had reconsidered a few policies they doggedly pushed through then I’d certainly be looking back on them with more favour than I currently do.

Certainly it’s a sign that the government are listening…

However, the Coalition appear to be a bunch of bungling idiots who have inexplicably spun by 180 degrees more times than Andrea de Cesaris. Part of the problem is that the current bunch of imbeciles are listening to the wrong lobby groups.

Government U-turns, a good thing?

Of course they are.

Without involving any party political views (I know some will struggle with that) discuss:

Awesome stuff, that lasted until the third post!! 😀

Government U-turns, a good thing?

Of course they are‘nt. Sorry, my mistake.

That’s brilliant news kimbers. Exectuting an endangered species solely so that people can kill birds for fun isn’t a good reflection of the UK.
I like climb downs, if the govt ignored popular opinion it would basically be two fingers.

It’s actually a good thing when a government changes it’s mind based on the views of the public it represents. A government who do not change their plans based on the electorate view is one which is not delivering a democratic process.

[quote]It can give the impression that the idea wasn’t properly thought out in the first place though. [/quote]

Summed up in the first 2 posts?

U-turns are good if they reflect the publics oppinion or the original idea was proved wrong. But it does beg the question, why was it policy/agenda in the first place? Politicians shouldn’t be coming up with stupid ideas no one likes or wants, they were elcted on a set of policies (which they’ll get through as quickly as possible) and principals (which will guide their policies for the next 4 years) as it’s unlikely they’ll have a detailed enough mnaifesto to keep themselves busy for the whole term.

This is where I think they’re getting it wrong, they seem to be shouting out policies that are beyond the remit they were given by the electorate (i.e. we colectively said yes to cuts and tax increaces, but not to everythign they want). So the electorate viewed year 1 as nececary spending cuts and tax rises, but since then it’s said ‘hang on a minute, we think year 1 was the limit’ but the gorernment sees it as ‘we’ve got momentum after doing what we said we would, now lets keep going’.

If I was giving them, the present government, the benefit of the doubt then I’d say that there’s probably more likelihood and scope for U-turns due to them being in a coalition.
There isn’t the certainty of policy that a single party would have and also, they know they don’t have the full support of the electorate so they need to listen more.
If I wasn’t, I’d say it appears that they’re trying their best to push through policies that the public don’t want, but will pull them back if they happen to get caught.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9302673/George-Osborne-retreats-on-charity-tax-plans-following-outcry.html

All good stuff kimbers …… it shows that the government is listening.

What they should do is come up with lots of incredibly stupid half-baked ideas, and then preform spectacular U-turns just to show the country how they are listening.

But perhaps they’re already doing that ?

Obviously a few incredibly stupid half-baked ideas will slip through because there wasn’t a sufficient outcry, but hey, what the hell…..you can’t win them all eh ?

I view these U turns with a mixture of intrigue, frustration and ultimately resignation. For most of us, I guess, this is our first experience of coalition governments and it comes at a time of extreme economic challenges and uncertainty which is likely to magnify weaknesses more than strengths.

It is intriguing to watch two unlikely bedfellows being forced to work together when their natural instincts are to do the opposite. Perhaps Cable is the one who finds this most challenging. It is also intriguing to see how the Lib Dems are faring in the difficult role of government rather than easier role of almost perpetual opposition. Not so easy is it?!!?

Coalition and compromise produces good and bad results. In some ways, the Lib Dems have done a good job at tempering more extreme Conservative views and policies, in others they have simply failed (spectacularly with AR and student fees) and in others they have been a hinderence. The budget illustrates this well. In some ways, this was a success in that despite the challenge of achieving consensus a broadly neutral economic budget was delivered. But at the same time, the manner in which this was done – the leaks, battles in public, briefing and counter-briefings were ultimately disturbing given the economic challenges that we all face. Sadly more of this to come with coalitions…

And so to the nonesense of the pastry tax etc. How utterly typical of modern society that an issue that is largely irrelevant fiscally/economically becomes headline news. That senior opposition leaders jump on the photo opportunity of eating a pasty. How a Chancellor allows himself to be distracted from real decisions to deal with the minutiae of the fiscal footnotes! These side issues are normally opportunities to address anomolies (as there are with VAT due to legacy of endless tinkering over decades) or to balance the books without offending the majority. They are the twigs in the forest, not even the trees themselves. How ridiculous then that they became headline news. How ridiculous that Chancellors give the impression of lacking backbone and authority especially in the current climate…

…and yet is it? Those who criticise GO in favour of the more robust characters of the Thatcher era (E-L?) will no doubt remember Nigel Lawson appearing on BBC QT (yes they did in those days) after the budget when VAT on F&C was introduced. When confronted by a lady owner of a F&C shop, he merely reminded her, “if she thought that I was going to fashion my economic policy around her shop, then she was sadly mistaken.” (words to that effect). Honourable backbone and honesty perhaps – but what would have happened if someone had checked his arrogance and hubris? Would the credit bubble that followed his unsustainable economic mismanagement have been avoided? Maybe the doubt that is infecting GO may in fact have some desirable consequences – who knows!!??

But as Rome burns in the background (perhaps we should be saying Athens or Madrid), it is with resignation that I watch this absurd focus on irrelevancies, spin, manipulation etc as the potential European iceberg approaches. Rather like the string quartet on the Titanic. How very British for the Diamond Jubilee weekend!

I don’t know why you are rambling on about the alleged difficulties of coalition government teamhurtmore, the ever growing list of U turns under this government appears to have very little to do with conflict within the coalition and a hell of a lot to do with huge public opposition.

And I don’t why you make the comment “That senior opposition leaders jump on the photo opportunity of eating a past” as if ‘government leaders’ wouldn’t do such a thing.

You might well contemptuously dismiss the pasty tax as a “minutiae fiscal footnote”, but squeezing every last penny out of ordinary working people whilst handing pennies back to the super-rich doesn’t go down very well with the public under the present economic conditions.

Ernie – they are all as bad as each other on the spurious phot opps as is CMD rather sad attempts to deny his background. I wish they would all focus on the bigger issues. For that I agree with your comparison to politicians in the Thatcher era ( 😉 ) albeit, as I hinted, they needed their own economic arrogance curtailed.

I suspect that the public would have hardly got to the footnotes and except where there is genuine self-interest (pasty shop, caravan owner, church restorer) etc, the attempts to address fiscal anomalies (if you are being polite) or make up the numbers with the small stuff (if you are not) would have largely gone unnoticed. But inevitably within a coalition there are more people intent on creating mischief hence the somewhat ridiculous spectacle of the details and debate regarding the substance of the budget being publicised well in advance of the budget. Since the big stuff was so well digested in advance, the news makers have to focus on the footnotes.

Of course there are difficulties reconciling the different views within the coalition. Broadly speaking I am surprised at how well, in general, they have got over them. I think Clegg and Alexander take most of the credit for that and it is despite the best attempts of Cable to sabotage as much as possible for his own self interest.

but squeezing every last penny out of ordinary working people whilst handing pennies back to the super-rich doesn’t go down very well with the public under the present economic conditions.

Well, no it doesn’t but as you said on the monarchy thread, if false accusations are made (er, this was a fiscally neutral budget and surprise, surprise as most economists know, the 50p tax rate is probably above the optimum level for maximising revenue) then Joe Public are easily misled.

p.s. I have been busy, must have missed the protesters from the pastry soc and the caravan club? They clearly mobilised public opinion (or the opinion of the media/noise makers) rather well.

I take back everything i said about economics I forgot you could get real and powerful insights from this scientific discipline

as most economists know, the 50p tax rate is probably above the optimum level for maximising revenue

so there you have it not even all of them know what it probably means 😉

That probably should be a possibly as we both now it is essentially impossible to untangle all the figures and we are left with personal views/opinions.

I agree with ernie in the respect that the current U-turns have nothing to do with it being a coalition and all to do with opposition [ charity tax from wealthy Tory donors and charity commissions for example]

government u-turns most definately a good thing

I have been busy, must have missed the protesters from the pastry soc and the caravan club?

I think you’ll find that the Tories use slightly more sophisticated means of gauging whether they should preform U-turns or not. Labour’s lead in the opinion polls is now well established and has widen since the budget. Labour did remarkably well in the local elections. The Tories don’t need the pastry soc or the caravan club to stage protests to convince them that they need to shore up their support.

Next you’ll tell me that the Tories aren’t listening !