Political U Turns

[spen666]

As speculation mounts that Starmer will do a u turn over the benefits reform bill, it is being portrayed as
"yet another u turn"
"weak leadership"
"not in control" etc etc
Without wanting to descend into the specifics of this or any other politicians u turns, surely its the sign of a good leader if they realise they have proposed a wrong course of action and changed direction to a course of action they decide is better
We (media & public) seem to put politicians in a position where they are seen as weak and indecisive if they do change their minds. This inevitably leads to politicians continuing a course of action that everyone realises is wrong. Dogmatic adhesion to a decision is not a strength, but a weakness.

For example it was Margaret Thatcher's dogmatic refusal to do a u turn on the poll tax that lead to her down fall. Strength is sometimes in standing up and accepting you had got it wrong and acting to correct your mistakes

 

[CXRAndy]

It also shows lack of research, taking in opinions that might not align with his

 

[spen666]

It also shows lack of research, taking in opinions that might not align with his

It may do - but surely better to u turn when the mistake is realised than to be bloody minded and continue on with path that is now not the optimal one.

A good leader has an open mind and changes it in appropriate circumstances

 

[Xipe Totec]

I wonder if it's more a consequence of political leaders relying heavily on shadowy, creepy little background wonks such as McSweeney or Cummings, rather than having ideas of their own that they might actually have some level of genuine belief & confidence in.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

As speculation mounts that Starmer will do a u turn over the benefits reform bill, it is being portrayed as
"yet another u turn"
"weak leadership"
"not in control" etc etc
Without wanting to descend into the specifics of this or any other politicians u turns, surely its the sign of a good leader if they realise they have proposed a wrong course of action and changed direction to a course of action they decide is better
We (media & public) seem to put politicians in a position where they are seen as weak and indecisive if they do change their minds. This inevitably leads to politicians continuing a course of action that everyone realises is wrong. Dogmatic adhesion to a decision is not a strength, but a weakness.

For example it was Margaret Thatcher's dogmatic refusal to do a u turn on the poll tax that lead to her down fall. Strength is sometimes in standing up and accepting you had got it wrong and acting to correct your mistakes

I would certainly agree, and I think I have said on other threads that this has spilled out into all walks of life, particularly in people doubling down on bad decisions, or worse when it does come to pass that an individual or an institution has got something wrong, seeking a scapegoat or flatly denying any responsibility.

I genuinely don't understand it, to admit you are wrong is the easiest thing to do, if you do it with genuine humility and insight into your error, most people will accept it. To actually double down, lie, deny, obfuscate etc. just drags people into a spiral of deception which is far harder to get out of, probably far more stressful, and nearly always ends up with you getting found out!

 

[Psamathe]

surely its the sign of a good leader if they realise they have proposed a wrong course of action and changed direction to a course of action they decide is better

Probably depends on the reason for the U-turn. If because they realise it's a bad idea or that there are better ways then U-turn a good thing. But if it's because despite insisting you're right, despite pushing ahead anyway ignoring all those around you, if U-turn is then because you realise you're going to lose then just shows daftness.

ie A policy is a duff idea but leader pushes, insists, ignores the rest of the world until at the last minute realises that push ahead and it's not going to happen or U-turn and it's not going to happen. Either way it's not going to happen so choice becomes it not happening with and embarrassing defeat or it not happening without an embarassing defeat - then the U-turn becomnes just avoiding embarasment and that is a sign of poor judgement/leadership.

Ian

 

[CXRAndy]

Can you actually remember a politician actually admit they were wrong, say so with humility and not spin it ?

 

[CXRAndy]

She's right about Starmer and Labour


View: https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/1938191729120735404?t=qBsSGJF94SdOZ3iGoS6Mrw&s=19

 

[CXRAndy]

This is more appropriate to Labour's position


View: https://x.com/HoodedClaw1974/status/1937933541075005670?t=GtmCSVI-fEtju0AGfVyRrQ&s=19

 

[CXRAndy]

Allegedly Starmers new position on the welfare bill is that everyone currently receiving benefits will continue to receive them and only new claimants will face the new rules.

Can't see that standing, some equal lefties lawyer will say it's discrimination

 

[Dorset Boy]

There's an issue when you have doubled down on your poor decision and take far, far too long to then do the U-turn.
Starmer has fallen into that with the Winter Fuel Allowance, and the Welfare Bill, and is still stupidly doubling down on the 'Family Farm Tax'.
The solution to the FFT is very simple - land that is owned and rented out is an investment and taxed as such. Land that is owned and farmed is exempt. Farmers happy and the job is done.

 

[First Aspect]

My read is that a lot of these problemematic ideas arise from the Treasury, and Starmer is left trying to square the circle.


My take on this is that fannying around with a billion here and there when the total fiscal headroom is £10Bn out of £1.3Tn indicates a lack of understanding of the projections. I see Andrew Bailey has cautioned against over interpreting projections this week.

If you have less than 1% left when the projection is +/- 5% or something like that, you already don't have any headroom within the margin of error.

Making grand gestures that lead to huge party discord on things that amount to less than 0.1% of annual budget isnt worth the parliamentary time or reputational damage, because they will miss meeting the fiscal rules, or fall within them, by far more in the end. But they keep doing it for some reason.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

problem with U-Turns due to pressure from back benchers - or whoever

is that it tends to be done at short notice

Hence an overall plan involving policies in all sorts of areas suddenly has to be changed to bring one specific area into line with a pressure group

which tend to either break something else down the line
or result in worse problems in other areas

but as the other areas have not got the critical level of support then they get ignored


so - yes I a situation where politicians can change course when necessary or when they make a mistake
the situation we currently have causes a lot of problems

 

[BoldonLad]

I wonder if it's more a consequence of political leaders relying heavily on shadowy, creepy little background wonks such as McSweeney or Cummings, rather than having ideas of their own that they might actually have some level of genuine belief & confidence in.

It certainly helps, IMHO, if the Politician actually believes in the proposal.

But, how do we assess which proposals are "right", or, even what "right" means?

Government by "pressure group" is fine, if you as an individual happen to be under the wing of said group, but, if you are not, it probably isn't quite so much fun.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

It certainly helps, IMHO, if the Politician actually believes in the proposal.

But, how do we assess which proposals are "right", or, even what "right" means?

Government by "pressure group" is fine, if you as an individual happen to be under the wing of said group, but, if you are not, it probably isn't quite so much fun.

Pressure groups are fine

but they generally only consider one viewpoint

the people in charge have to consider them all