On Friday the Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman announced that plans to sell off half of the country’s estimated two hundred and fifty-eight thousand hectares of forests were to be abandoned.
The controversial plans were still in consultation but in the ensuing furore, the consultation was brought to an end and instead there will be discussions on how public access to woodlands and biodiversity can be enhanced.
Opposition to the proposals went far and wide. It united people across the main parties in Westminster and that, coupled with an overwhelming lack of public support, must have sounded the death knell for this particular initiative.
I must confess that I did not read the proposals in full and as such cannot claim to know all the details, but I am glad the government changed its mind on this one. Yes, there is a big, black hole in the public finances which needs filling, but there are certain things which should not be sold. I believe our woodlands are one such thing.
Then I got thinking. What are the ramifications of such a significant change in direction for the government?
Even on an individual level we find it hard to say ‘I’m sorry’; admit it openly and honestly when we have made a wrong choice, especially when that choice affects others. It takes humility and strength of character to own up to and take responsibility for a mistake; on the occasions when I see this in action, especially in the workplace and business arena, I personally think it admirable and commendable. Indeed, I wish it happened more often.
But in the context of government policy, should such remorse attract admiration or condemnation?
It is worth remembering that this is the latest in a long line of u-turns from this government. Since coming to power in May the Coalition government has changed its mind about proposals to stop providing free milk in schools for children under the age of five; cancelled plans to cut funding for sports in schools; delayed implementing its proposed cap on housing benefit payments to claimants by nine months (the cap should have come into effect in April; it has been pushed back to January 2012); and scrapped its plans to get rid of NHS Direct, the 24-hour telephone advice service provided by the National Health Service. And this is by no means an exhaustive list.
So, we come back to the original question, which is whether these policy u-turns portend a certain weakness in the Coalition government. Its critics think so, as it has made a number of climbdowns from what have previously been presented as definitive ways forward. They say this approach highlights the haste with which policies are formulated and announced, and is an incompetent way to govern.
The point on haste is a valid one. There is the sense that policies are being rushed out before they have been thought through, properly consulted on, analysed and any impact adequately assessed and reviewed. These are difficult times for most and it is not politically expedient for the government to be thought of as blundering from one policy to another, especially where there are undercurrents of its programme of savings and cuts as is the case here. It needs to handle such issues deftly and with sensitivity and, if the appointment of Andrew Cooper as Number 10’s new Director of Strategy is anything to go by, many say it has already set the wheels in motion to guard against ministers making dramatic announcements which then have to be backed away from.
On the other hand, making u-turns is not a sign of incompetence. It is impossible to always do the right thing in the first instance; surely the true test comes in making amends and adjusting strategy accordingly? The Prime Minister’s defence, along with members of his Cabinet, is that they are being responsive to the public’s strength of feeling, and have listened to what an overwhelming majority clearly want.
It’s a case of ‘damned if they do and damned if they don’t’. If the plans had not been abandoned the government would have been accused of ramming its agenda through without due consideration; now that it has put them on ice it is accused of incompetence.
It takes courage to admit taking a wrong turn; it also shows a commitment to do what is best in the long run. The worst option is to proceed knowing that the merits are outweighed by the demerits, but sticking to one’s guns out of a misplaced sense of pride.
I think most voters would prefer any government to say we made a mistake with this one and we’re pulling back. It seems to me that the only voices for absolute consistency are the media who love to jump on alleged U turns as signs of weakness when in fact they are and should be signs of strength. In real life is anyone absolutely consistent in everything? Do we ever make mistakes and start again? Of course so why should politicians be any different. Keynes got it right – when facts change, I change my mind – what do you do?
Pingback: On the Government’s U-Turns « Scribblings of a Writer
Pingback: Tweets that mention Platform 10 » Blog Archive » Do policy u-turns highlight a government’s weakness or strength? -- Topsy.com
I strongly agree with both the final paragrath of this blog and Richard T’s comment. Though if there u-turns become a habit then internal systems need to be looked at in order to produce better policy or sell it more effectivly. Lets hope the new structure at no10 will do this.