8 November 2021
The news media are compiling lists of government u-turns.
Over at Politico, there is a list of thirty six u-turns in 23 months:
While over at the Daily Mail – under the generic byline of ‘Daily Mail Reporter’ – there is a list of forty three u-turns since January 2020:
(Hat-tip: Joel Taylor)
Some of these u-turns will be familiar, some you will have forgotten, and some you may have missed at the time in the whoosh of events.
Some are even reversals of positions that were expressly set out in the manifesto on which the current governing party was elected.
So much, then, for ‘the will of the people’.
*
On the face of it, u-turns are a good thing – or at least the willingness of a government to change position on policy.
Imagine the current government not-turning on any of the 36-to-43 matters compiled in those two lists.
The complaint would be that our government was stubborn and unbending.
But we have government that is prone to u-turning instead, and we still complain.
Do we want a government to be open to changing its position or not?
*
But.
Even though there can often be a sensible case for particular u-turns (though not all of them), the sheer number of them creates problems.
*
The first problem is that it encourages sloppy and shoddy policy-making and decision-making.
In essence: ministers will tend to put less care into policies and decisions if they know they can deftly u-turn later.
The more a policy or decision is thought-through before it is announced or implemented, the less likely there will need to be any reversal.
Many of the examples listed simply show weak policy-making and and casual decision-making.
Too many u-turns show a general lack of seriousness about policy and government.
*
The second problem is that it weakens electoral politics and thereby undermines accountability.
Voters elected the current government on a manifesto that actually said the following:
‘We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development, and do more to help countries receiving aid become self-sufficient.’
‘On entering Government in 2010, the Conservatives acted decisively to protect the UK’s pensioners. The ‘triple lock’ we introduced has meant that those who have worked hard and put in for decades can be confident that the state will be there to support them when they need it. We will keep the triple lock…’
‘We promise not to raise the rates of […] National Insurance […].’
The current government has reneged on each of these explicit promises.
*
Of course: manifestos are weak mandates and they are certainly not binding contracts.
No sensible person would have wanted, say, the government elected in 1987 on an express commitment to introduce the ‘community charge’ (poll tax) to have carried on with that plan, come what may.
And any government will want the flexibility to deal with new political problems.
Yet: each of the three manifesto commitments was broken with not much more than a political shrug – as if it would not really matter that such promises were broken.
The promises made in the manifesto simply did not matter.
*
And the third problem is that it undermines political legitimacy and participation generally – and not just regarding manifesto commitments.
The announcements of decisions and policies of the government become no more than babble – mere noise in respect of which there is no point trying to engage.
A government constantly announcing and then dropping things will, over time, mean that few will pay attention when the government does carry through hard and bad decisions.
You will note that few of the u-turns are about the ongoing authoritarianism and callousness of the current government.
Most of the most unpleasant policies are continuing all the same.
But other than obsessives – like you reading a post like this – few will keep up with tracking what is going on.
And so a culture of constant u-turns adds to the general fatigue about policy and politics.
*
So: u-turns may well be welcome in the particular, but they are worrisome on the current scale.
Perhaps the government should fundamentally change this ‘u-turn culture’ and point policy-making and decision-making in the opposite direction.
If only there were a term for such a reverse manoeuvre…
******
This daily law and policy blog needs your help to continue – for the benefit of you and other readers
Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
A top tip for a government not wanting to U-turn is not to try to implement unsupportable policies in the first place.
The most irksome thing about U-turns in the UK political scene is that journalists reporting on them always end up playing the clip of Margaret Thatcher’s “The lady’s not for turning” line, without explaining the context of the joke (that it was a play on words of the title of a play ‘The lady’s not for burning’). Without knowing that context, Thatcher’s line just seems really odd.
You tell them if you want to.
A populist government will be naturally more prone to U-turns than others, as the popular yet silly policies hit the rocks of reality.
I suspect it will prove to be Johnson’s downfall, sooner rather than later – let’s see!
What do we need to have in place?
One of the cries of today is ‘Nobody ever resigns’ (I would argue that Owen Paterson didn’t resign on the substantive issue but because Government support was withdrawn.)
Could we have a system that required resignations at senior level when there were U-turns?
I think it’s unlikely and unworkable, but I’m not sure that we can leave it down to ‘being honourable’.
You’re confusing a U-turn over anti corruption rules with the breaking of those rules. The complaint about no-one resigning any more is because Johnson lets them stay on when they are caught breaking the rules.
The 2015 Tory Manifesto also had a commitment to the Single Market, as I recall. That was tossed out without a second thought when the hard Brexiters won.
As Michael Heseltine said, Johnson is the sort of politician who waits to see which way the crowd is running and then dashes in front and says “Follow me”.
Or to put it another way, he is blown around whereever the mercurial wind of public opinion pushes him. (More particularly, the strands of public opinion on the front and leader pages of certain newspapers.)
He appears to have no moral compass or core values to help him set and maintain a course, apart from personal self interest and a desire to be popular.
Johnson’s corrupt government has been as corrosive to the body politic in the UK as Trump’s narcissistic and nepotistic rule was in the UK.
Perhaps the best we can hope for is that people realise that the “good chaps” theory of government does not work if we cannot in fact rely on them being “good chaps” and then we collectively take steps to put our governance on a better foundation – more democratic, transparent, and accountable – and that includes the electoral system, the composition of parliament, prime ministerial patronage, and independent supervision of parliamentary and ministerial conduct and standards, and a whole slew of other matters that are sliding into the mire.
Thatcher’s failure to U-turn over the Poll Tax eventually ended in her losing her job because her own cabinet lost confidence in her judgement. U-turns are lethal to an inflexible leader.
The situation with the current government could not be more different, as every member of the cabinet knows they are only there because they’ve been loyal to Johnson. They know he’s useless and without principle but so are they and that keeps them in place and in power. The only way they will be in danger is if not sacking them is bad for Johnson. In that case their loyalty is worthless. But the others are still better off supporting him and so it goes on.
I agree completely. The problem is people generally vote for a party, not the chaps in it, good or bad. People will have voted Conservative because they always do, because they believed Corbyn would trash the country, because they wanted Brexit or a combination thereof. Those who wanted Brexit or did not want Labour in power won’t care what the Government does as long as it talks up the journey to those fabled sunlit uplands and waves the Union Flag about while rattling sabres against the EU. If Johnson does fall he’ll be replaced by one of his supporters. There’ll be enough time for the Tory supporting media to set a narative that the economy and Brexit would be in danger from a Labour government. The way the pro-Brexit votes are distributed makes it a big challenge for a liberal alliance to win most votes at the next election and that is essential for any meaningful electoral reform. Assuming such an alliance can be agreed, which seems unlikely. It goes against the tribal nature of British politics.
“The way the pro-Brexit votes are distributed makes it a big challenge for a liberal alliance to win most votes at the next election” – I think Kevin meant to say:
“The way the pro-Brexit votes are distributed makes it a big challenge for a liberal alliance to win most seats at the next election” ?
Thank you Ian, yes that was what I meant to say.
Spot on – as ever.
I would add a fourth problem – that ministers and civil service policy makers cannot work effectively if they don’t have a reasonably clear idea of the government’s strategy and priorities. The absence of clear leadership must create considerable policy inertia in most/all government departments.