'Is it time to applaud politicians who U-turn?' blog discussion

carras

I am currently reading "The Geek Manifesto: Why Science Matters to Government" by Mark Henderson:). This book supports Martin's ideas that politicians who realize that something is wrong should be allowed to make a change.

When a scientist does research and something fails, the scientist can back off with out a problem. Cause and effect cannot always be predicted so unexpected results can occur.

The press, social networks and the opposition do not allow the Government the luxury of changing the plans they have implemented, everything has to be a battle for superiority . Whatever happened to common sense in this country?

Sparhawke

All politicians ever do is u-turn on everything, can't we get someone in power who knows what they are doing from the off and only ever makes slight course corrections?

You wouldn't ever trust a pilot who ended up at the North Pole instead of the South Pacific so why should politicians get away with it?

Byngdesign

carras wrote: »

When a scientist does research and something fails, the scientist can back off with out a problem. Cause and effect cannot always be predicted so unexpected results can occur.

---

No scientist or engineer would ever contemplate using something untried without a lot of testing first, so why do politicians so often launch a new initiative globally without a small trial run somewhere to see if it works. Cameron has been especially prone to this, and has cost the country hugely as a result. If you run a trial and it fails, it's just a test that didn't work out, and no huge policy U-turn is necessary.

Having said that, policy changes for declared valid reasons should never be received with derision. Perhaps the reasons should be subject to scrutiny, but that's not the same thing.

Porcupine

Byngdesign wrote: »

No scientist or engineer would ever contemplate using something untried without a lot of testing first, so why do politicians so often launch a new initiative globally without a small trial run somewhere to see if it works.

But then you get accused of a 'postcode lottery'. You can't win.

Things like the poll tax were tested in Scotland, and council tax rebanding in Wales. The trouble is, the regions that are convenient to impose decent-sized trials are Scotland, Wales, NI because there's a degree of separation (compared with say 'West Midlands' which is a much more porous region). But you get a huge amount of stick for alleged discrimination. (And these days devolution means they're not controlled by Westminster any more, so unavailable for trials).

So I'm in favour of postcode lotteries. North Uist is different from Piccadilly Circus in many ways, so why shouldn't provision of government services be different also?

thick_tom

to be honest i find it hard applauding politicians at any time.

GlynD

If the situation demands a U turn then why not? No shame in making the right decision.

wozearly

Mobeer wrote: »

U-turns are bad:

A politician says they have a set of beliefs and a corresponding set of policies. A voter supports those policies and votes for the politician.

carras wrote: »

When a scientist does research and something fails, the scientist can back off with out a problem. Cause and effect cannot always be predicted so unexpected results can occur.

The above pretty much illustrates both sides for me.

I would prefer to vote for a politician who has deep convictions about acting in line with evidence, and changing their mind if the evidence shows that's what they should do. This test-learn-accept/reject approach is the core of the scientific model, and the results of it are all around us.

On the other side is a politician with a strong belief in one way being right, ignoring evidence to the contrary either honestly (because it doesn't agree with their beliefs) or dishonestly (for fear of voter punishment if they go against the voter's beliefs and/or policy preferences). This approach might best be described as test-ignore-declare victory anyway-forget.

I wish we had more of the former and less of the latter in politics. But that's something only voters as a whole can ultimately make happen.