Is it considered a "failure" to listen to the majority voices and change your plans? Has Gordon Brown failed?

[VeniVidiVickiQV]

I'm no fan of GB.

But, I was watching excerpts of PM Question Time, and noting the usual slating he was getting from the opposition, and, primarily because of this well publicised "U-turn" today.

Surely listening to the people, and your party and then making concessions to help the poor a bit more (albeit having screwed them over in the first place) is not a failure?

I knew I should have steered clear of politics

That is exactly what I said to my dh during one of our nightly political debates. (Not)

I'm no great GB fan either..but he did listen and react accordingly. It seems like he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Paxo's just saying he only did it so his back benchers would not vote against him on something else (I'm ashamed to say I don't know what..) So he didn't really do it for the right reasons.

He shouldn't have done away with the 10% tax in the first place! How long has he waited to be prime minister? And he's cocked it up already.

oh i agree, he shouldnt have taken it in the first place. But, he's changed to suit the masses, so, is that a good thing or not?

On a much more shallow note - does anyone else notice that really annoying 'sucking in' of his mouth at the end of each sentence?

Why couldn't he just reinstate 10% rate: ridiculous amount of admin involved in all these top-up/ family credit type schemes. The whole debacle enough to make me think of voting Tory (but not so much that I'd vote for Boris)

I have never understood the whole tax credit thing - take money away just to give it back. It is barmy and ends up costing so much more than not taxing so much in the first place. It just creates bureaucracy, which I suppose is what TB & GB wanted.

This is how I understand it:
If Broon had changed his position based on new evidence and more convincing arguments
he would deserve some credit.
He didn't, though. He was forced to change his mind because of increasing political pressure,
i.e. if he had not he would have made an uncomfortably large number of enemies within his own party.
And that is indeed weakness.

Or to give you an analogy:
If Mugabe steps down today, it's not because he is a wise leader who has listened
to the people but because he has realised that he is too weak.

but what gb said at question time was rubbish imho - tried to hit back at dc by saying that the tories had made the same u-turn - which was exactly what he was doing - seemed a weak arguement. Had to laugh at yc on newsnight when she just kept repeating 'prebudget report' - just hate it when MPs don't answer the question.

Tories are having a field day:
Government ?can?t even organise a humiliating u-turn without messing it up?

agree daddyj!
i was hoping it would be a proper U-turn
not the complicated shambles it seems to be
grrr

but yes agree in general it's crazy be accused of U-turns like it's some kind of failure if you've been listening to your critics and decided to act on their criticism-one of the reasons politics is so infuriating

I think in this case the 'failure' was in the original policy.

Unfortunately, politics does seem to operate under the same set of rules as the average playground, and mind-changing or conciliatory behaviour is seen as weakness. Similarly, the one thing a senior politician must never say is 'I don't know, let me look into it and get back to you'. Our political culture would definitely be improved if this attitude could be ironed out.

However, as DaddyJ says, in this case GB's position was weak: it looked very likely that he would lose an important vote and possibly his job.

Well yes, put like that....!

But, is it weakness to recognise you are in a weak position and try and remedy it, even if it means taking a sideways or backwards step?

i think it shows he is human not all this political bullcrap weak shit

No, not at all. But we are run by a bunch of ex-public schoolboys who have all the emotional maturity of the average bath-sponge, and the journalists who comment on the whole shebang aren't much better.

Oh I couldnt agree more PW

he had a whole year to wake up and change this, frank field and others had badgered him since then to re think
and he didnt until his ass was on the line

be careful what you wish for gugs methinks..

VVVQ,

Gosh you are a little naive (or is it only labour politicians who get the benefit of the doubt in youor book ?

GB only agreed to tinker with his glaring great budget "tax some of the the poorest people more" error because he wants to hold onto the office of Prime minister.

He was faced with MPs from his own party threatening to refuse to approve the budget legislation.

He has been advised ever since the change in taxation rates was announced that this will hit the poorest most and not all will be compensated by increased tax credits etc but he would not listen then.

Alastair Darling had already listened to the business community and amended proposed CGT legislation/taxation changes way before any last minute revolt took place....That's an example of listening to people/your party members and then making concessions/redrafting the legislation changes accordingly, not GB's arse saving last minute weasel worded flip flop.

On Newsnight, Yvette Cooper was a little "parroty" wasn't she, I think even Pantsman felt sorry for her lack of data and timescale to support what she was defending.

It's not a climbdown. It's not a U-turn.

It's not even making concessions, given that Darling now says 'it will take time' for these so-called concessions to be put in place.

It's a fuck up of the highest order.

I agree with the general sentiment that campaigning against something only to bitch about it when you've won is unhelpful. But GB has fucked up royally. There's such a thing as accepting defeat gracefully.

'There is nothing so unedifying as a Scotsman on the make.'

-Robert Louis Stevenson

But hasn't he offered last-minute concessions to avoid a defeat? And then if you look closely they aren't that hot anyway?

Less noble acknowledgement of faults and more politicking, I would say.

was v suspicious of giving enough away to make Frank Field remove his amendment without ACTUALLY committing to make up the loss in the incomes of low earners. Bastard

SitdownGeorge: What's naive about me asking questions and stimulating debate?

Or are you just as rude to all posters who ask questions?

also interesting timing week before local (and mayoral) elections

nothing cynical about that at all, Effie, that's the only reason he's pulled back because party workers on the doorsteps are saying it's a big issue that will cost seats.