Has Keir Starmer finally mastered the art of the U-turn?

Keir Starmer has shrugged off his unwanted label as "Mr U-turn" after his retreats over the winter fuel allowance and a national inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal. The prime minister's problem is that making one U-turn gives your party an appetite for more, and anxious Labour MPs are feeling ravenous. Today, the government is publishing its Bill to reduce the welfare budget by £5bn, including controversial cuts to disability and sickness benefits.

More than 150 Labour MPs are unhappy about the cuts, and about 50 might oppose them. Ministers admit privately there will be "tweaks" — for example, disabled people will not lose their personal independence payment (PIP) for 13 weeks, rather than four — but they don't go far enough for the rebels.

In public, ministers are adamant there will be no further concessions and that any changes do not amount to a U-turn, not least because Rachel Reeves is relying on the savings to stay within her fiscal rules. However, more tweaks will almost certainly be offered before the crucial vote on the Bill early next month.

Why do politicians fear headlines with the U-word? They like to look strong and in control of events - even though they know they are not, especially in the world of Trump 2.0. U-turns came to symbolise weakness in 1980 after Margaret Thatcher told Tory moderates who were demanding a change of course: "You turn if you want to; the lady's not for turning."

The label sticks to Starmer because he has form. His left-wing critics are still seething that, in their eyes, he ran for the leadership in 2020 on a false prospectus — seen as "Corbynism without Corbyn" — and then ditched several campaign pledges. They included higher income tax for the top five per cent of earners; the abolition of university tuition fees and universal credit; common ownership of mail, energy and water, although rail is returning to public ownership; free movement between the UK and EU; abolition of the House of Lords and a Prevention of Military Intervention Act to ensure "no more illegal wars."

Since last year's general election, Starmer has also U-turned on cutting the international aid budget and gender recognition. Last night, the PM defended his latest volte-face on the grooming gangs. During the G7 summit in Canada, Chris Mason, the BBC's political editor, pointedly asked him whether he could understand "why critics say they don't know what you stand for" and see "a pattern of behaviour here about you having to be led by the nose to do the right thing?" Ouch!

Starmer replied: "I don't have any difficulty in saying I'm a common sense, practical, get the job done, fix the problem politician. I am not ideological." He is hoping voters prefer his pragmatic approach to dogmatism. On the grooming affair, he could cite John Maynard Keynes's timeless defence: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" When Baroness Casey, who carried out an audit for the government, changed her mind about the need for a national inquiry, Starmer had no option but to follow. He would have been crucified for resisting and would have eventually given way.

Yet there remains a question of his judgment in ruling out a national investigation in January and accusing the Conservatives of jumping on a far-right bandwagon. Some Starmer allies, Labour MPs and Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, thought then that a national inquiry was inevitable.

Politicians love to crow when opponents make a U-turn. Kemi Badenoch demanded an apology from Starmer for changing his mind on a grooming inquiry. Yet she refused to make a public apology to the victims, even though the last Tory government did not implement a single one of the 20 recommendations in Alexis Jay's 2022 inquiry into child sexual abuse.

Badenoch, who was minister for women and equalities from 2022 to 24, didn't want headlines about the Tories' record, but, as on the economy, she cannot escape it. She had the brass neck to say "we should take the politics out of it" as she appeared alongside survivors of the grooming scandal a day after attacking Starmer's handling of the issue in the Commons. That was an unedifying spectacle of playground politics on such a sensitive issue.

Casey was right to call out Badenoch's Commons response and call for a cross-party approach. Starmer rightly occupied the high ground by declining to ask Badenoch to apologise for the Tories' record. I think U-turns matter less than party leaders imagine. Labour backbenchers cite a tale of two by-elections. Last month, Labour lost its Runcorn and Helsby seat to Reform UK. Three weeks later, Starmer announced his U-turn on the winter fuel payment. Then Labour unexpectedly won a Scottish parliament by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. "The difference on the doorstep was remarkable," one Labour MP who campaigned in both contests told me. "The change on winter fuel meant we got a hearing. People noticed it." Better late than never; the winter fuel retreat was more damaging because it was made in slow motion. The lesson for Starmer: if you are going to do a U-turn, do it quickly to limit the political pain.