One of the most common complaints in political debate at the moment is the claim that the Labour government has carried out a series of so-called “U-turns” since coming into office. It makes for easy headlines—but does it stand up to scrutiny?
The dictionary definition of a U-turn is “a complete change from one opinion or plan of action to the opposite.”
On that basis, there have been few—if any—actual U-turns at all.
Let us look at the facts:
- Winter Fuel Allowance – This has not reverted to being a universal benefit. Instead, the eligibility threshold has been increased, making the policy more generous while retaining its targeted nature.
- Sexual Abuse Inquiry – There was no refusal to act. Dame Louise Casey was appointed to review why recommendations from existing inquiries had not been implemented by the previous government and to advise on next steps. Her recommendations were then accepted and acted upon.
- Reform of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) – Reform remains a stated priority. The policy is currently under review, with clear assurances that existing recipients will be protected.
- Employment Rights Bill – The Bill will restore and extend significant worker protections. The qualifying period for unfair dismissal has been set at six months rather than day one—still a major advance on the two-year threshold imposed by the Tories.
- Farmers’ Inheritance Tax – The policy was not abandoned. As with the Winter Fuel Allowance, thresholds were adjusted in response to representations from farming unions.
- Digital ID – Digital checks to establish the right to work will remain. What has changed is the mandatory status of digital ID for everyone.
None of these examples is even close to the dictionary definition of a U-turn—yet this is how they are routinely portrayed in today’s shorthand political commentary. You may think this is nitpicking. It is not. These are not reversals; they are refinements. They point to a government prepared to consult, to listen, and to adjust policy in response to evidence and engagement.
That tells us something important about our political culture.
When “Not Turning” Became a Virtue
At the Conservative Party Conference in October 1980, Margaret Thatcher famously declared: “You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.” Since then, changing course has been treated as a sign of weakness, while rigidity has been rebranded as strength.
But is it? Do any of us behave like this in our working lives or personal relationships? Of course not. We would be judged unreasonable—or worse.
What Thatcher refused to “U-turn” on was her ideological commitment to free-market economics, despite warnings from across the political spectrum. The long-term consequences of that intransigence remain with us today. For those who’d like to know more on this, David Dimbleby’s recent podcast Invisible Hands explores this history and its impact in depth and is well worth listening to.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00298t2
The Cost of Intransigence
Consider housing. The introduction of Right to Buy was immediately popular and genuinely aspirational. But councils were prevented from using the proceeds to replace sold homes, even as waiting lists grew. Council housing stock was rapidly depleted.
In 1979, my husband—single, with no special needs—was offered a council flat in Crawley at the age of 23 having gone on the list at 18. That was normal then. Today, many of those former council homes are privately rented, often at inflated rates paid for by councils housing families who can no longer access social housing.
If only the government had listened. If only it had been willing to change course or modify its policy.
The same pattern appears elsewhere:
- Rail privatisation fragmented the network, delivered poor value, and ultimately left much of the system in foreign public ownership. Our high fares effectively subsidise state railways in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.
- Water privatisation created private monopolies with guaranteed customers. Billions were paid to shareholders instead of being re-invested, leaving a crumbling Victorian system close to failure.
Between 1979 and 1997, we sold off British Aerospace, British Gas, British Telecom, British Airways, British Steel, British Rail, British Waterways, British Petroleum, Britoil—and more—often in the face of strong warnings. Yet U-turns were taboo. That legacy still shapes our economy today.
What Do We Really Want from Politics?
We often hear that people want a different kind of politics: less adversarial, more consensual; politicians who listen; governments that adapt. Yet when that happens, it is routinely punished.
There is no claim here that Labour has got everything right. Communications have sometimes been poor, and there have been missteps. But the inheritance left by fourteen years of Conservative austerity, Brexit, Covid, and internal division is immense—arguably comparable only to the aftermath of war in 1945.
Keir Starmer was clear from the outset: things are bad, and they will take time to improve. There are no magic wands. He set out a 10 year plan for renewal. That was what he was elected on. Yet unlike David Cameron’s offer in 2010, a bleak picture of austerity with his (misleading) “We’re all in it together” mantra, Starmer’s 10 year renewal was not tolerated and there were near instant demands for more positivity. Impossible and unrealistic.
If we truly want a healthier political culture, we must allow space for governments to listen, to adjust, and to improve policy without branding every course correction as failure. We must also learn to be more tolerant when failure occurs, because it is inevitable and having to cover it up betrays trust and prevents learning. It’s what children do.
Different politics will require different expectations and more tolerance—from us all.
Alison Cornell
WSCC Councillor for Langley Green & Ifield East