When to cut your losses: the art of the political U-turn

A U-turn is the most recognisable shorthand that the politician has gotten it wrong and there’s nowhere left for them to go, writes Salma Shah

The Paterson affair has put the PM under increasing pressure (PA)

The problem with politics is the exhausting requirement to be definitive and gung-ho at all times. Conciliation and compromise are the ultimate displays of weakness in our adversarial system, which has been primarily designed for constructive conflict. How can anyone make rational and complex decisions in the face of demands for simplicity and unadulterated belief?

In the last week, we’ve had ample displays of intransigence and claims of occupying the high ground. But the danger of sticking to strong positions is you don’t really know whether people actually agree with you, until you look around and see to your surprise that it’s very lonely atop that hill you decided to climb.

In the case of the government fighting Owen Paterson’s corner, it was wrongly assumed that the Tory backbenchers would fall into line and back what looks like an egregious attack on the independence of parliament. Tory MPs, in this case, were delightfully unpredictable foot soldiers.

Time then, of course, for the U-turn. An age old, political rite of passage, which every senior politician succumbs to in one way or another. The U-turn is a concept detested by politicians because it is beloved in the media. What sub-editor can resist the U-turn headline, a classic of the political genre? It’s the most recognisable shorthand that a politician has gotten it wrong and there’s nowhere left for them to go. It really is a byword for total humiliation.

It stands to reason that once a decision has been made, walking back from it requires deep consideration. After all, you might’ve had your entire complement of soldiers out in the media, busily being their best obstinate selves, unwilling to brook any opposition to your plans.

Think of the business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, on the morning breakfast round, loyally pushing the line that the parliamentary standards commissioner would have to consider her position – just as No 10 were deliberating their climbdown. Being left out of the loop is something cabinet ministers get used to, but when there’s a mere few hours in between a decision and the following U-turn, it can be jarring.

U-turns are best when they’re done – according to one former No 10 adviser – with balance. “You have to listen, be agile and retreat, but do it too often and you lose authority.” Indeed, who in the parliamentary party or on the doorstep wants to be willing cannon fodder in the face of constant U-turns?

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

It’s annoying to be wrong and have the opposition make hay with your ever-changing position, but in some cases, continuing the onslaught will weaken you further and it becomes a question of cutting losses.

There are, of course, categories of U-turn. There are the big strategic changes, when governments decide they have to change tactics in order to get results. Brexit is a good example of this, as the move from May’s position to Johnson’s was justified due to the changing context.

It’s also acceptable to change your position when the facts alter. How many goes did it take before we got some semblance of consistency on Covid? U-turns are largely understandable when a situation is running faster than you. But the worst kind is a reverse ferret, the kind of reneging that requires herculean levels of self-delusion, a pretence that a certain policy didn’t mean what everyone thought it did, and anyway, it’s not happening now.

Politics is a macho sport. The performance is everything. In most walks of life, being right isn’t the victory, it’s getting to the right outcome – and that involves trial and error. But in this game, when you try, it can quickly become your error.