You turn if you want to ... but beware of the voters getting lost as you change direction

U-turns can get a politician on the right track – as long as they do not undermine their entire message

Can a U-turn ever be good for a politician? For the country, the answer is surely yes. Sticking with a boneheaded policy for reasons of political expediency is no way to govern. Yet in Westminster, U-turn has become a byword for incompetence and weakness.

Even before partygate, Paterson and Pincher destroyed Boris Johnson’s credibility as Prime Minister, his authority had been undermined by a steady stream of U-turns. From ditching exam grade algorithms, to the lost battle with Marcus Rashford over extending free school meals into the holidays, via an abandoned obesity policy and a windfall tax on energy companies, Mr Johnson’s government racked them up by the dozen.

It was a reflection of an administration that had lost control of its MPS, lacked direction and was beholden to backbench factions.

Yet a series of U-turns can also be a sign of a responsive government. The Coalition of 2010-15 racked up its own enormous pile of policy reversals, from pasty taxes to forest privatisation, much to Labour’s glee.

However, the attacks simply didn’t stick. What mattered was that the driving purpose of the Coalition remained unchanged; there was no abandoning of austerity. Come election time, voters had long forgotten the threat to end free school milk for under-fives and a promise to ban circus animals. What they saw was a promise kept to slash public spending.

Likewise, Margaret Thatcher’s legendary incantation, “You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning”, was not a defence of any particular policy but of her entire economic approach. Critics had suggested that with unemployment spiking she should copy her predecessor Ted Heath’s all-encompassing 1972 U-turn, which popularised the term.

Thatcher did change individual policies from time to time, for example on defence spending. Indeed, her later refusal to countenance a U-turn on the poll tax was emblematic of the loss of nimbleness and pragmatism that precipitated her downfall.

Refusing to U-turn can, in the long run, do far more damage than that caused by a short, sharp reversal. David Cameron effectively made up policy on the fly when, during a 2010 TV interview, he said immigration should be in the “tens of thousands”.

It was never a realistic target yet it became official policy by default and haunted the rest of his administration, directly contributing to the Brexit vote, and would hamstring Theresa May too.

Heath’s own approach showed that done properly, a U-turn can be pulled off. The former PM didn’t just ditch a single policy, he abandoned the Tory manifesto and reversed the Government’s entire economic approach. The spending taps were turned on and the economy boomed. Unfortunately for Heath, the 1973 oil shock came along and he lost two elections in 1974.

So what of Mr Sunak and VAT on energy? The key problem for the former chancellor is that while technically this is a single policy change, it undermines the central claim of his campaign: that Liz Truss is fiscally irresponsible and will fuel inflation with her tax cuts.

Mr Sunak rejected the policy when in No11, probably because it is poorly targeted and not the most effective way to alleviate rising energy costs. Yet now he thinks it’s a good policy. While opponents are unlikely to be won over, supporters are now likely to question if Mr Sunak is as tough on economics as he claims.

‘Thatcher’s legendary incantation was a defence of her entire economic approach’