Do Starmer’s dizzying U-turns really matter if he ends up in the right place?

One or two U-turns might make his life easier but the PM has made so many of them that it is becoming a problem, writes John Rentoul

It was the least surprising U-turn ever. When Keir Starmer first said that the government’s digital ID scheme would be compulsory for new hires as a way of enforcing immigration law, it was pointed out that employers are already required to check the immigration status of prospective employees.

It was obvious that the scheme would do nothing to stop the boats. Superficial opinion-poll findings suggested that the plan would be popular, just as the plan for a physical ID card was before people started to consider the cost. But it quickly became unpopular, because the unpopular prime minister was proposing it.

When the civil service looked at how the scheme would work – that is, when someone thought about it for about 30 seconds – they realised that making it compulsory for anyone wanting to change jobs to acquire a digital ID would in fact make it harder to roll out a simplification of existing online ID checks.

So Starmer came to the sensible conclusion that was always likely, and early enough to avoid wasting too much time and money. And a grateful nation acclaimed the wisdom of its leader and vowed to keep him in power forever? Not exactly.

The prime minister had his defenders. Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, who drew the two of clubs for the morning media round, invented a new doctrine that U-turns do not matter if the policy was not in the manifesto. Off the record, government sources quoted Lynton Crosby, David Cameron’s polling guru, who advised him to get the “barnacles off the boat” – that is, to ditch distracting and unpopular policies in order to focus on the government’s core message.

And some commentators have made the evergreen point that U-turning from the wrong policy to the right policy is less damaging than the other way round.

As Ryan Wain, of Tony Blair’s pro-ID institute, rightly said: “The real test isn’t whether people are forced to use it, but whether it’s good enough that they choose to.”

You can tell the decision was broadly sensible because it confused and divided the government’s opponents. Nigel Farage was on TV last night ranting about this “authoritarian government”. He said: “Their instinct with everything, whether it’s in the manifesto or not, is to control, is to ban, and the announcement of compulsory digital ID was, I thought, one of Sir Keir Starmer’s worst moments yet.” It was, he said, “Big Brother gone mad”. (It may have been a while since Farage read George Orwell.)

The PM is undermining his credibility within the group he needs the most: the parliamentary Labour Party (BBC)

So did he welcome the change? Not so as you would notice. He did not say, as John Redwood did, that “Labour is developing a praiseworthy habit – changing its mind”. At least Kemi Badenoch had the wit to say: “Good riddance. It was a terrible policy anyway.”

Unfortunately for the prime minister, ending up with a better policy does not mean that his barnacle-free boat is gliding more smoothly through his sea of troubles.

One or two U-turns might make his life easier, after the mockery and finger-pointing has died down. But he has made so many of them that it is becoming a problem. Journalists have added up “13 U-turns”, which has become a theme that is clouding Starmer’s reputation. The list starts with the winter fuel payment for pensioners, which reminds people of a damagingly bad decision, even if it has been put right. Although the list includes some changes that are more obscure (one list I saw included changing the definition of public debt), the persistence of the meme is likely to hurt the prime minister.

It did not help him that Wes Streeting, the health secretary and favourite to succeed him, was so taken by an analogy with an NHS programme known as GIRFT (Get It Right First Time) that he referred to it in a speech yesterday.

The real damage, however, is done among Labour MPs generally. They feel they are expected to defend policies that may change at a moment’s notice and without consulting them. Or they feel that, if they put enough pressure on the government on a policy they don’t like, it will give in. Neither is good for morale or for Starmer’s chances of fending off a leadership challenge.

U-turns that end up with better policy are good, and the public barely notices most of them. But they undermine the prime minister’s support among the very group of people he needs to keep him in power: the parliamentary Labour Party.