By Chris MasonPolitical editor, BBC News@ChrisMasonBBCAfter much speculation, the Labour leader has announced that the party is abandoning its spending pledge. Is it wise to reverse a decision? Recently, Labour moved to a new headquarters near Parliament. I had the opportunity to interview Sir Keir Starmer about his choice to scrap a longstanding commitment to allocate £28 billion annually to green industries of the future. This reversal has been publicly unfolding, from the initial announcement of £28 billion in 2021, to its scaling down last summer, and finally its abandonment this week. The decision was driven by the party’s perception that the figure was potentially detrimental politically, and that they were unlikely to achieve such levels of spending under their self-imposed economic constraints. Critics also argued that the proposed amount would necessitate significant borrowing or tax increases. Moreover, conflicting public statements from senior figures about the sustainability of the policy further complicated the matter. While Sir Keir asserts that the practical outcome will remain largely unchanged, it is a challenging argument to make while discarding the headline figure. Although the projected amount was substantial, the party had not outlined specific plans for its utilization. The Conservatives have suggested that Labour is partially attributing the change to Conservative tax cuts, which Labour supports and does not intend to reverse, and have questioned the costings of the policies that Labour remains committed to. In response, Labour has raised concerns about Liz Truss and her impact on the economy. This raises the question: Was it unwise for Labour to commit to £28 billion in the first place? Anas Sarwar, Labour’s leader in Scotland, described the figure as “arbitrary.” Returning to the initial question – is changing one’s mind a positive or negative thing? Keir Starmer stated that, in all the places he has worked, only Westminster views changing one’s mind when circumstances change as unfavorable, even labeling it as a U-turn. He believes that what he is doing signifies a pragmatic adjustment that acknowledges changing circumstances. Critics argue that Sir Keir’s numerous changes of mind could portray him as lacking firm convictions. Labour calculates that facing criticism for a U-turn in the short term is preferable to enduring months of reproach over the £28 billion commitment. It is also possible that political opponents criticize U-turns when they lack alternative lines of attack, as a U-turn may align the opponent with the position they previously opposed, thereby negating the point of difference. This dilemma brings me back to a phrase that was voiced to me at the Labour Conference last autumn, “We need to be the smallest possible moving target.” Critics argue that Labour is compromising its points of differentiation from the Conservatives, which is supposed to be its focus. Others contend that it is about shedding distinctions that can be exploited by opponents. After a challenging period, Labour has eliminated a target by retracting a pledge.
