By Chris MasonPolitical editor, BBC NewsVideo caption, After much speculation, the Labour leader announces the party’s decision to retract its spending commitment, raising questions about the merits of changing one’s mind.Keir Starmer’s Labour party made a significant move into a new headquarters not far from Parliament recently. I was invited to interview Sir Keir Starmer at the new headquarters to discuss his choice to discard a long-standing pledge to allocate £28 billion annually to sustainable industries. This backtrack was widely visible, with the £28 billion figure being originally announced in 2021, then softened in the summer, and ultimately discarded this week. The party believed that the pledged amount was a political liability and was unattainable due to their self-imposed economic regulations. Critics also argued that such spending would result in excessive borrowing or tax hikes. Additionally, conflicting public statements from senior party members about whether the policy was still in effect contributed to the decision. Despite these difficulties, Sir Keir struggles to make the case that little will change in practical terms after discarding the headline figure. The Conservatives argue that Labour’s change of heart is at least partly motivated by the Tory tax cuts that Labour supports and does not intend to reverse. They also question the costings of Labour’s remaining policy commitments. In response, Labour points to Liz Truss and her impact on the economy. This leads to the question of whether it was unrealistic for Labour to commit to £28 billion in the first place. This brings me back to the original question: Is altering your position a positive or negative move? Sir Keir Starmer contends that in all his previous experiences, changing one’s stance in response to changing circumstances is not viewed negatively, except in Westminster, where it is labeled as a U-turn. He believes that his actions represent a pragmatic adjustment that acknowledges changing circumstances. On the other hand, the Conservatives accuse him of constantly changing his position, despite having made numerous about-turns themselves. They have altered their positions on HS2, electric cars, railway station staff, and the repeal of old EU laws, among others. The opposition party leader faces the challenge of defining himself to voters starting from a position of low public recognition. Constant changes in position, as seen with Keir Starmer, make it difficult to establish a clear identity, potentially leading to perceptions of lack of conviction. Starmer’s opponents view these numerous changes, including on bankers’ bonuses, childcare in England, and overseas aid, as a vulnerability to be exploited. They view the £28 billion reversal as the latest example. Labour, however, calculates that facing criticism for a U-turn is preferable to enduring months of opposition over the £28 billion commitment. It’s possible that political opponents attack a party for making U-turns when they lack alternative lines of attack. A U-turn can often nullify a point of differentiation, switching an opponent from a stance of opposition to one’s own position. This effectively erases the point of disagreement, undermining the opposition’s argument. This leads me back to a phrase I heard at the Labour Conference last autumn that still resonates with me. Critics argue that Labour is diluting its points of differentiation from the Conservatives, which should be its primary focus. However, others believe that shedding points of difference can neutralize potential attacks from opponents. After a challenging period, Labour has removed a lingering target by retracting a promise.
