Rethinking the Political U-Turn: A Sign of Weakness or Strength?

We’ve become strangely obsessed with the term U-turn in politics. It’s almost always used pejoratively — a quick headline, a social media jab, an easy target for criticism. The moment a political leader revises a position, the media leaps in: “weak,” “in disarray,” “lost control.”

But I think that’s a serious misreading of what’s often going on. In many cases, what’s labelled a U-turn is not weakness — it's strength.

No leader gets everything right all the time. Sometimes, decisions are made with limited foresight, without consulting the right people, or without full appreciation of their impact. The real test of leadership is not perfection; it’s the willingness to reflect, reassess, and change course when needed.

That takes courage. It’s far easier — and far more dangerous — to stubbornly cling to a flawed decision out of pride or fear of backlash. In contrast, pausing to listen, recognising mistakes, and adapting to do better is, in my view, a far more responsible and admirable approach.

What’s more, a leader who is surrounded by colleagues confident enough to speak up — to challenge, question, and suggest change — is a leader at the head of a healthy party. That’s what democracy should look like: open dialogue, constructive criticism, and decisions that evolve in response to real-world consequences, not just rigid ideology.

I say this in light of the commentary we've seen this week around the Labour Party and Keir Starmer. I'm not going to delve deeply into the media frenzy or repeat the headlines accusing him of losing control or suggesting his party is in free fall. Frankly, I think that noise misses the point.

What I see is a leadership willing to adapt — to recognise that the journey to the right outcome isn’t always a straight line. That isn’t weakness. It’s mature, responsive leadership.

And in today's political climate, that's something we should value far more than we do.