Another Labour U-Turn

Summary

Newscast BBC News — “Another Labour U-Turn”

Date: January 14, 2026
Host(s): Adam Fleming (with Henry Zeffman & Danny Shaw)
Main Topics: Labour’s latest U-turn on digital ID, West Midlands Police controversy, ramifications of policy reversals

---

Episode Overview

This episode scrutinizes Labour’s latest policy “U-turn” regarding digital IDs and unpacks its significance in the wider pattern of government reversals. The team also delves into the growing controversy surrounding the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police over the banning of Israeli football fans, moving through political implications and the role of AI in police decision-making. The hosts are joined by BBC experts for analysis, with a focus on what these issues reveal about leadership, policymaking, and public confidence.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. What Constitutes a “U-Turn” in Politics?

[00:42–03:42]

• Adam Fleming raises the ambiguity around what counts as a “U-turn” — is it a policy reversal, a complete backtrack, or just a change in approach?
• Henry Zeffman suggests the term has become nebulous, loaded, and often unhelpful:

  “In political terms a U turn has probably become something a bit more nebulous...the phrase U turn is so loaded that they get very anxious about admitting their view turned.” (01:25, Zeffman)

• Zeffman argues that while the public may commend sensible changes, repeated U-turns risk creating an impression of government instability.
• On the recent Times newspaper claim of 13 government U-turns, the hosts consider it a generous definition. Zeffman claims a more realistic figure is nine clear policy changes:

  “That feels like an awful lot for a government that is as new as this and has a majority as big as this government.” (03:17, Zeffman)

---

2. The West Midlands Police & “AI Hallucination” Scandal

[04:20–16:18]

Background: The Maccabi Tel Aviv Fan Ban

[04:20–07:05]

• Danny Shaw recounts the police-led decision to bar Israeli football fans from an Aston Villa match—unprecedented and widely condemned by officials including the Home Secretary and Prime Minister.
• Allegations swirl about the influence of political and community considerations.

AI Gone Wrong (08:06–11:01)

• Chief Constable Craig Guildford is under fire for claiming, then backtracking, on whether AI was used in assessing match safety.
• Danny Shaw slams the episode:

  “This is a police force. This is not someone, you know, doing their GCSE sort of homework... It's a police force coming up with an intelligence report. I mean, for goodness sake.” (10:00, Shaw)

Home Secretary’s Strong Rebuke

[11:08–13:28]

• Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood delivers a robust statement in Parliament declaring no confidence in Guildford:

  “…the shortcomings detailed in his report are... symptomatic of a force not applying this necessary strategic oversight...responsibility ...rests with the Chief Constable. And it is for that reason that I must declare today that the Chief Constable...no longer has my confidence.” (11:21, Mahmood)

• She proposes returning to the Home Secretary the power to remove Chief Constables—a significant policy change.

Police Reform and Political Ramifications

[13:28–16:18]

• Shaw & Zeffman discuss the imminent abolition of Police and Crime Commissioners and a return to central government control.
• Shaw predicts Guildford’s days are numbered:

  “...when the Home Secretary stood up in the House of Commons and said she doesn't have confidence in you...I don't see what alternative you have other than to go.” (13:44, Shaw)

• The episode reflects the rise of central Home Office intervention and broader debates around policing accountability.

---

3. The Implications: AI Use, Confirmation Bias & Community Trust

[16:19–18:54]

• Zeffman highlights concern over police use of AI tools without any policy framework, leading to public scrutiny and questions about reliability.
• The police’s “retrofitting of evidence”—seeking facts to match preconceived conclusions—resonates with community critiques of law enforcement.
• Zeffman adds a third thread: the experience of British Jews in 2026—Shabana Mahmood references concern for Jewish communities in her statement:

  “...for years, really, when these arguments were playing out...about digital ID...there were kind of two visions that sat slightly at tension about the purpose of digital id.” (22:12, Zeffman)

• Inspector Andy Cook’s report finds no clear evidence of antisemitism but acknowledges the wider social context.

---

4. Labour’s Digital ID U-Turn: Details & Political Fallout

[19:14–26:28]

Original Digital ID Plan

[19:14–21:13]

• Keir Starmer had initially pledged a mandatory digital ID system for all workers in the UK:

  “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital id. It's as simple as that.” (19:31, Zeffman quoting Starmer)

Revised Policy

[20:05–22:12]

• New plan scales this back: right-to-work checks become digital for employers, but individuals have various ID options—digital ID is not universally mandatory.
• Starmer’s government hopes voluntary uptake will make digital IDs more widely used over time, but admits this evolution will be gradual.

Rationale for Change

[22:12–24:01]

• Zeffman explains the shift addresses rampant conspiracy theories about digital surveillance and aims for a less controversial, “transformational” approach to digital infrastructure:

  “They are trying, I think, to sort of take some of the sting out of this.” (22:12, Zeffman)

Political Reactions & PMQs

[24:01–26:18]

• Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch taunts Labour for another U-turn at Prime Minister's Questions:

  “Mandatory digital digital ID was a rubbish policy and we on this side of the House are glad to see the back of it.” (24:08)

• Starmer responds with a risqué joke about the Kama Sutra and government reversals, prompting Zeffman’s comment:

  “If you're making a sex joke as Prime Minister in your first answer, you're not necessarily on the most solid, argumentative ground.” (24:56, Zeffman)

• More telling are grumblings from Labour MPs, frustrated by repeated policy rollbacks undermining their public defenses and collective responsibility:

  “There are loyal MPs who have defended the Prime Minister...only to then have the rug pulled from under them...” (25:10, Zeffman)

Broader Consequences for Starmer

[26:18–27:36]

• Zeffman and Fleming agree the issue is less about the precise number of reversals than about an overall perception of indecisiveness and lack of direction.
• This pattern compounds long-standing worries that Starmer lacks a clear vision, as countless Labour MPs “crave from him...a sense of where he's taking them and where he's taking the country.” (26:28, Zeffman)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Political U-turns:

  “The phrase U turn is so loaded that they get very anxious about admitting their view turned.”
  — Henry Zeffman (01:25)

• On Police Use of AI:

  “This is not someone, you know, doing their GCSE homework... It's a police force coming up with an intelligence report. I mean, for goodness sake.”
  — Danny Shaw (10:00)

• On Parliamentary Accountability:

  “The ultimate responsibility for the force's failure...rests with the Chief Constable. And it is for that reason that I must declare today that the Chief Constable...no longer has my confidence.”
  — Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood (11:21)

• On Policy Reversals:

  “There are loyal MPs who have defended the Prime Minister...only to then have the rug pulled from under them...”
  — Henry Zeffman (25:10)

• PMQs Zinger:

  “They had more positions in 14 years than the Kama Sutra. No wonder they're knackered and they left the country screwed.”
  — Keir Starmer (24:35)

---

Timestamps of Key Segments

• Understanding U-turns in Politics — 00:42–03:42
• West Midlands Police Fan Ban Scandal — 04:20–16:18
  • Decision Recap: 05:20–07:05
  • Use of AI: 07:30–11:01
  • Home Secretary’s Statement: 11:08–13:28
• Implications: AI, Confirmation Bias, Community Trust — 16:19–18:54
• Labour’s Digital ID U-turn — 19:14–26:28
  • Original Plan: 19:31–21:13
  • Current Policy: 20:05–21:13
  • Rationale and Fallout: 22:12–26:18
  • PMQs Exchange: 24:01–24:56
• Starmer’s Leadership Challenge — 26:28–27:36

---

Summary Takeaways

• Repeated government reversals (“U-turns”) are straining public and internal party trust, risking the perception of indecisiveness in Starmer’s Labour administration.
• The West Midlands Police scandal shines a light on the perils of technology misuse and leadership accountability—potentially setting a new precedent in government oversight of policing.
• Labour’s roll-back on mandatory digital ID reflects a reactive posture to controversy, stoking unrest among loyal MPs and feeding criticism of Starmer’s vision.
• Broader political consequences loom, with both governance style and public trust up for debate as the government navigates complex challenges into 2026.

---

In the Words of the Hosts

“The fact that we can disagree about how many tens of U turns there have been 18 months into this government's time in office tells its own story, doesn't it?”
— Adam Fleming (28:59)

“…what they crave from him is a sense of where he's taking them and where he's taking the country.”
— Henry Zeffman (26:28)

---

Transcript

[Henry Zeffman]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.

[Helena Merriman]

If journalism is the first draft of history, what happens if that draft is flawed? In 1999, four Russian apartment buildings were bombed, hundreds killed. But even now, we still don't know for sure who did it. It's a mystery that sparked chilling theories. I'm Helena Merriman and in a new BBC series, I'm talking to the reporters who first covered this story. What did they miss the first time? The History Bureau. Putin and the apartment bombs. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Adam Fleming]

Hello, and welcome to episode 323of is a U Turn a U turn or just the government changing its mind? Or is it a partial U turn which makes it more of a J turn? A subject we've discussed a lot on this podcast and we're going to do it again, this time with Henry Zeffman. Hello, Henry.

[Henry Zeffman]

Good morning, Adam.

[Adam Fleming]

Good morning. Oh, gosh, it was good morning last.

[Henry Zeffman]

Time I was talking to you from this chat.

[Adam Fleming]

Yes. Also Henry and I were both on five Live Breakfast this morning at about five to seven, so. And it's now quarter past three in the afternoon. Henry, what is your take on how you judge whether something is a U turn or not? Because Chris and I have discussed many times before, in my mind, a U turn has to be something that reverts you back to your original position as opposed to sort of partially going ahead with something in a watered down format.

[Henry Zeffman]

I admire your stand for terminological coherence, but I think in political terms a U turn has probably become something a bit more nebulous than that. I see your point though. I mean, I do. I actually think it is an unhelpful phrase because politicians might be willing to admit that they've changed their policy, but the phrase U turn is so loaded that they get very anxious about admitting their view turned.

[Adam Fleming]

Um, so because they're, they're their peers and their colleagues, it's a, it's a mark of weakness. Whereas the public maybe might view it as just doing the right thing.

[Henry Zeffman]

I think issue by issue, that probably is how many members of the public feel. However, the risk for any government, and we're probably at this stage with this government, is that if you pile them up again and again, then it starts to look like a bigger story about the government.

[Adam Fleming]

This morning on five Live, I repeat, at quarter to seven in the morning, we were discussing the number in the Times newspaper of government U turns. They've totted up to 13, but we both think that's That's a. That's a very generous interpretation of a U turn that they're using.

[Henry Zeffman]

There's also a very generous memory of the question you asked me, Adam, because you actually said, what's your number?

[Adam Fleming]

Oh, yeah.

[Henry Zeffman]

Which I was completely ambushed by. And then I bit of behind the curtain here. I sort of rapidly tried to change the subject and divert, like I was a politician being grilled by you. Anyway, we've done a bit. No, no, no, it's fine, it's fine. I'm not bitter. Just, you know, nine hours on thinking about it. We've. We've done a bit of work at our end. I mean, I don't think we've come up with a hard and fast BBC number. I think 13 is a bit unfair. There's things in there which I don't think are complete U turns. For example, the income tax sort of fandango in the run up to the budget where they were going to put.

[Adam Fleming]

It up and then decide not to.

[Danny Shaw]

Right.

[Henry Zeffman]

But it was never formal government policy that they were going to put up the rate of income tax. So I don't think that's a U turn. I think that was a bit of an embarrassing episode. But it's. It's different. But I think you can definitely pretty easily get to nine, I think, which are just unequivocally clear changes of government policy, whether they're J turns or U turns or whatever. And that feels like an awful lot for a government that is as new as this and has a majority as big as this government.

[Adam Fleming]

And the ninth one on that list happened this week. And it is the government changing its position on what digital IDs are going to be used for. And we will discuss that. U turn, J turn, change of position, you name it. In the second half of this episode.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Of Newscast, Newscast, Newscast from the BBC.

[Unidentified Speaker (possibly a comedian or commentator)]

Fat Boy Slim and me in the.

[Adam Fleming]

Classroom doing our violin lessons.

[Unidentified Speaker (possibly a commentator or MP)]

I was the tattletail in the classroom.

[Henry Zeffman]

Can I have an apology, please? I trust almost nobody that Daddy has.

[Danny Shaw]

To sometimes do strong language.

[Adam Fleming]

Next time in mosque.

[Helena Merriman]

I feel the lulu with no salulu.

[Danny Shaw]

Take me down the Downing street let's.

[Adam Fleming]

Go have a tour.

[Henry Zeffman]

Blimey.

[Adam Fleming]

Hello, it's Adam in the newscast studio.

[Henry Zeffman]

It's Henry in Westminster.

[Adam Fleming]

And the first subject we're going to discuss on Newscast today is the growing calls for the chief of West Midlands Police, Craig Guildford, to stand down. This is over his handling of the ban on Israeli football. Fans of the club Maccabi Tel Aviv going to see a match against Aston Villa last Year it's become very controversial. He's under fire for, well, the decision to start with. And now he's coming under fire for his defence of the decision in front of mps. We will untangle everything that's going on with the help of policing and Home affairs correspondent, formerly of the BBC, Danny Shaw. Hi, Danny.

[Danny Shaw]

Hi, Adam.

[Adam Fleming]

Right, so, Danny, just before we dive into what's been happening today on Wednesday, and we're recording this episode of newscast at about 3:30. Just take us back to last year and just the reaction, first of all to the decision by the local authorities in the West Midlands to ban these Israeli football fans. What actually was went on there and how did people feel about that decision at the time?

[Danny Shaw]

So this was a match that was going to take place in November between Aston Villa and Maccabi Tel Aviv, and in October, the Safety Advisory Group of Birmingham City Council, which is the group that really has to issue safety certificates of football matches, decided that they were going to ban all the Maccabi fans from attending that game. So there would be no tickets for supporters of the Israeli team going to that game. That's a pret. Draconian step. You know, I've been following football for years and obviously aware of issues and incidents over the years, but very, very unusual to ban away Fran through a fixture. There was immediate sort of concern and condemnation of that decision. The Home Secretary, the Prime Minister, said they disagreed with it, but it was a decision that was taken on the advice of the police and I think the government's very keen not to get involved in operational policing decisions. And there was a sense that there might be some kind of compromise reached. But in the end what happened was that Muccabi themselves actually declined to take the offer of tickets and so they didn't send any fans. There were some protests at the match, There was a little bit of disorder, but not very much, and the match went ahead without any Maccabi fans. But the row has certainly escalated since then with accusations that the police essentially took the wrong decision and were influenced politically and influenced by the views of sort of Muslim communities in Birmingham who were concerned about the presence of an Israeli team.

[Adam Fleming]

Yeah, very good summary, Dannery, and I should say you're channeling your inner Laura K by speaking to us from a train station, because you're on the move. So that's the train station sound effects you're hearing in the background there. And here is Craig Guilford, the Chief Constable, on 6 January, being asked by MPs whether his force had used artificial intelligence to compile their reports. That led to them recommending that the Maccabi fans should be banned from the match.

[Craig Guildford]

There was a definite note that we've got to the bottom of in terms of the West Ham game. And I think the accusation. Well, not the accusation, the summation, I think in the house, it was a question that was asked in the house was that, you know, you've used AI, or West Midlands may have used AI on this particular occasion. We don't do that. We don't use the AI.

[Adam Fleming]

So, yeah, Henry, just explain what we think was going on there. And when he was making those statements to the MPs and the committee. And also what we've since learned about what the police had actually done to compile their information.

[Henry Zeffman]

Yeah, that was Craig Guildford trying to explain to MPs how, as part of its deliberations, West Midlands police had talked about the policing of a match between Maccabi Tel Aviv and West Ham, which never happened. And as you heard there, he claimed that it was the result of a Google search turning up something wrong, rather than the use of AI, because he said they didn't use AI. Actually, this morning, in a letter to the Home Affairs Select Committee, which is separate to the other things which have developed today, Craig Guildford said that was wrong. They had actually used AI. In this case, Microsoft Copilot, this was essentially an AI hallucination, I mean, just more generally, on Craig Guildford's two appearances before the Home Affairs Select Committee. And by the way, there were two, because MPs were so unimpressed with the first one. And various things came out in the media after the first one, which called into question things that he'd said at that hearing. I mean, I've watched, as you both have, Adam and Danny, so many hearings across so many different select committees over the years. I've never seen a group of MPs as unimpressed by the testimony of a witness as the MPs on the home Affairs Select Committee visibly were with Craig Guildford. It really was quite something to see.

[Adam Fleming]

And, Danny, just in terms of what we've learned today about the use of Microsoft Copilot, the AI function on all the Microsoft apps, what's your take on the fact that that's what the police were using to compile their evidence here?

[Danny Shaw]

Well, it's just extraordinary. I mean, first of all, what the police were doing was trying to research football matches in which Maccabi Tel Aviva played. And the. The Police Intelligence Unit, the National Police Intelligence Unit, sort of didn't. Didn't provide them with enough information. So what we were told was that an officer had Googled to look for matches that are played in England, had come up with this game that West Ham had played against McCarthy, which was a complete fiction. They'd never played at all. Then when they were asked, well, was it. Was it Google or was it? I said, no, it was Googling. And then today, as you've heard, has to admit, it was AI. It was Microsoft Copilot, which is an AI tool that had been used. I mean, it's embarrassing all around. It's embarrassing that the Police Intelligence Unit didn't, you know, wasn't able to bottom that out. It's embarrassing that Google was used or said to be used. It was embarrassing that it's now come out that it was an AI tool. I mean, this is a police force. This is not someone, you know, doing their GCSE sort of homework, who might get something wrong, you know, bad, bad that is, to rely on AI. It's a police force coming up with an intelligence report. I mean, for goodness sake. I mean. But that was only one of a number of problems and embarrassments which, you know, Shabana Mahmoud today, the Home Secretary, you know, having received an independent report about this, is described, you know, as damning about the West Midlands Police's handling of all this. And quite right, too.

[Adam Fleming]

And Henry Shabana Mahmood did a ministerial statement to the House of Commons, which was just after Prime Minister's questions today.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Faced by a game of such importance, the Chief Constable of the force, Craig Guildford, should have ensured more professional and thorough work was done. As Sir Andy himself says, the shortcomings detailed in his report are, and I quote, symptomatic of a force not applying this necessary strategic oversight and not paying enough attention to important matters of detail, including at the most senior levels. The ultimate responsibility for the force's failure to discharge its duties on a matter of such national importance rests with the Chief Constable. And it is for that reason that I must declare today that the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police no longer has my confidence.

[Adam Fleming]

What did you make of what she said?

[Henry Zeffman]

It was very strong. Very strong. And there's sort of layers to this because Shabana Mahmood is the MP for a constituency in Birmingham, so she represents constituents who are policed by West Midlands police and by Craig Guildford's leadership of that force. But she was extremely strong. I mean, she said that she no longer had confidence in Craig Guildford as the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police. She reckoned she was the first Home Secretary for two decades. So since David Blunkett in the New Labour years to have said such a thing. Now, there's an interesting wrinkle to this, which is that the Conservatives, since that second appearance before the Home Affairs Select Committee by Craig Guildford, have been calling for the Government to sack Craig Guildford. Shabana Mahmood is adamant that she does not have the power to do so. And I think Danny will know better than me, but I think generally people agree with her interpretation of her powers rather than the Conservative interpretation of her powers. She says that since police and Crime Commissioners were introduced in the 2010 under the Coalition, the Home Secretary no longer has that legal power. But as well as saying that she did not have confidence in Craig Guildford, essentially trying to shame him into resigning, she also said that the severity of this situation was such that it persuaded her that the Government needed to give back to the Home Secretary that power. So that is something we will see the Government change in the coming months, perhaps, or years, so that in future, a Home Secretary will have the power to sack individual Chief Constables again. And that is quite a significant move as well, I think.

[Adam Fleming]

So, Danny, does that mean we're kind of, at the moment in the hands of the West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner Simon Foster?

[Danny Shaw]

Yes. He is the only one that has the power to remove Greg Guilford, either by requiring him to retire or resign. I can't see Guilford surviving this. By the time this podcast airs, who knows, perhaps he will have fallen on his sword. But, you know, when the Home Secretary stood up in the House of Commons and said she doesn't have confidence in you as the Chief Constable, I don't see what alternative you have other than to go. I mean, he might try and resist, he might try and tough it out, but ultimately, I think his days are numbered as a Chief Constable. I mean, taking back the power of the Home Secretary, that is another sign that the Home Office is now stepping in much more. It moved away from interference in police forces under the Theresa May years when she was Home Secretary, and now it is very much stepping back in. We're going to see more of that, I think, with the Police Reform White Paper in the next couple of weeks. So it's a considerable power that she's reintroducing and I think Home Secretaries will have to use it carefully. She said she didn't expect to be using it very often, only where there were persistent and significant failings. Well, I think this would certainly qualify as significant failing.

[Adam Fleming]

And police and Crime Commissioners are being abolished ultimately anyway, aren't they? That experiment is coming to an end.

[Danny Shaw]

Yes. That's right. The government's announced that there won't be any more PCCs when they're, when their time is up in a couple of years, but there will still be mayors. Sorry, we're going to have to pause that.

[Adam Fleming]

No, this is great. I love a bit of. It's like making a radio drama quick. We need some really authentic sound effects to prove he's at a train station. This is like a two ways training course, isn't it? This will be used in years to come.

[Danny Shaw]

The next station will be Grantham. Right, Right.

[Adam Fleming]

Okay. So, Danny, the fact is, the experiment with police and crime commissions is about to end.

[Danny Shaw]

This will be the last batch of PCCs. They're going to be replaced by mayors in some areas and some kind of panel that will probably consist of local councillors in other areas. But it does give them an opportunity to obviously take back more control the Home Secretary. But, you know, all this is going to take some time, you know, in the short term. I mean, this is about what happens in the West Midlands. I mean, you know, the removal of a Chief Constable is a big step and particularly someone like Craig Guildford. He's been in policing for over 30 years. He's extremely experienced. He's served in five police forces and the National Crime Squad. He's, he's got the qpm, the Queen's Police Medal, which is the highest accolade in policing a distinguished officer. But, you know, sadly, he has to take responsibility for what's gone wrong here.

[Adam Fleming]

Danny, thank you very much. Going to let you carry on your journey. Thank you for joining us.

[Danny Shaw]

Thanks, Adam.

[Adam Fleming]

Henry. It's a shame Danny was only on a train to Lincolnshire because actually, if he'd been in the north, we could have talked about Northern Powerhouse Rail in real time. Another story that's cropped up today. I just wonder though, I mean, there's so many potential ramifications politically for this. I can see two really obvious ones right now. One, the police's use of AI. Will this be something that people will want to scrutinize a bit more and start to think about? Hang on. Well, if they're using it for this purpose, what other purposes are they using it for? And second of all, Shabana Mahmoud used that phrase confirmation bias, when she was in the Commons earlier on. In other words, the police had a view about what they thought the truth was and then they looked for the evidence to back that up. And I can imagine lots of communities in the UK would say yes, that's their experience of the police too.

[Henry Zeffman]

Right. Totally. I mean, on each of those consecutively. One, on the use of AI, I think in response to an foi, as part of the sort of fallout from this over the past few months, West Midlands police said they did not have a policy on AI that was in response to somebody who was wondering, correctly, as it turned out, whether AI had been used here. So police using AI without a policy on the appropriate ways to use AI in a matter like this seems very bad. I mean, clearly very bad, given they ended up claiming that a football match had taken place, which never took place. I mean, I think plenty of people would say, actually they would expect the police to be making good, sensible use of AI, as so many workplaces are beginning to do. But still, that is certainly going to be an interesting theme, I think. Two, as you say, the retrofitting of evidence in order to fit a conclusion, which is essentially what the Independent report today describes. Well, plenty of people will be saying, as you say, this isn't the only time this has happened. This perhaps isn't the only police force where that has happened. So I think that will be something that plenty of people want to talk about. I'll just add a third, by the way, which is about the treatment of Jews in Britain in 2026. And that is a theme that Shabana Mahmoud dwelled upon in her statement in the House of Commons. It is also a theme that various people who've been talking about this have drawn upon. Worth saying that Sir Andy Cook, in his report said that he didn't find that anti Semitism was a factor, or I think he said, you know, there wasn't clear evidence that it was a factor in all of this. But nevertheless, that is absolutely part of the specific story here as well.

[Adam Fleming]

And I should say Andy Kuk is His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, who is the person who wrote the report that Shabana Mahmud, the Home Secretary, was responding to today, which has sparked all this news, along with the letter from West Midlands police kind of fessing up about what they'd done. Oh, and also, Henry, just for people who aren't in our trade, FOI is a freedom of information, one of the tools of our trade.

[Danny Shaw]

Sorry.

[Adam Fleming]

No, don't worry, it's fine, it's fine. Now, Henry, back to our conversation we were having before the newscast. Trademark opening titles about the government's latest change of position. Now it's digital ID cards. Give us the original pitch. And Keir Starmer did make it very clear what the original pitch was.

[Henry Zeffman]

Yeah, he did. It was a policy designed to address a specific problem first and foremost, and that was the specific problem of illegal immigration. And Keir Starmer said that everybody who wanted to work in the UK would have to have a mandatory new digital ID in order to prove their right to work in the uk. And he said when he announced this in a speech back in September, let me spell that out. You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital id. It's as simple as that. Well, it turns out, Adam, it's not going to be as simple as that.

[Adam Fleming]

And what's the position now, as far as we understand it?

[Henry Zeffman]

So the position now is that there will be some new mandatory right to work checks, but they won't be like what Keir Starmer described. So at the moment, there are various ways that you as an employee, can prove that you have the right to work in the uk. They will essentially, from the sounds of things, remain the same. However, for the employer who is checking your right to work, there'll be a new digital element that is very different to what the government policy was presented as in September. To be clear, government is still rolling out and planning to roll out a new digital ID by the end of this Parliament. They believe that lots of people will want to take it up because it will become a much more convenient and easy way to access a whole range of public services than you currently have. And that may well be the case, and it may well be one of the big stories of the next few years. We may well come to see it as one of the most significant things that Keir Starmer's government initiated. However, it is pretty different to what Keir Starmer was talking about when he announced this mandatory digital ID in September.

[Adam Fleming]

In my head, I'm trying to dream up the sort of spreadsheet of options that would have been presented to ministers by the Civil Service. When ministers said, oh, we want to go ahead with some kind of digital id, what are our options? And I can imagine there was the hard option, which was make it mandatory for everybody. Basically, you get a letter in the post, like when you turn 16 and get your National Insurance number and say to everyone, here's your digital id. Oh, and by the way, you'll have to use it if you want to access any government service. Then there's the. I was going to say semi hard, which sounds a bit dodgy. The semi hard option, which is, oh, if you want to apply for a job and get the job, whether you're a migrant into the country or born here, you will need to show your digital id. And then there'd be the soft option, which we've got now, which is you roll that digital id. People gradually adopt it and when they feel like it, and it's one of the things you can use to prove your identity when you're getting a job. Oh, and by the way, Minister, the consequence of going for the softest option is it will take about 70 years for everyone in Britain to have a digital ID that they use regularly.

[Henry Zeffman]

Yeah, that's probably right. And I think that's why you are right to question whether this is a sort of full U term which takes you back where you started, because this is not the government junking the introduction of digital id. It is, though, a very different way of introducing it. And speaking to people in government last night, they believe that they are still going to get many of the benefits, but without what Simon Government came to see as just frankly, conspiracy theories, rampant conspiracy theories about what their true motives were by wanting people to have digital id. So they are trying, I think, to sort of take some of the sting out of this. Actually, behind this story is something quite important, which is that for years, really, when these arguments were playing out behind the scenes in the Labour Party and in different political parties about digital ID and whether it should be introduced by the British state, there were kind of two visions that sat slightly at tension about the purpose of digital id. One was quite a narrow application to deal with illegal immigration, to make it harder to work here if you don't have the right to work here. And the other was a much sort of broader, more transformational thing about bringing public services into. Well, not just into the 21st century, but deep into the 21st century. And there were different people in government, in this government who had different reasons for supporting digital id, which broadly fell into one of those two camps. But I come again to the crucial point. Keir Starmer, when he announced this policy, seemed to land himself in the first camp measure to address illegal immigration. The government is now taking this in a completely different direction. It may well prove to be a slightly less unpopular direction, but it is a change of policy.

[Adam Fleming]

And here is how some of that played out at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday lunchtime, when Keir Starmer was facing Kemi Badenok, a Tory leader.

[Unidentified Speaker (possibly a commentator or MP)]

Mr. Speaker, can I welcome the Prime Minister's latest U turn? I feel like I say that every week, mandatory digital digital ID was a rubbish policy and we on this side of the House are glad to see the back of it. But yesterday The Health Secretary said the Prime Minister's New Year's resolution should be, and I quote, to try to get it right first. To try to get it right first time.

[Unidentified Speaker (possibly a comedian or commentator)]

Mr. Speaker, on consistency. Don't get me started on five prime ministers, ministers, six chancellors, eight home secretaries, 16 housing ministers. They had more positions in 14 years than the Kama Sutra. No wonder they're knackered and they left the country screwed.

[Henry Zeffman]

Yeah, it was pretty awkward at PMQs. I mean, I don't want to sound like Mary Whitehouse, but I think if you're making a sex joke as Prime Minister in your first answer, you're not necessarily on the most solid, argumentative ground. I think there's no getting away from this being a tricky issue for the government. But I think the bigger risk for the Government is actually not about the policy itself. It stems from something that several Labour MPs I spoke to last night and this morning have raised, which is this feeling that they are fed up of defending the Government on controversial policies, only to then have the rug pulled from under them by the Prime Minister when he rolls back on the policy. There are loyal MPs who have defended the Prime Minister often because they support the policy, but sometimes they don't support the policy, but they see the demands of collective responsibility as requiring them to defend the Prime Minister, defend the Government's policies. They did it on winter fuel, they did it on welfare, they did it on plenty else besides, and then actually end up asking, well, why wasn't I just disloyal? Because the MPs who were disloyal ended up being able to sort of look good to their constituents or others who might have been complaining about it. I think that in the short term in Westminster will be the most significant issue to come out of this round.

[Adam Fleming]

And actually, going back to our earlier conversation, the precise number of U turns, J turns, whatever, isn't necessarily the problem. It's just the fact that there have been too many for too many people.

[Henry Zeffman]

Yeah, exactly. And also, I think they're particularly a problem for Keir Starmer, because they fuel something that has long been a criticism of him, right back to when his political fortunes were much stronger than they are now, which is that he doesn't necessarily have a deep inner sense of what he believes. And, you know, if you were a strong Prime Minister whose MPs felt like you had a clear sense of vision and mission, you can get away on a few issues with saying, look, I'm going to have to give ground here. I'm going to have to change policy here. But you know that the direction of travel is exactly the same as it's always been with me. But with Keir Starmer, I hear again and again from Labour MPs that what they crave from him is a sense of where he's taking them and where he's taking the country. And I still think the big task for him in 2026, I thought this at the start of 2026, and I think we'll be saying this right through certainly to the May elections, is can he provide that vision to Labour and peace and to the country? If he can, I think a lot of his political problems will start to melt away. But if he can't, I think he's gonna be in pretty big trouble.

[Adam Fleming]

And Henry, I will now let you melt away after a very long, hard day's work and some excellent analysis. Thank you very much.

[Henry Zeffman]

Thanks, Adam. Will I be speaking to you first thing tomorrow as well?

[Adam Fleming]

No, this was a one off. Yeah. Special, special guest appearance this week. Thanks, Henry.

[Danny Shaw]

Nice one.

[Adam Fleming]

And actually as Henry leaves the studio, here is me and him on five Live this morning. And you can now hear in me very unfairly asking him a question that in retrospect I knew he probably couldn't answer at the time. And him then doing the politician trick of avoiding it, but avoiding it very well. And I see this morning everyone has got a different total for the number of U turns that this brings us to. What's your personal choice of number?

[Henry Zeffman]

Do you know what, Adam? I haven't actually done my own totting up, but I think it's. This is the one we need. This is the authority, Henry, that we need to.

[Adam Fleming]

Because the Times is going to be for 13, but they've included some things that I think are just decisions.

[Henry Zeffman]

And then there was an 18 being thrown around. Well, I mean, I did see that. I did see that the times is 13 included income tax and I don't think that's right because the government had never announced that it was going to increase income tax before it decided not to. And I don't. I agree. I don't think that counts as a full U turn. Look, I think the fact that we can disagree about how many tens of U turns there have been 18 months into this government's time in office tells its own story, doesn't it?

[Adam Fleming]

So, yeah, hopefully you don't think that was too cruel to Henry of us to play that. Right. That's all for this episode of Newscast. Thanks very much for listening. We'll be back with another one very soon.

[Henry Zeffman]

Bye.

[Adam Fleming]

Bye.

[Henry Zeffman]

Newscast, Newscast from the BBC.

[Unidentified Closing Announcer]

Well, thank you for making it to the end of another newscast. You clearly ooze stamina. Can I gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? And then, without having to do anything else, our meandering chat will miraculously make its way to your phone.

[Helena Merriman]

If journalism is the first draft of history, what happens if that draft is flawed? In 1999, four Russian apartment buildings were bombed, hundreds killed. But even now, we still don't know for sure who did it. It's a mystery that sparked chilling theories. I'm Helena Merriman, and in a new BBC series, I'm talking to the reporters who first covered this story. What did they miss the first time? The History Bureau, Putin and the apartment bombs. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcast.