Kathy Sheridan: Let’s hear it for the political U-turn

U-turns? We've had a few. Simon Coveney on the green bin charges.

Fianna Fáil on Fine Gael in government. Labour and Frankfurt's way. Labour and third-level fees. Leo Varadkar and "not another red cent" for the banks. Gerry Adams on paying his water charges. Finian McGrath on not paying his water charges. Paul Murphy on not paying his property charges. Shane Ross on his idolatry of Anglo Irish Bank.

Your political hue may influence which of these fall under a) opportunistic, b) cynical, c) criminal, d) brazen, e) treacherous, f) pragmatic, g) populist, or even, h) the right thing to do.

Junior minister John Halligan never paid water charges because it was up to his partner to pay or not, apparently. And anyway, he asked: "What kind of politician would I be if after years of opposing water charges, I paid them now?"

The kind of politician whose opinion changes when the circumstances change, perhaps ? Either way, with his decision to vote with the Government on water charges, the junior minister’s dilemma was neatly encapsulated in a headline : “John Halligan denies water vote U-turn.”

Sticky wicket

It’s a sticky wicket for those on the frontbench who have made a career out of opposition. Watching them take responsibility for a collective position and attempting to defend it, week in week out, promises to be highly diverting. Few politicians manage to walk that line while maintaining their reputation for telling it like it is.

Interestingly, Leo Varadkar has managed it to some extent (and thus the high polling figures). The trick is to sound authentic, regardless. Most end up sounding slippery and evasive, leading to a mass shrug of “they’re all the same” from listeners.

Yet, what are they to do ? Throw a strop and head for the plinth every time a Cabinet decision is not to their liking ? Or take a deep breath and suck up the concept of collective responsibility? Why is it so hard for people in public life to change their minds? If they shift position on an issue, even after careful, informed consideration – as opposed to sticking a finger in the air to see how the popular wind is blowing – the people’s response, reliably, will be “typical politicians”.

But as people grow, they gain in experience and wisdom, we have to hope. They travel, read and listen to a broader spectrum of voices. They have children and begin to worry about things like passive smoking, the future of the water supply or the state of the planet. Attitudes evolve as people get tossed around by life.

Political correctness

One English journalist who derided wussy political correctness changed his mind when he had a child with Down syndrome. A former archbishop of

Canterbury

, Dr

George Carey

, changed his mind about the right to die after witnessing the agony of

Tony Nicklinson

, who suffered from locked-in syndrome.

So why is it considered a badge of honour to cling to the same beliefs developed as a callow youth or shaped by wholly different times or experiences ? Why has changing your mind got such a bad rap?

Some put the blame on Margaret Thatcher. "You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning," she pronounced at the 1980 Tory party conference, with a glacial stare at those who were demanding a change in economic direction. It was Maggie and her implacable ideology who made refusing to do a U-turn the ultimate test of political virility.

For many, that deep, emotional attachment to opinions about such issues as taxes, immigration, or the responsibilities and rights of all who share this small world, is hard to shake.

Once they give an opinion, it is no longer just an opinion, it is their opinion. It becomes part of who they are and any public opposition to it becomes a threat to the core of them. For people in public life, who define themselves thus, it is even harder to shift. These are tough, intractable issues for everyone on the right and the left; yet all profess to have the definitive answer because otherwise they might seem weak.

When was a politician last heard saying they were not entirely sure about something? Yet, what thinking human being has not had the niggle of a suspicion that there might be another perspective on a bedrock issue but find themselves peculiarly unwilling to explore it? The problem is that to pursue it would require intellectual openness and courage, yet no value is placed on those qualities.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it," wrote Upton Sinclair, the American writer and activist. But a system where people fear changing their minds or where it is made impossible to do so, is a failure – and a dangerous one. It becomes a dialogue of the deaf and we've seen too much of that.

In the end , it comes down to character, to the ability to transcend ego, to seek out what is genuinely in the public interest.

All U-turns are not the same.