From U-Turn to W-turn to doughnuts

If political maneuvers were a dance, Labour needs a new teacher. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Finance Minister Rachel Reeves have been waltzing with four left feet.

First, Reeves hinted at breaking Labour’s manifesto pledge by raising income tax — a bold move, framed as necessary to plug a £30 billion ($39.4 billion) black hole.

Then, with one dramatic pirouette, she appears to have abandoned the plan entirely, seemingly opting instead for a “smorgasbord” of smaller levies and frozen thresholds.

Two U-turns in quick succession: one on income tax, another on the so-called “exit tax” for wealthy Britons leaving the country.

It needs a name – and not the sort that may be being bandied about in the corridors of Parliament.

A simple U-turn feels inadequate. Two U-turns? Is that an O-turn – a neat circle back to where you started?

But Reeves’ trajectory isn’t that tidy. So perhaps it’s a W-turn: a zigzag of intent, a fiscal doodle across the political map. Forward, back, sideways: an emblem of indecision.

But does a simple letter capture it all? Spoiler, for the purposes of this article: no, no it doesn’t.

Reeves hasn’t merely reversed course. She’s looped, spun, and sprinkled her strategy with sweeteners for different factions.

One moment we see Thatcherite resolve and key soundbites: “hard choices” where “everyone must do their bit.” The next, we’re told to expect “a budget for growth with fairness at its heart,” shelving the big tax hikes in favor of stealthy threshold freezes and gambling levies.

It’s less straight line, and more spiral.

Which brings us to the real metaphor: this isn’t a U-turn, an O-turn, or even a W-turn. It’s a doughnut turn – a glossy circle of political motion … with a giant bite out of it and hole in the middle, leaving markets and investors decidedly queasy.