Ministers argue their decision on setting up an investigation into the scale of child sexual abuse by men often of Pakistani heritage came about after they had commissioned a considered piece of work by Dame Louise Casey – and that was a pragmatic sequencing of decision making, albeit under considerable political pressure.
But the other two are more straight forward U-turns: decisions of the government’s own making they later concluded were deeply unpopular.
This latest one, on the welfare state, comes after Sir Keir Starmer has endured his bumpiest days yet in Downing Street.
He was publicly humiliated by coach-loads of his own MPs in a well-executed campaign while he was out of the country at the Nato summit in the Netherlands.
The scale of it, and its remorseless growth over the last 48 to 72 hours, nigh on guaranteed his eventual capitulation.
The alternative was defeat.
But this shouldn’t have come as a surprise. Labour MPs have been telling myself and others for months they didn’t like these plans – and more and more of them were making their views known both publicly and privately within the party.
The government was determined not to budge, perhaps hopeful much of it was noise and their mountainous majority would inoculate them from a minority of grumblers.
The prime minister is determined to leverage that majority to take on what he sees as the difficult changes the country desperately needs.
The benefits bill is rising fast and he, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves and others believe the only way to protect the welfare state and ensure it is sustainable into the long term is to at least limit the scale of its growth.
But the grumblers got louder, more numerous and more organised.
And Downing Street found out the hard way their plans were doomed.
By Thursday evening, multiple sources were telling me the concessions were agreed and were big, and the outline of the about-turn was spelt out.
But it was only formally confirmed at half past midnight on Friday morning.
In addition to the anger and uncertainty that this saga has caused for so many benefits recipients, there are two potentially long-lasting political consequences: for the Treasury’s spreadsheets and the prime minister’s authority.
Projecting economic competence and a firm grip of the public finances runs to the core of the image Reeves wants to project as chancellor. These cuts were, in part at least, about doing just that. But now all the numbers are changing.
And as for Sir Keir Starmer’s authority, moments like this can leave a lasting impression, on a prime minister’s own MPs and the country at large.
No 10 had rapidly concluded this about-turn was their least worst option.
But this isn’t meant to happen to a government with a landslide majority and certainly not one less than a year into its time in office.
