There are considerable problems with the winter fuel payment U-turn, but perhaps the political argument in favour outweighs them all?
First, that Rachel Reeves has executed the plan without working out how to pay for it. This, for an iron chancellor, is a wound opponents won't let her forget. A summer of speculation about tax rises is not a summer anyone looks forward to.
Third, the question immediately becomes what next? Why not PIP and the two child benefit cap. At this stage it would feel like a climb down if they did not back down over those. But then, what will the markets - already policing this closely - make of it and could they punish government.
Fourth, this is aggravating divisions in the parliamentary Labour Party: the soft left Compass group and ministers like Torsten Bell pushing bigger spending arguments. Those MPs in Tory-facing seats who rely on arguments that Labour can be trusted with the public finances are worried.
Fifthly, this has created a firm division between Number 10 and Number 11. Number 10 is now conscious they do not have enough independent advice about the market reaction to economic policies and is seeking to correct. Others, I am told, are just critical of the chancellor's U-turn - for she wobbled first.
So given the litany of arguments against, why has it happened?
Because the hope is this maxi U-turn lances the boil, removes a significant source of pensioner anger and brings back Labour voters, a price they calculate worth paying whatever the fiscal cost.
We wait to see who is right.
Legal67eagle: