Leading article: Will Mr Blair regret his lack of boldness once again?

Whether it was a concession, a climb-down or a fully fledged U-turn is, in the end, of little consequence. In diluting some of the more contentious aspects of his schools reforms, the Prime Minister was probably bowing to the inevitable. With more than 90 Labour MPs vocally opposing the Bill, something had to give.

But this does not mean that Mr Blair should have given ground, or given it so soon. The Prime Minister placed education at the centre of his political ambitions from the day he took office. He has made no secret of his intention that it should be a large part of his political legacy. To have defied his backbenchers and depended on the promised support of Conservatives to get his legislation through would not have been a comfortable position, and was politically impossible. The crowing from Tory benches can be imagined, had it been they who ultimately secured passage of Bill.

Mr Blair was right when he spoke of walking a tightrope in defence of his reforms. Here we saw him dipping to the left in an effort to keep his balance. And, despite the cautious welcome from backbenchers, it is possible that he will have to dip further in coming weeks. By offering concessions now, however, Mr Blair not only forfeits key elements of his reforms but allows the Conservatives to claim the mantle of true reformers, whatever their final position.

The question is how much further he can really go without sacrificing the whole sense of these reforms. There have been policies - the Iraq war first and foremost - on which Mr Blair has justifiably found himself isolated inside his own party and grateful to the Opposition for support. The reform of the state school system, however, should not have been one of them. Like the introduction of foundation hospitals, the creation of trust schools is not a radical departure. It is a sensible but relatively unambitious change that scared left-wingers because it was confusingly oversold.

The Prime Minister is right in believing that greater diversity of supply is needed to raise standards overall. This government has learnt to its cost that any promise of more choice is counterproductive if the choice is not there. If the only local school is not up to scratch, those who can afford to do so move to a better catchment area. And the same people lose as have always lost. Mr Blair's determination to do something about this before he leaves office is entirely laudable.

The concept of trust schools that would be independent within the state sector, able to choose their specialisation and run their own finances, need not - indeed should not - lead to the two-tier system John Prescott and others so feared before the Prime Minister offered his concessions. Nor need the reforms revive the spectre of 11-plus style selection.

For the advantage of choice to rest with parents and not the schools, however, depends on there being more places in desirable schools than there are children to fill them. Many of the current problems reflect the shortage of places in good schools, especially in urban areas. In an effort to allay fears about selection, Mr Blair has now offered to tighten the admissions code and to ban schools from using interviews as part of the admissions procedure. Local education authorities will be allowed to bid to build a new school, alongside other applicants.

It is a brave politician who takes on the education establishment, the local authorities and a good number of his own backbenchers all at once. To try to save the Bill by diluting it is the mark of the pragmatist. But it is hard not to wonder if, ultimately, this will be another time when Mr Blair wishes he had taken a bolder line on his reforms.