Rachel Reeves has handled the imminent financial plan similar to a hesitant bather edging into cold water, endeavoring to lessen the hardship through incremental exposure.
The chancellor commenced dealing with the issue of inadequate funds at the conclusion of summer. To begin with, she declined to support earlier assertions that revenue hikes in the previous year's budget would be the last ones.
Subsequently, earlier this month, she took a more significant stride into the icy sea. Her remarks promised to "implement needed measures" to support government services and maintain borrowing costs down.
Within 10 days, the finance ministry had retracted the suggestion. The manifesto commitment remained intact after all. As any freezing-water dipper realizes, this halted immersion and trembling withdrawal is the most painful of all methods. Nothing extends the suffering like indecision.
It is challenging to be firm when selecting between levels of personally caused harm.
Hope has not been a successful tactic for the administration. Central of the Labour leader's election bid was the vain belief of somehow fulfilling voters' demand for enhanced government services without overturning billions of pounds of Tory tax cuts.
Never has either the prime minister or the chancellor successfully communicated a sense of collective goal to explain all this pain. To some extent that is a challenge of personality appeal. The prime minister and the chancellor are uncannily similar in their poor communication skills, wooden and unforthcoming in a way that drives audiences back instead of attracting them closer.
In the same way that political pressure to support government services has forced the Treasury to acknowledge that levies must rise, the financial necessity of improving prosperity makes it increasingly difficult to overlook the expense of disconnection from the European single market.
The government devoted a twelve months splashing in the shallow end of improved relations with the EU: suggestions to end border inspections on agricultural goods; a student movement initiative. Vision went a further on energy, military and protection collaboration, but nothing of substance has yet been signed.
Without specific instruction and impetus from Downing Street, talks are bogged down. EU officials says trading benefits are unlocked with financial input to the EU budget. British officials know that's the agreement. That doesn't make them enthusiastic for a public row and political opponents howling disloyalty over the eventual amount ends up being settled.
Financial circumstances has caused some shift in the government's tone on the continental partnership. She has begun identifying leaving Europe alongside the coronavirus crisis as a factor of commercial injury that the exchequer is working hard to address. Government colleagues have followed suit, although they carefully assign the blame to "a bad Brexit deal" or "the exit process", never just "Brexit".
The issue of the UK's ongoing association with the EU can't be reduced to procedural changes and border mechanisms when the whole geopolitical order is in tumultuous flux. In light of everything that has transpired since the referendum year, it feels reasonable still to be asking the fundamental issue: were the nation's concerns promoted by leaving the European Union?
These represent cold, uncomfortable truths about the UK's situation in turbulent international waters. It is understandable that Starmer and Reeves flinch from the responsibility. It would take them beyond their capabilities, into trends that they cannot swim against. So rather they carry on anxiously moving along the water's edge, wishing that possibly in the near future the situation will shift.
A data scientist and business strategist with over a decade of experience in transforming raw data into actionable insights for global enterprises.