Rachel Reeves has tackled the upcoming spending review similar to a reluctant bather inching into cold water, attempting to lessen the hardship through gradual exposure.
She started dealing with the problem of insufficient revenue near the conclusion of the summer months. Initially, she refused to stand by former statements that revenue hikes in last year's budget would be the ultimate ones.
Then, earlier this month, she took a more significant move into the icy waters. A speech committed to "implement needed measures" to finance public services and control debt expenses down.
After 10 days, the Treasury had retracted the hint. The election promise was upheld in the end. Like every cold-water swimmer realizes, this cancelled immersion and quivering retreat is the least effective of all techniques. Nothing prolongs the suffering like uncertainty.
It is hard to be decisive when deciding between types of internally generated injury.
Expectation has not been a great approach for this government. Central of the Labour leader's general election campaign was the unrealistic expectation of in some way fulfilling the public's demand for better government services without overturning billions of pounds of Conservative revenue decreases.
Not once has both Starmer or the chancellor successfully conveyed a sense of national purpose to validate all this pain. To some extent that is a issue of leadership presence. Starmer and Reeves are uncannily comparable in their ineffective messaging, awkward and unforthcoming in a way that repels listeners back instead of attracting them towards them.
Just as public demand to fund state services has forced the finance ministry to concede that taxes must rise, the financial necessity of increasing growth makes it increasingly difficult to ignore the price of disconnection from the EU market.
The government devoted a period splashing in the early stages of closer ties with the European Union: plans to eliminate import controls on farm products; a youth mobility scheme. Vision went a more substantial on energy, military and protection collaboration, but no significant agreements has yet been signed.
Lacking definite guidance and drive from Downing Street, discussions are stalled. The European Commission says single-market privileges are unlocked with financial input to the EU budget. Government representatives know that's the arrangement. That doesn't lead them eager for a visible argument and political opponents howling betrayal over any cost ends up being settled.
Financial circumstances has provoked some adjustment in the government's rhetoric on the EU relationship. Reeves has started identifying EU withdrawal alongside the coronavirus crisis as a cause of economic damage that the exchequer is toiling to address. Government colleagues have followed suit, although they cautiously attribute the blame to "poor negotiation terms" or "the exit process", never just "Brexit".
The issue of Britain's future relationship with the EU can't be reduced to administrative modifications and border mechanisms when the global political landscape is in tumultuous flux. Considering everything that has happened since the Brexit vote, it feels legitimate still to be posing the core matter: were the nation's concerns advanced by departing the EU?
These are harsh, difficult facts about Britain's situation in turbulent world affairs. It is understandable that both leaders flinch from the responsibility. It would take them beyond their capabilities, into forces that they cannot swim against. So rather they carry on nervously walking the shore, hoping that possibly in the near future the circumstances will turn.
A professional gambler with over 15 years of experience in casino gaming, specializing in slot machine analytics and strategy development.