Britain's finance minister has tackled this week's financial plan comparable to a hesitant swimmer edging into cold water, striving to ease the unpleasantness through step-by-step exposure.
The chancellor started tackling the problem of limited income near the conclusion of summer. To begin with, she declined to uphold previous statements that increases in taxation in the previous year's financial statement would be the final ones.
Later, in early November, she took a more significant step into the cold waters. Her address committed to "implement needed measures" to support government services and maintain loan interest low.
After 10 days, the finance ministry had retracted the hint. The campaign pledge still stood after all. Like every freezing-water swimmer knows, this halted immersion and trembling retreat is the least effective of all approaches. Nothing draws out the suffering like uncertainty.
It is hard to be resolute when choosing between types of internally generated harm.
Hope has not been a great tactic for the ruling party. Fundamental of the Labour leader's political platform was the futile expectation of somehow fulfilling citizens' call for improved government services without undoing billions of pounds of Conservative revenue decreases.
Not once has both the prime minister or the chancellor successfully expressed a feeling of shared mission to validate all this difficulty. To some extent that is a problem of leadership presence. The prime minister and the chancellor are uncannily comparable in their ineffective messaging, awkward and unforthcoming in a way that drives audiences away instead of drawing them in.
Just as public demand to fund public services has compelled the Treasury to acknowledge that revenue must go up, the commercial requirement of boosting prosperity makes it ever harder to overlook the price of disconnection from the EU market.
Officials spent a period experimenting in the shallow end of closer ties with the European Union: suggestions to remove customs checks on farm products; a student movement initiative. Vision went a further on power generation, military and protection collaboration, but nothing of substance has to date been signed.
Lacking definite guidance and momentum from the prime minister's office, discussions are stalled. Brussels authorities says single-market privileges are accessed with payments to the continental treasury. British officials understand that's the arrangement. That doesn't cause them keen for a open dispute and political opponents howling treason over any cost ends up being settled.
Commercial conditions has caused some adjustment in the government's tone on the EU relationship. She has started naming leaving Europe alongside the coronavirus crisis as a factor of financial harm that the exchequer is working hard to repair. Other ministers have done the same, although they deliberately assign the responsibility to "a bad Brexit deal" or "the exit process", never just "Brexit".
The problem of the UK's ongoing association with the European Union can't be reduced to procedural changes and customs systems when the whole geopolitical order is in significant transformation. In light of everything that has occurred since 2016, it feels appropriate still to be asking the fundamental issue: were the UK's priorities served by departing the European Union?
These constitute harsh, difficult truths about Britain's position in choppy global circumstances. It is understandable that Starmer and Reeves recoil from the challenge. It would take them beyond their capabilities, into forces that they cannot resist. So as an alternative they persist anxiously walking the water's edge, wishing that possibly in the near future the circumstances will change.
A seasoned gaming consultant with over a decade of experience in slot machine technology and casino operations, specializing in player engagement strategies.