The chancellor has approached this week's spending review similar to a hesitant bather edging into freezing water, attempting to lessen the discomfort through incremental exposure.
The chancellor commenced addressing the challenge of limited income near the end of the summer months. To begin with, she would not to stand by previous assertions that tax rises in the previous year's financial statement would be the last ones.
Later, earlier this month, she took a bolder move into the cold waters. A speech promised to "implement needed measures" to finance government services and keep debt expenses low.
In just 10 days, the Treasury had withdrawn the implication. The campaign pledge still stood ultimately. Similar to any freezing-water swimmer understands, this halted plunge and quivering withdrawal is the worst of all approaches. Nothing prolongs the suffering like hesitation.
It is challenging to be firm when selecting between levels of self-inflicted damage.
Hope has not been a successful tactic for the ruling party. Fundamental of the prime minister's general election campaign was the futile expectation of by some means meeting voters' demand for improved state services without overturning significant amounts of Conservative revenue decreases.
At no point has either Starmer or Reeves effectively expressed a impression of collective goal to justify all this hardship. In part that is a issue of personality appeal. Both leaders are remarkably alike in their ineffective messaging, wooden and unforthcoming in a way that repels audiences off instead of drawing them towards them.
In the same way that electoral expectations to support state services has compelled the Treasury to admit that levies must go up, the commercial requirement of increasing economic expansion makes it increasingly difficult to disregard the cost of disconnection from the continental trading bloc.
Ministers devoted a year dabbling in the early stages of closer ties with the European Union: suggestions to eliminate customs checks on farm products; a student movement initiative. Ambition went a more substantial on energy, defence and security cooperation, but no major deals has to date been signed.
In the absence specific instruction and drive from No 10, talks are bogged down. The European Commission says economic advantages are obtained with financial input to the EU budget. Government representatives are aware that's the deal. That doesn't cause them keen for a public row and political opponents shouting disloyalty over whatever price ends up being settled.
Financial circumstances has provoked some change in Labour's tone on the European question. The chancellor has started identifying leaving Europe alongside the health emergency as a cause of financial harm that the Treasury is toiling to address. Cabinet members have emulated this, although they carefully attribute the responsibility to "unfavorable agreement" or "the manner of departure", never just "withdrawal".
The problem of the nation's ongoing association with the EU can't be simplified to technical adjustments and customs systems when the entire international system is in significant transformation. Considering everything that has occurred since the Brexit vote, it feels legitimate still to be asking the fundamental issue: were the UK's priorities served by leaving the European Union?
These are cold, uncomfortable truths about Britain's predicament in uncertain world affairs. It is understandable that the prime minister and the chancellor shy away from the challenge. It would take them outside their comfort zone, into forces that they will not oppose. So as an alternative they persist anxiously pacing the shore, praying that possibly in the near future the situation will turn.
Renewable energy consultant with over a decade of experience in sustainable development projects across Europe.