The chancellor has tackled this week's financial plan similar to a reluctant bather inching into icy water, attempting to mitigate the discomfort through incremental entry.
The chancellor commenced dealing with the issue of limited revenue towards the close of the summer months. At first, she declined to uphold previous assertions that revenue hikes in the previous year's financial statement would be the ultimate ones.
Later, earlier this month, she took a larger stride into the freezing sea. Her remarks committed to "implement needed measures" to finance state services and maintain debt expenses low.
Within 10 days, the Treasury had retracted the implication. The campaign pledge remained intact ultimately. Similar to any freezing-water swimmer realizes, this cancelled dive and shivering retreat is the worst of all approaches. Nothing extends the pain like indecision.
It can be challenging to be resolute when deciding between types of self-inflicted injury.
Optimism has not been a effective tactic for the ruling party. At the core of the Labour leader's election bid was the vain belief of in some way fulfilling citizens' call for enhanced government services without overturning large sums of Conservative revenue decreases.
Not once has either Starmer or the chancellor effectively expressed a feeling of shared mission to validate all this hardship. To some extent that is a challenge of personality appeal. The prime minister and the chancellor are uncannily alike in their ineffective messaging, wooden and unforthcoming in a way that pushes audiences off instead of attracting them towards them.
Similarly to political pressure to fund government services has forced the Treasury to acknowledge that levies must rise, the financial necessity of improving growth makes it increasingly difficult to disregard the cost of disconnection from the EU market.
Officials devoted a period experimenting in the initial phase of realignment with the EU: proposals to remove border inspections on food items; a student movement initiative. Vision went a more substantial on power generation, defence and security cooperation, but no major deals has so far been signed.
In the absence specific instruction and impetus from Downing Street, talks are stuck. The European Commission says single-market privileges are obtained with contributions to the continental treasury. British officials know that's the arrangement. That doesn't lead them eager for a open dispute and Nigel Farage shouting treason over the eventual amount ends up being settled.
Financial circumstances has triggered some shift in Labour's tone on the European question. She has started identifying leaving Europe alongside the Covid pandemic as a factor of economic damage that the Treasury is striving to address. Government colleagues have followed suit, although they carefully attribute the responsibility to "a bad Brexit deal" or "the way we left", never just "withdrawal".
The issue of Britain's ongoing association with the European Union can't be simplified to technical adjustments and import controls when the whole geopolitical order is in constant change. In light of everything that has happened since the referendum year, it feels legitimate still to be posing the core matter: were the nation's concerns served by exiting the EU?
These are sobering, challenging realities about the nation's position in uncertain world affairs. It is understandable that both leaders shy away from the responsibility. It would take them outside their comfort zone, into currents that they cannot swim against. So rather they carry on anxiously walking the water's edge, wishing that perhaps shortly the circumstances will shift.