Britain's finance minister has handled the imminent spending review like a reluctant swimmer creeping into freezing water, attempting to mitigate the discomfort through gradual exposure.
Reeves started addressing the issue of inadequate funds at the end of the summer months. At first, she declined to uphold previous insistence that increases in taxation in the prior year's budget would be the ultimate ones.
Later, in early November, she took a more significant stride into the cold waters. A speech committed to "do what is necessary" to support public services and control loan interest low.
In just 10 days, the exchequer had pulled back the hint. The election promise still stood ultimately. Similar to any freezing-water dipper understands, this aborted dive and quivering retreat is the most painful of all approaches. Nothing prolongs the suffering like hesitation.
It can be hard to be decisive when choosing between types of internally generated injury.
Hope has not been a effective approach for the ruling party. At the core of the prime minister's general election campaign was the vain expectation of in some way fulfilling the public's demand for better state services without undoing billions of pounds of Tory reductions in taxation.
Never has both the prime minister or the chancellor effectively communicated a feeling of national purpose to justify all this hardship. To some extent that is a problem of personality appeal. Starmer and Reeves are remarkably comparable in their ineffective messaging, awkward and reserved in a way that pushes listeners back instead of attracting them towards them.
Similarly to electoral expectations to fund government services has pushed the exchequer to concede that levies must increase, the economic imperative of boosting growth makes it ever harder to ignore the cost of separation from the European single market.
Officials used a year dabbling in the shallow end of realignment with the European Union: suggestions to end import controls on farm products; a youth mobility scheme. Aspiration went a bit deeper on power generation, armed forces partnership, but no major deals has to date been signed.
In the absence definite guidance and drive from No 10, negotiations are bogged down. Brussels authorities says economic advantages are unlocked with financial input to the European funds. British officials are aware that's the deal. That doesn't lead them eager for a open dispute and campaigners howling betrayal over whatever price ends up being agreed.
Economic reality has caused some shift in the administration's language on the European question. She has started identifying Brexit alongside the health emergency as a cause of commercial injury that the Treasury is toiling to address. Government colleagues have followed suit, although they cautiously ascribe the blame to "unfavorable agreement" or "the manner of departure", never just "withdrawal".
The issue of the UK's ongoing association with the European Union can't be reduced to procedural changes and customs systems when the entire international system is in significant transformation. Given everything that has transpired since 2016, it feels legitimate still to be posing the core matter: were Britain's interests promoted by departing the European Union?
These are sobering, challenging truths about the nation's position in choppy world affairs. It is expected that both leaders shy away from the responsibility. It would take them way out of their depth, into currents that they dare not swim against. So as an alternative they carry on apprehensively moving along the shore, wishing that perhaps shortly the situation will shift.
A tech enthusiast and consumer advocate with over a decade of experience testing and reviewing products across various categories.