Rachel Reeves has tackled this week's spending review similar to a reluctant swimmer edging into freezing water, endeavoring to mitigate the unpleasantness through step-by-step exposure.
She began tackling the challenge of insufficient revenue towards the end of summer. To begin with, she would not to uphold earlier assertions that revenue hikes in the prior year's financial statement would be the ultimate ones.
Later, in early November, she took a more significant move into the cold sea. Her remarks committed to "take required actions" to finance government services and keep debt expenses low.
In just 10 days, the exchequer had retracted the hint. The campaign pledge was upheld ultimately. Like every freezing-water swimmer knows, this cancelled immersion and trembling withdrawal is the worst of all techniques. No tactic prolongs the discomfort like uncertainty.
It's challenging to be firm when choosing between levels of personally caused injury.
Hope has not been a effective approach for the administration. Central of Keir Starmer's general election campaign was the vain belief of somehow meeting citizens' desire for enhanced public services without reversing significant amounts of Tory tax cuts.
Never has either Starmer or the chancellor adequately communicated a impression of collective goal to validate all this hardship. To some extent that is a challenge of personality appeal. The prime minister and the chancellor are remarkably alike in their ineffective messaging, stilted and unforthcoming in a way that drives listeners away instead of drawing them closer.
Similarly to electoral expectations to invest in state services has pushed the finance ministry to admit that revenue must rise, the economic imperative of improving prosperity makes it more challenging to ignore the price of disconnection from the EU market.
Ministers spent a period splashing in the shallow end of improved relations with the European Union: proposals to end border inspections on agricultural goods; a youth mobility scheme. Ambition went a further on power generation, defence and security cooperation, but no significant agreements has so far been agreed.
Lacking definite guidance and drive from the prime minister's office, discussions are stuck. The European Commission says trading benefits are obtained with payments to the continental treasury. Government representatives know that's the arrangement. That doesn't cause them enthusiastic for a open dispute and Nigel Farage howling treason over the eventual amount ends up being agreed.
Financial circumstances has triggered some change in the government's tone on the EU relationship. She has commenced citing Brexit alongside the Covid pandemic as a reason of economic damage that the finance ministry is toiling to address. Other ministers have emulated this, although they cautiously attribute the blame to "poor negotiation terms" or "the manner of departure", never just "leaving".
The issue of Britain's long-term partnership with the European Union can't be limited to technical adjustments and border mechanisms when the global political landscape is in significant transformation. Given everything that has happened since 2016, it feels reasonable still to be raising the core matter: were the UK's priorities advanced by leaving the European Union?
These represent sobering, challenging truths about the nation's position in choppy international waters. It is not surprising that Starmer and Reeves flinch from the challenge. It would take them beyond their capabilities, into forces that they cannot oppose. So rather they continue apprehensively moving along the coastline, wishing that perhaps shortly the circumstances will turn.