Rachel Reeves has approached this week's financial plan comparable to a hesitant swimmer inching into freezing water, striving to mitigate the hardship through step-by-step exposure.
Reeves commenced dealing with the problem of inadequate funds towards the conclusion of the summer months. To begin with, she would not to uphold previous statements that tax rises in the prior year's budget would be the ultimate ones.
Later, in early November, she took a larger stride into the icy sea. A speech promised to "do what is necessary" to finance government services and maintain debt expenses down.
In just 10 days, the finance ministry had pulled back the implication. The campaign pledge remained intact after all. As any freezing-water bather knows, this halted immersion and trembling pullback is the least effective of all methods. Nothing extends the suffering like hesitation.
It's challenging to be firm when deciding between degrees of personally caused damage.
Hope has not been a great tactic for this government. Fundamental of Keir Starmer's political platform was the unrealistic expectation of in some way meeting the public's call for enhanced state services without overturning billions of pounds of Tory tax cuts.
Never has both Starmer or Reeves adequately communicated a sense of national purpose to explain all this hardship. To some extent that is a issue of leadership presence. The prime minister and the chancellor are strikingly comparable in their poor communication skills, stilted and reticent in a way that drives the public off instead of attracting them closer.
In the same way that political pressure to fund public services has forced the finance ministry to acknowledge that revenue must rise, the commercial requirement of improving growth makes it more challenging to overlook the cost of separation from the continental trading bloc.
The government spent a twelve months dabbling in the shallow end of realignment with the European Union: suggestions to remove import controls on farm products; a young people's exchange program. Vision went a more substantial on power generation, defence and security cooperation, but nothing of substance has so far been agreed.
In the absence definite guidance and impetus from No 10, discussions are bogged down. The European Commission says trading benefits are accessed with payments to the continental treasury. Government representatives know that's the deal. That doesn't cause them eager for a public row and Nigel Farage screaming betrayal over any cost ends up being paid.
Economic reality has triggered some adjustment in Labour's rhetoric on the European question. Reeves has begun naming EU withdrawal alongside the health emergency as a cause of commercial injury that the finance ministry is working hard to fix. Cabinet members have done the same, although they carefully ascribe the responsibility to "a bad Brexit deal" or "the exit process", never just "Brexit".
The issue of Britain's future relationship with the European Union can't be simplified to technical adjustments and border mechanisms when the global political landscape is in tumultuous flux. Considering everything that has occurred since 2016, it feels appropriate still to be posing the big question: were the nation's concerns served by departing the EU?
These represent harsh, difficult realities about the nation's situation in choppy global circumstances. It is understandable that the prime minister and the chancellor shy away from the task. It would take them way out of their depth, into trends that they cannot resist. So rather they continue apprehensively moving along the shore, hoping that perhaps shortly the tide will shift.
Lena is a tech journalist with over a decade of experience covering consumer electronics and emerging technologies.