Britain's finance minister has approached this week's spending review similar to a reluctant swimmer inching into freezing water, endeavoring to lessen the unpleasantness through step-by-step exposure.
Reeves commenced dealing with the problem of limited funds at the close of summer. To begin with, she declined to uphold earlier statements that increases in taxation in last year's budget would be the ultimate ones.
Subsequently, earlier this month, she took a larger stride into the freezing waves. Her remarks promised to "take required actions" to support state services and maintain loan interest under control.
In just 10 days, the exchequer had withdrawn the implication. The manifesto commitment still stood in the end. As any freezing-water bather knows, this aborted immersion and trembling retreat is the worst of all methods. No tactic draws out the discomfort like indecision.
It can be hard to be resolute when choosing between degrees of self-inflicted injury.
Hope has not been a successful approach for the ruling party. Fundamental of the Labour leader's election bid was the vain belief of somehow fulfilling citizens' call for improved government services without overturning significant amounts of Tory revenue decreases.
Never has both the prime minister or the chancellor successfully expressed a sense of collective goal to explain all this hardship. Partly that is a challenge of charisma. Both leaders are uncannily alike in their ineffective messaging, awkward and reticent in a way that pushes the public away instead of pulling them in.
Just as electoral expectations to fund public services has pushed the exchequer to acknowledge that levies must go up, the commercial requirement of increasing economic expansion makes it increasingly difficult to overlook the price of separation from the EU market.
The government devoted a twelve months splashing in the shallow end of closer ties with the European Union: plans to end customs checks on farm products; a student movement initiative. Ambition went a more substantial on power generation, military and protection collaboration, but nothing of substance has yet been signed.
In the absence clear direction and momentum from the prime minister's office, discussions are stalled. Brussels authorities says trading benefits are obtained with financial input to the EU budget. Government representatives know that's the arrangement. That doesn't cause them keen for a public row and Nigel Farage screaming disloyalty over the eventual amount ends up being paid.
Economic reality has triggered some change in Labour's language on the European question. Reeves has begun naming EU withdrawal alongside the coronavirus crisis as a reason of financial harm that the finance ministry is toiling to fix. Cabinet members have done the same, although they deliberately ascribe the blame to "unfavorable agreement" or "the manner of departure", never just "leaving".
The challenge of the UK's long-term partnership with the European Union can't be reduced to administrative modifications and customs systems when the global political landscape is in significant transformation. In light of everything that has occurred since 2016, it feels legitimate still to be raising the big question: were the nation's concerns served by exiting the European Union?
These constitute sobering, challenging realities about the UK's situation in uncertain international waters. It is understandable that the prime minister and the chancellor flinch from the challenge. It would take them beyond their capabilities, into trends that they cannot swim against. So rather they persist nervously moving along the shore, hoping that maybe soon the situation will shift.