Rachel Reeves has handled this week's budget comparable to a unwilling bather edging into icy water, attempting to ease the unpleasantness through gradual immersion.
The chancellor began tackling the issue of insufficient revenue towards the end of summer. At first, she refused to uphold former assertions that tax rises in last year's financial statement would be the last ones.
Later, recently, she took a bolder move into the freezing waves. Her address vowed to "do what is necessary" to fund public services and control borrowing costs under control.
Within 10 days, the finance ministry had retracted the implication. The manifesto commitment was upheld after all. Similar to any cold-water dipper knows, this aborted plunge and quivering withdrawal is the worst of all methods. Nothing extends the suffering like indecision.
It's hard to be resolute when selecting between types of personally caused damage.
Hope has not been a effective tactic for the administration. At the core of the prime minister's election bid was the unrealistic hope of somehow satisfying citizens' demand for enhanced public services without undoing significant amounts of Tory tax cuts.
Never has either the prime minister or the chancellor successfully communicated a impression of collective goal to justify all this hardship. In part that is a challenge of leadership presence. The prime minister and the chancellor are strikingly alike in their communicative deficiency, awkward and unforthcoming in a way that repels the public back instead of attracting them in.
Just as public demand to fund state services has forced the Treasury to acknowledge that revenue must increase, the commercial requirement of boosting prosperity makes it increasingly difficult to overlook the cost of disconnection from the EU market.
The government spent a period experimenting in the early stages of closer ties with the European Union: suggestions to remove import controls on food items; a student movement initiative. Vision went a more substantial on energy, defence and security cooperation, but no major deals has yet been finalized.
In the absence definite guidance and momentum from No 10, negotiations are stalled. Brussels authorities says single-market privileges are unlocked with financial input to the EU budget. British officials are aware that's the agreement. That doesn't lead them keen for a public row and campaigners howling disloyalty over any cost ends up being paid.
Financial circumstances has triggered some change in the administration's language on the EU relationship. Reeves has started citing leaving Europe alongside the coronavirus crisis as a factor of financial harm that the finance ministry is striving to address. Cabinet members have followed suit, although they deliberately attribute the blame to "poor negotiation terms" or "the exit process", never just "Brexit".
The problem of the nation's long-term partnership with the EU can't be limited to technical adjustments and customs systems when the entire international system is in significant transformation. Considering everything that has occurred since the referendum year, it feels appropriate still to be posing the core matter: were the UK's priorities advanced by exiting the European Union?
These constitute sobering, challenging truths about the nation's situation in turbulent global circumstances. It is not surprising that the prime minister and the chancellor flinch from the responsibility. It would take them beyond their capabilities, into forces that they cannot oppose. So as an alternative they carry on anxiously pacing the shore, wishing that possibly in the near future the situation will turn.
A seasoned gaming analyst with over a decade of experience in reviewing online casinos and slot machines, passionate about fair play.