Britain's finance minister has approached this week's spending review comparable to a reluctant swimmer edging into icy water, attempting to mitigate the discomfort through step-by-step entry.
Reeves began dealing with the issue of inadequate income near the close of summer. To begin with, she refused to support earlier insistence that increases in taxation in the prior year's financial statement would be the last ones.
Later, recently, she took a larger move into the freezing waters. A speech committed to "implement needed measures" to support state services and maintain loan interest low.
After 10 days, the exchequer had withdrawn the suggestion. The campaign pledge remained intact after all. Like every cold-water swimmer understands, this aborted immersion and shivering retreat is the most painful of all approaches. No strategy draws out the suffering like indecision.
It is hard to be resolute when selecting between levels of self-inflicted harm.
Hope has not been a great tactic for the administration. At the core of the prime minister's election bid was the futile expectation of in some way meeting voters' demand for better public services without overturning significant amounts of Tory reductions in taxation.
Never has either the prime minister or the chancellor effectively expressed a feeling of collective goal to explain all this pain. To some extent that is a problem of personality appeal. Starmer and Reeves are strikingly similar in their communicative deficiency, awkward and reserved in a way that repels listeners away instead of attracting them towards them.
In the same way that public demand to invest in state services has compelled the exchequer to concede that taxes must rise, the commercial requirement of increasing growth makes it ever harder to overlook the cost of separation from the EU market.
Ministers used a period dabbling in the shallow end of closer ties with the EU: suggestions to eliminate customs checks on agricultural goods; a young people's exchange program. Aspiration went a more substantial on power generation, armed forces partnership, but nothing of substance has to date been agreed.
Without definite guidance and drive from the prime minister's office, discussions are stalled. EU officials says single-market privileges are unlocked with contributions to the EU budget. Government representatives are aware that's the arrangement. That doesn't cause them keen for a public row and political opponents shouting betrayal over the eventual amount ends up being settled.
Financial circumstances has triggered some change in the administration's rhetoric on the European question. She has started identifying leaving Europe alongside the coronavirus crisis as a cause of commercial injury that the Treasury is working hard to repair. Cabinet members have followed suit, although they cautiously attribute the blame to "poor negotiation terms" or "the exit process", never just "Brexit".
The problem of Britain's future relationship with the European Union can't be limited to technical adjustments and import controls when the whole geopolitical order is in tumultuous flux. In light of everything that has transpired since 2016, it feels appropriate still to be asking the fundamental issue: were the nation's concerns advanced by departing the European Union?
These are sobering, challenging facts about the UK's predicament in choppy global circumstances. It is expected that Starmer and Reeves shy away from the responsibility. It would take them outside their comfort zone, into forces that they cannot resist. So rather they carry on apprehensively pacing the shore, wishing that perhaps shortly the situation will change.
A financial strategist with over a decade of experience in wealth management and investment planning, dedicated to empowering others.