The chancellor has approached this week's budget like a reluctant bather creeping into cold water, striving to mitigate the discomfort through incremental entry.
She began addressing the challenge of insufficient revenue towards the conclusion of the summer months. At first, she refused to uphold former insistence that increases in taxation in last year's budget would be the last ones.
Then, recently, she took a bolder stride into the freezing sea. Her address promised to "implement needed measures" to fund government services and keep loan interest down.
In just 10 days, the finance ministry had withdrawn the implication. The campaign pledge was upheld after all. Similar to any freezing-water bather knows, this halted immersion and shivering retreat is the worst of all approaches. No strategy draws out the pain like indecision.
It can be hard to be decisive when deciding between types of internally generated damage.
Hope has not been a effective approach for the administration. Central of the Labour leader's general election campaign was the vain hope of by some means satisfying the public's demand for better public services without overturning billions of pounds of Tory tax cuts.
At no point has both the prime minister or the chancellor adequately expressed a feeling of national purpose to validate all this difficulty. To some extent that is a challenge of leadership presence. Both leaders are strikingly alike in their communicative deficiency, wooden and reserved in a way that pushes audiences back instead of pulling them closer.
Just as public demand to fund government services has forced the Treasury to acknowledge that revenue must rise, the financial necessity of increasing economic expansion makes it more challenging to ignore the price of disconnection from the continental trading bloc.
Ministers used a period splashing in the early stages of improved relations with the European Union: suggestions to end border inspections on farm products; a student movement initiative. Aspiration went a further on power generation, military and protection collaboration, but no major deals has yet been signed.
In the absence definite guidance and momentum from the prime minister's office, negotiations are stalled. Brussels authorities says trading benefits are accessed with financial input to the EU budget. British officials know that's the agreement. That doesn't make them keen for a visible argument and Nigel Farage shouting betrayal over whatever price ends up being agreed.
Financial circumstances has provoked some adjustment in the government's tone on the continental partnership. The chancellor has started naming Brexit alongside the Covid pandemic as a cause of commercial injury that the exchequer is working hard to repair. Other ministers have done the same, although they deliberately ascribe the blame to "a bad Brexit deal" or "the manner of departure", never just "Brexit".
The problem of the UK's long-term partnership with the European Union can't be limited to administrative modifications and customs systems when the entire international system is in constant change. Considering everything that has occurred since the Brexit vote, it feels appropriate still to be raising the fundamental issue: were the nation's concerns served by leaving the European Union?
These are cold, uncomfortable truths about the UK's predicament in turbulent world affairs. It is understandable that both leaders flinch from the challenge. It would take them way out of their depth, into forces that they cannot oppose. So rather they carry on anxiously moving along the water's edge, hoping that perhaps shortly the tide will change.
A tech journalist and VR specialist with over a decade of experience covering emerging technologies and digital culture.