The prevailing mood among Labour MPs these days echoes Edgar's law. It affirms that the extent of every hardship can only be gauged relative to yet-to-come catastrophes. As the playwright has the banished son of the blinded Earl declare in King Lear: “The worst is not, provided that we are able to utter ‘this is the worst’.”
A Chain of Worsening Difficulties
As per this principle, there exists no opinion poll so gloomy for Labour that cannot be coming after another more depressing; no economic projection so bad that the finance ministry cannot worsen through conflicting messages on tax; no reservations regarding the leader that can't be amplified through malicious leaks regarding a contest for leadership.
Refugee Measures Announcement
In that context, this week's revelation of strategies designed to limit the number of asylum seekers granted entry to Britain, based upon an infamously harsh Scandinavian model, was taken more favorably with Labour MPs than anticipated. There were sparks of backbench anger however no blaze of dissent.
Hardening immigration policies is far from Labour's comfort zone, but the current system is obviously flawed and the public is enraged. Most MPs grasp the position that open-mindedness and intercommunal harmony are simpler to foster provided there is trust that the nation's borders are secure.
Increasing Dissatisfaction
Reserved MP positions may also represent foreboding. Representatives have discovered that each issue is discussable with a directionless leader of adaptable beliefs. Today's declarations could be withdrawn tomorrow. There is no need to rush over the top if successes can be achieved by attrition.
A frequent grievance concerns the Prime Minister is hardly managing the government in any meaningful way, after assigning political judgment to his principal advisor. However, this doesn't mean the head of government is without administrative energy, he simply favors to refrain from intervening between ministry conflicts or engage in long debates.
Management Method
The Prime Minister entered political parties at an advanced stage, originally joining the legislature when he was fifty-two. He misses understanding regarding party traditions – the body of former discussions, drives, figures and cultural references that connect a leader to the larger group and its perception of shared purpose.
His most personal values remain unknown to government members. As one senior Labour figure puts it: “The leader is remarkably distinct as a prime minister by creating the perception that his individual beliefs is none of your business.”
Governmental Outcomes
The persona marketed representing the leader in the recent polling battle has also not delivered its claimed rewards: executive proficiency resulting in national renewal. Had the UK maintained a binary political arrangement, the remembrance of past problems under the Tories might prolong patience with Labour.
It indicates a massacre of Labour candidates during local and regional polls during the upcoming vote. It will be a moment of extreme peril for the leader, provided he remains that long.
Future Considerations
Absent in these evaluations is agreement on the identity of a successor and their intended agenda might contrast compared to present strategies. This weakness regarding changeover preparations is mentioned by supporters of the leader as part of various arguments to remain with the existing prime minister.
While restive MPs could hesitate regarding those warnings, they similarly perceive within them the familiar, hollow knell of low ambition which causes hopelessness at the status quo. It signifies the tone of inability to describe the approach as anything more than a set of methods for clinging on.
Ending Reflections
It remains challenging to generate allegiance to such a cause. And most Labour MPs have endeavored. They have adhered to official positions, defended it on the doorstep, obeyed the whips, believed assurances that their issues received attention.
Leadership removal involves significant danger, however, does it present greater hazards versus acting as if that the current ruler possesses solutions about important matters that he never even names? The Shakespearean principle invites caution in ousting a sitting prime minister. The alternative might prove more disastrous.
“The burden of this troubled period we have to accept; Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.”
