The prevailing sentiment among the party's representatives currently echoes Edgar's law. It declares that the magnitude of each adversity can only be gauged against yet-to-come catastrophes. As the playwright makes the exiled child of the blinded Earl of Gloucester say within the tragedy: “The worst does not exist, so long as we are able to utter ‘this is the worst’.”
A Chain of Worsening Crises
As per this principle, there is no survey so pessimistic regarding the party that won't be followed by another more depressing; no fiscal forecast so bad that the exchequer can't aggravate it with contradictory signals regarding taxation; no reservations regarding the leader that cannot be intensified via hostile communications concerning a bid for power.
Asylum Policy Declaration
In that context, the recent declaration of measures intending to reduce the amount of asylum seekers granted entry to Britain, modelled on a notoriously mean Nordic approach, went down more favorably among party members than anticipated. There appeared glimmers of parliamentary discontent but no conflagration of opposition.
Hardening immigration policies is not the party's natural territory, however the present arrangement is clearly failing while citizens are furious. Numerous parliamentarians understand the position that acceptance and community cohesion are easier to cultivate if assurance exists that the nation's borders are safely guarded.
Increasing Dissatisfaction
Quiet backbenches can also be threatening. Parliamentarians have realized that each issue is discussable with a directionless leader with flexible principles. What is announced today could be withdrawn tomorrow. There exists no necessity to advance hastily when victories can be won through persistence.
A frequent grievance concerns the Prime Minister is barely running the cabinet whatsoever, following the transfer of policy decisions to his chief of staff. That isn't to say the head of government is without administrative energy, he just prefers not to mediate between ministry conflicts or participate in long debates.
Leadership Style
The leader joined party politics at an advanced stage, initially becoming an MP when he was fifty-two. He lacks instinct regarding party traditions – the collection of past debates, campaigns, figures and cultural references which link a chief to the wider movement and its perception of collective mission.
His innermost beliefs remain unknown even to the cabinet. As one senior Labour figure puts it: “Keir is highly unusual in his role through suggesting that his private opinions are not for public consumption.”
Political Consequences
The persona marketed as the Prime Minister during the previous electoral contest has similarly not produced its promised advantages: executive proficiency culminating in countrywide revitalization. Assuming Britain possessed a binary political arrangement, the recollection of previous difficulties during Conservative rule could extend tolerance for the party.
That presages a crushing loss for party representatives during local and regional polls in the coming spring. It shall represent an instance of significant risk for the leader, provided he remains that long.
Succession Concerns
Not present within these calculations exists consensus regarding the person of a successor and how their programme might contrast with existing administration plans. This defect regarding changeover preparations is cited by those backing the incumbent among numerous justifications to continue supporting the current leader.
Although discontented representatives may flinch at such cautions, they also hear in them the well-known, empty ringing of modest goals which causes hopelessness with current conditions. It is the sound of failure to describe the approach as anything more than a set of methods for clinging on.
Final Considerations
It is hard to generate allegiance toward such a purpose. And most Labour MPs have attempted. They have followed official positions, defended it on the doorstep, heeded instructions, trusted promises that their issues received attention.
Prime ministerial ousting contains considerable peril, but is it riskier compared to feigning that the current ruler has answers regarding major issues which he doesn't identify? The Shakespearean principle invites caution in ousting an incumbent leader. The alternative may turn out poorer.
“The weight of these difficult days we need to follow; Speak what we feel, rather than expected statements.”
