The prevailing mood among parliamentary Labour members nowadays adheres to a literary maxim. It declares that the magnitude of every hardship can only be measured against unforeseen calamities. As the playwright lets the outcast offspring of the blinded Earl declare within the tragedy: “The worst is not, as long as we are able to utter ‘this represents the lowest point’.”
A Chain of Deepening Problems
As per this principle, there is no survey so dismal about the government that it can't be followed by one even bleaker; no fiscal forecast so bad that the finance ministry can't aggravate it with contradictory signals regarding taxation; no reservations concerning the Prime Minister that cannot be intensified through malicious leaks about a leadership challenge.
Refugee Measures Announcement
In that context, this week's revelation of strategies that aim to restrict the quantity of displaced persons admitted to the UK, based upon an infamously harsh Danish system, was received less badly with Labour MPs than anticipated. There were sparks of MP frustration but no conflagration of opposition.
Tightening asylum rules is not the party's natural territory, however the present arrangement is clearly failing and voters are angry. Most MPs grasp the argument that tolerance and community cohesion are easier to cultivate provided there is trust that national frontiers are safely guarded.
Rising Unhappiness
Reserved MP positions may also represent foreboding. Representatives have discovered that each issue is discussable with a directionless leader of malleable conviction. What is announced today may be unannounced tomorrow. There exists no necessity to charge forward provided triumphs can be secured via endurance.
A regular criticism concerns the Prime Minister is hardly managing the government whatsoever, after assigning strategic choices to his chief of staff. That isn't to say the prime minister is without administrative energy, he just prefers to refrain from intervening between ministry conflicts or engage in protracted arguments.
Leadership Style
The Prime Minister entered political parties late in his career, initially becoming an MP at the age of 52. He lacks instinct about movement history – the canon of past debates, campaigns, characters and traditional touchstones that connect a leader to the larger group and its sense of shared purpose.
His innermost beliefs remain unknown to government members. According to an experienced Labour figure puts it: “The Prime Minister is quite different in his role by creating the perception that his private opinions remain personal matters.”
Governmental Outcomes
The product packaged as the Prime Minister in the recent polling battle has similarly not produced its purported benefits: managerial competence resulting in societal regeneration. Assuming Britain possessed a dual-party structure, the memory of how bad things were under the Tories could extend tolerance for the party.
This foreshadows a devastating defeat for party representatives during local and devolved elections during the upcoming vote. It would constitute a time of great danger for the Prime Minister, if he endures that long.
Succession Concerns
Not present within these assessments appears unity regarding the person of a replacement and their intended agenda could vary from the current government's agenda. This defect regarding changeover preparations is cited by those backing the incumbent as one of many reasons to remain with the existing prime minister.
Although discontented representatives could hesitate regarding those warnings, they also hear within them the well-known, meaningless sound of modest goals that creates despondency with current conditions. It represents the noise of failure to describe the approach as merely a sequence of tactics for holding power.
Final Considerations
It proves difficult to generate allegiance toward such a purpose. And most Labour MPs have endeavored. They have adhered to established policies, supported it during canvassing, obeyed the whips, trusted promises that their concerns were heard.
Regicide involves significant danger, but is it riskier than pretending that the present leader holds responses about important matters that remain unmentioned? Edgar's law invites caution when removing a current head of government. The alternative could always be worse.
“The weight of this troubled period we need to follow; Speak what we feel, instead of proper declarations.”
