The current sentiment among the party's representatives currently echoes Edgar's law. It declares that the scale of any misfortune can only be measured against yet-to-come catastrophes. As the Bard has the exiled child of the blinded Earl of Gloucester say in King Lear: “The worst does not exist, provided that we are able to utter ‘this marks the bottom’.”
A Chain of Worsening Problems
Per Edgar's law, you won't find any opinion poll so gloomy for Labour that won't be coming after a subsequent worse one; no budget prediction so bad that the finance ministry can't aggravate it with contradictory signals on tax; no doubts regarding the leader that can't be amplified by malevolent briefing concerning a bid for power.
Refugee Measures Revelation
Against this backdrop, this week's announcement of plans intending to restrict the quantity of asylum seekers granted entry to Britain, patterned after a famously strict Scandinavian model, was taken better among party members than anticipated. There appeared glimmers of parliamentary discontent however no blaze of dissent.
Hardening immigration policies is far from Labour's comfort zone, yet the existing framework is evidently broken and the public is enraged. Numerous parliamentarians grasp the argument that tolerance and intercommunal harmony are easier to cultivate when there is confidence that the nation's borders remain protected.
Increasing Dissatisfaction
Silent parliamentary rows might likewise signal ominous. MPs have learned that all matters are debatable alongside a purposeless head of malleable conviction. Current proclamations could be withdrawn tomorrow. There exists no necessity to rush over the top when victories can be won via endurance.
A frequent grievance concerns the Prime Minister is scarcely operating the cabinet whatsoever, following the transfer of strategic choices to his top aide. However, this doesn't mean the head of government lacks executive dynamism, he simply favors not to mediate in departmental disputes or participate in extended discussions.
Management Method
The leader joined party politics during later professional life, first entering parliament during his early fifties. He has no feel for Labour lore – the canon of former discussions, drives, characters and cultural references that bind a head to the wider movement and its feeling of collective mission.
His most personal values stay concealed to government members. According to an experienced party member states: “The leader is remarkably distinct as head of government in giving the impression that his private opinions are not for public consumption.”
Governmental Outcomes
The image presented as the Prime Minister during the previous electoral contest has similarly not produced its promised advantages: managerial competence resulting in societal regeneration. Had the UK maintained a binary political arrangement, the memory of previous difficulties with the previous government may continue patience with Labour.
That presages a devastating defeat for party representatives during local and devolved elections next May. It would constitute a moment of extreme peril for the leader, assuming he survives until then.
Leadership Questions
Not present within these calculations appears unity regarding the person of a replacement and how their programme may differ with existing administration plans. This defect within succession arrangements is referenced by supporters of the leader as part of various arguments to continue supporting the incumbent.
Even as unhappy parliamentarians might recoil from those warnings, they likewise detect within them the familiar, hollow knell of limited aspiration that induces despair with current conditions. It represents the noise of lack of success to characterize the leadership as anything more than a series of strategies for holding power.
Ending Reflections
It remains challenging to summon loyalty to such a cause. And most Labour MPs have endeavored. They have followed the party line, defended it on the doorstep, obeyed the whips, accepted guarantees that their worries were considered.
Prime ministerial ousting contains considerable peril, yet, might it be more dangerous compared to feigning that the present leader holds responses regarding major issues that he never even names? The Shakespearean principle invites caution regarding the replacement of an incumbent leader. The alternative may turn out poorer.
“The heaviness of these difficult days we have to accept; Speak what we feel, rather than expected statements.”
