The prevailing mood among Labour MPs currently echoes a Shakespearean principle. It affirms that the extent of each adversity is solely measured relative to yet-to-come catastrophes. As Shakespeare makes the banished son of the blinded Earl state in King Lear: “The worst is absent, provided that we may declare ‘this is the worst’.”
A Chain of Worsening Problems
As per this principle, you won't find any public opinion measure so gloomy about the government that cannot be succeeded by another more depressing; no fiscal forecast so terrible that the exchequer cannot worsen through mixed indications on tax; no reservations regarding the leader that won't be heightened by malevolent briefing regarding a contest for leadership.
Refugee Measures Declaration
Against this backdrop, the latest revelation of strategies designed to reduce the amount of refugees admitted to the UK, patterned after a notoriously mean Scandinavian model, was received more favorably with Labour MPs than predicted. There emerged flashes of parliamentary discontent but no conflagration of opposition.
Hardening immigration policies is not the party's natural territory, but the current system is evidently broken and voters are angry. The majority of representatives comprehend the reasoning that acceptance and community cohesion are more readily developed if assurance exists that the country's boundaries are secure.
Growing Discontent
Silent parliamentary rows may also represent foreboding. MPs have learned that all matters are debatable under an aimless chief of adaptable beliefs. Current proclamations could be withdrawn tomorrow. There's no requirement to charge forward provided triumphs can be secured by attrition.
A regular criticism concerns the Prime Minister is hardly managing the administration in any meaningful way, following the transfer of political judgment to his top aide. However, this doesn't mean the prime minister is without administrative energy, he merely chooses not to mediate among agency disagreements or undertake extended discussions.
Management Method
The leader joined political parties late in his career, initially becoming an MP at the age of 52. He has no feel for Labour lore – the canon of past debates, campaigns, figures and social allusions that connect a leader to the wider movement and its perception of shared purpose.
His most personal values remain unknown including to ministers. Per a high-ranking party member states: “The Prime Minister is quite different as head of government through suggesting that whatever he personally thinks is none of your business.”
Governmental Outcomes
The image presented representing the leader in the recent polling battle has similarly not produced its purported benefits: administrative capability resulting in national renewal. Had the UK maintained a two-party system, the memory of past problems during Conservative rule could extend tolerance for the party.
This foreshadows a massacre for party representatives in council and devolved elections next May. It shall represent an instance of significant risk for the Prime Minister, if he endures until then.
Succession Concerns
Missing from these assessments is agreement regarding the person of a replacement and their intended agenda could vary compared to present strategies. This weakness within succession arrangements is cited by those backing the incumbent as one of many reasons to remain with the incumbent.
Even as unhappy parliamentarians might recoil from such cautions, they likewise detect within them the familiar, meaningless sound of modest goals that creates despondency regarding present circumstances. It signifies the tone of failure to characterize the leadership as anything more than a series of strategies for maintaining position.
Final Considerations
It proves difficult to generate allegiance for such an objective. Numerous parliamentarians have tried. They have adhered to established policies, defended it on the doorstep, followed party discipline, accepted guarantees that their issues received attention.
Regicide is fraught with risk, but is it riskier compared to feigning that the existing prime minister has answers about important matters that he never even names? The literary maxim invites caution when removing a sitting prime minister. The successor could always be worse.
“The heaviness of this troubled period we need to follow; State true sentiments, instead of proper declarations.”
