The existing mood inside Labour MPs currently echoes a Shakespearean principle. This states that the magnitude of any misfortune can only be assessed in comparison to unknown future disasters. As Shakespeare makes the exiled child of the blinded Earl of Gloucester say in King Lear: “The worst does not exist, so long as we are able to utter ‘this represents the lowest point’.”
A Succession of Intensifying Crises
As per Edgar's law, there exists no opinion poll so pessimistic about the government that cannot be followed by a subsequent worse one; no budget prediction so bad that the finance ministry cannot worsen it with mixed indications regarding taxation; no misgivings regarding the leader that cannot be intensified by malevolent briefing concerning a bid for power.
Asylum Policy Declaration
Against this backdrop, the latest declaration of measures designed to restrict the quantity of asylum seekers admitted to the UK, modelled on an infamously harsh Danish system, was received better with Labour MPs than anticipated. There emerged flashes of parliamentary discontent but no conflagration of dissent.
Hardening immigration policies is not the government's preferred area, but the current system is clearly failing and voters are angry. The majority of representatives comprehend the reasoning that open-mindedness and community cohesion are simpler to foster provided there is trust that the nation's borders are secure.
Rising Unhappiness
Reserved MP positions can also be threatening. MPs have learned that each issue is discussable alongside a purposeless head of adaptable beliefs. Current proclamations might be reversed shortly. There is no need to charge forward provided triumphs can be secured by attrition.
A common complaint involves the leader is scarcely operating the cabinet in any meaningful way, having delegated political judgment to his chief of staff. That isn't to say the head of government lacks executive dynamism, he merely chooses to refrain from intervening among agency disagreements or engage in protracted arguments.
Governing Approach
The leader joined organized political activity at an advanced stage, initially becoming an MP at the age of 52. He has no feel about movement history – the collection of former discussions, campaigns, characters and cultural references that connect a leader to the wider movement and its feeling of collective mission.
His innermost beliefs are a mystery even to the cabinet. Per a high-ranking Labour figure puts it: “The Prime Minister is quite different as head of government through suggesting that whatever he personally thinks is none of your business.”
Political Consequences
The image presented representing the leader in last year's election campaign has similarly not produced its claimed rewards: managerial competence leading to national renewal. Had the UK maintained a dual-party structure, the memory of past problems with the previous government may continue acceptance of the administration.
That presages a crushing loss among government contenders in council and national assembly contests next May. It shall represent a moment of extreme peril for the Prime Minister, provided he remains that long.
Future Considerations
Missing from these calculations is agreement regarding the person of a successor and their proposed policies may differ from the current government's agenda. This flaw within succession arrangements is mentioned by those backing the incumbent among numerous justifications to stick with the incumbent.
Even as unhappy parliamentarians might recoil from such cautions, they likewise detect in them the familiar, empty ringing of limited aspiration which causes hopelessness at the status quo. It represents the noise of inability to characterize the leadership as merely a series of strategies for clinging on.
Ending Reflections
It proves difficult to inspire faithfulness for such an objective. And most Labour MPs have tried. They have followed the party line, defended it on the doorstep, heeded instructions, believed assurances that their worries were considered.
Leadership removal is fraught with risk, yet, might it be more dangerous than pretending that the present leader possesses solutions to big questions that he never even names? The Shakespearean principle invites caution when removing a current head of government. The successor may turn out poorer.
“The heaviness of this sad time we have to accept; State true sentiments, rather than expected statements.”
