4 ms·

This. Never going to happen though

• amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  You would never even get agreement on what more prudently means.
  • ljf 3y ago
    This - to me prudently is something like prioritising: health care, infrastructure, social security, education, defence and policing. I know that many people (even just across the UK), would either disagree with this list, or with the various % that should be attributed to each. One persons 'prudent' would be another persons too much/little etc.
    • pjc50 3y ago
      That looks remarkably like the current UK spending allocation. But the detail matters.
      • ljf 3y ago
        Indeed, lots of people on both sides of the divide think that the current spending is wrong, and I would assume many from around the world wouldn't consider our priorities 'prudent'
    • em500 3y ago
      This is the current expenditure distribution: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/image_data/file/178810/CCS0121882386-001_Chart_B2-01.svg https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... By far the largest categories are Social protection and Health, followed by Education, Debt interest and Defense. I guess you want to increase infrastructure spending. So the question is, what are you going to deprioritize? Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spring-budget-2023/spring-budget-2023-html#annex-b-public-sector-receipts-and-spending https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spring-budget-202...
      • ljf 3y ago
        Tax evasion
  • rangestransform 3y ago
    Not treating infrastructure programs as kickbacks or jobs programs, for one
    • djur 3y ago
      Why shouldn't infrastructure programs also be jobs programs?