I think minimising costs is great, but the idea that minimising spending is morally better seems too reductionist. And it's reductionist to define conservative by that one metric.
Regardless, i have my cocoa in bed we'll plod on for fun.
Spending is fine when done as investment. If you can spend a billion pounds to save or make a trillion that is good.
If you can turn an unemployable sponge that causes social harm into a productive worker that is a double win economically.
Measures of inflation are notoriously fuzzy, but the only spending that has really gone up, and not even by an order of magnitude is education, health and social protection. This is without considering the 10% population rise, which means the increase isn't so large on a per capita basis.
Without knowing how well that money was spent (which is always a worry: cronyism suggests it was put into a friends pocket via 'contracting', which is a form of conservative) I'd say these are worthwhile areas for investment (again public order, education and health). It's not like kids can pay for their own education, and getting a low wage worker of a profitable business back in the assembly line benefits the economy and reduces welfare costs.
You have to weigh the costs of not spending vs the cost of spending, right?
Something that has reduced is the wardebt was paid off. Thanks for the 'help'.
Immigration... Looking at my own house I've gone from 5/5 natives to 1/3 natives... And thats if you include ((great)grand)children of an immigrant born in the uk as native. Economically speaking workers are profitable to the economy. More workers = more profit... Not necessarily to the benefit of the commoner though. The capitalist in me sees increased opportunity for profit tbh. The nationalist in me is proud people view the country as a desirable place to live.
I don't see how a couple of my friends dicking each other in private is anything to do with the government? Regulating that is a step towards big government. Not politically conservative. Maybe socially.
|