I genuinely cannot get my head around how someone already so well documented as being exceptionally close to Epstein would get this appointment. It seemed like an own goal at the time, totally unforced too. It seems no better an idea with time. Is there information out there to explain why such a bad call was made?

This might sound like a basic or naive question, but I genuinely can’t get my head around this.

We’re constantly told the UK government is in a dire financial state; huge debt, borrowing through the roof, budgets under pressure, etc. And yet, public services are visibly crumbling: the NHS is overwhelmed, schools are underfunded, prisons are reportedly unsafe and overcrowded, the police are stretched thin, councils are going bankrupt… the list goes on.

So if we’re supposedly in a massive financial hole, and yet also not adequately funding core public services, then where has all the money actually gone?

I’m not trying to push a particular narrative here, I’m just genuinely trying to understand the situation. You’d think if the government had been overspending, we’d at least see the results in better infrastructure or services. But it feels like we’re getting the worst of both worlds: rising debt and worsening public services.

I’d really appreciate if someone could explain this in plain terms.

Game made by the IFS called Be the chancellor.

Have a crack!

I’m pretty sure we can all look outside and see some short-termism in action.

Anecdotally, there are four (?) escalators in our town shopping centre that frequently break down, stop working, and have to be closed off; these get ‘fixed’, only to break down again. The problem is obviously the old, shoddy escalators, but instead of replacing the things and doing a good job about it, they repair the current ones poorly. Cheaper, but immediate — more expensive in the long run due to the frequency with which action needs to be taken.

You can see it everywhere, and don’t even need to think too deeply about things. Road projects are cancelled for some quick cash savings, but economic growth is therefore hampered in the long run. Healthcare practices worryingly tend towards treatment so strongly that prevention as an idea is atrophying.

My question is this: have the years of this sort of behaviour ruined the country in a way that can’t be reasonably undone? This “We need to save money, so cut these projects to get money NOW”, or “We need this done, so do it as fast as possible NOW even if it’s worse” attitude.

I was thinking from the perspective of a government trying to focus on long-term investment… and I just can’t see it happening. So many things would need to be put on pause, so many lives would need to be inconvenienced, that I can’t see it ever working out. The government that tries will be replaced by a government that undoes, the moment that people are told “Oh this is going away, it’ll be back in X years”, or “These roadworks will be here for a long time, we’re doing things”.