A range of vital skills and instincts are frequently found lacking in the populace at large, and often also in places where they are badly needed. Numeracy is one: adequate skepticism concerning the Voice of Authority is another; and, the vital ability to conduct a two-second "do we believe this?" credibility check.
So: WTF can it possibly mean when we read:
Rachel Reeves is set to unveil an £86bn package for science and technology in next week’s spending review
?? This is "expected to be worth more than £22.5 billion-a-year by 2029". We know she's recently decided that government capital expenditure needs have no upper limit, but what on earth does anyone imagine this "package" means? For calibration: the entire UK defence budget is about £60 bn this year, and the government's existing R&D spending somewhat less than £20bn right now. Government S&T money for the higher education sector is in low single-digit billions.
OK, higher education isn't the only place where government S&T money is spent, but unless Reeves has just "unveiled" the existing £20bn R&D budget slightly re-classified, how is the balance of "22bn p.a. by 2029" going to be doled out, and to whom? Either (a) we can ignore it because it's empty; (b) it's gonna be pretty inflationary in some sector or other; or (c) it'll be embezzled on a large scale for purposes not really encompassed by "science & technology": I can see the queues forming already.
I suppose some people ignore these things anyway: but all too many supposedly fact-checked media outlets print them uncritically, and one kinda supposes they are half-believed, in a vague sort of way. Maybe Reeves thinks that all those Trump-fleeing US academics will read it, and jump on the next plane for Blighty.
But who, exactly, rushes to vote Labour on the back of all this? I think they'll find there's a great deal more focus on their failure to deliver, e.g., 1.5m new houses and cheaper electricity, come 2029. Because fail is what they are gonna do.
ND