# FILE NAME: 00001636.soc
# TITLE: Should we cut military spending and spend more on the arts and health care? [f66dd2d92cca4fe065551bd7cd1e9e2b]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, military spending should be cut and the savings should be reallocated to the arts and healthcare. The world has changed since the end of the Cold War and although military spending remains high in absolute terms, it has reduced as a proportion of GDP. In comparison, the NHS is under-funded and does not receive the investment it requires. We should also not forget that health is more than just funding the NHS, but also tackling the causes of ill-health such as obesity, alcohol and drug abuse and improving public health infrastructure. The arts too are important, and it is easy to forget that the last time the UK had a world class art scene, it was supported by the public purse, as evidenced by the Tate, the National Gallery and other public museums and galleries. Conclusion In conclusion, the above consensus-forming tool has been demonstrated to be an effective means of bringing a group of people with different opinions to a consensus view.  This could be particularly useful in situations where there is conflict, or in situations where the opinions of a diverse group of people need to be brought together.  It is also a very effective means of achieving debate and ensuring all views are heard.  However, it is not a tool which can
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: Military spending has reduced since the end of the Cold War.  In fact the military is one of the most cost-effective government departments and should not be cut.  What should be reduced is the portion of GDP spent on welfare, asylum and refugee support.  These sectors have grown in recent years, and with unemployment low, and the best years for employment opportunities, the argument for supporting those who are jobless is not as strong as it was during the Great Recession.  If these reductions were made, then this would free up some funds to invest in the NHS and arts sector.  This is particularly important for the arts, which like the NHS, is struggling to fund itself due to budgetary constraints.  It is also important to note that the NHS is not just about providing healthcare services.  It also includes public health services, and tackling the causes of illness and disease, which are often rooted in wider social determinants such as low income, poor housing and unemployment.  This is why the funds freed up should be given to the arts and the NHS, as these two sectors are the most likely to produce the greatest return on investment.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - 
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: Yes, we should cut military spending and reallocate the funds to public health and the arts. The world has changed since the end of the Cold War, and although we are not as at risk from a nuclear war as we once were, military spending remains high in absolute terms, and as a proportion of GDP in comparison with other areas. There are better ways to combat global threats than spend £50bn a year of a nuclear arsenal, and we are more likely to face threats like climate change and terrorism than a full-scale war. Health spending must include the wider determinants of health and not just picking up the pieces. The arts are important to society and they too are underfunded.  The last time that we had a world class art scene, it was supported by the public purse, as evidenced by the Tate, the National Gallery and other public museums and galleries.  By diverting funds to the arts, we can build a better society and with properly funded public health, we can curb the causes of preventable disease.
3: 2,4,1,3
1: 1,2,4,3
1: 4,2,1,3