This is such an unhelpful take. The UK government did Brexit while, for example, promising to redirect all the funding that went to the EU towards health care. Did it go to health care? No. Did the money go to Ukrainians? No. The government simply doesn't care about its populace, regardless of what's happening in Ukraine.

That reads like you resent Ukrainians for getting support.

I'll charitably read it as "they only care about the optics" because these governments didn't need a war on their doorstep to cut funding to councils for social care, let public pay rot under inflation, pay their mates through preferred tender, repeatedly push front line workers to the brink, cut the nursing bursary, push out senior doctors by ubertaxing their pension contributions, kick medical infrastructure projects down the road again and again and again. Remember Boris built 40 hospitals with his bare hands.

It's great if we've been able to help Ukraine. But it's immaterial to health and social care in this country.

It’s not an either or. We can have both.

Pay nurses more and help to fight back oppressors.

Helping Ukraine is not charity, it’s ensuring Europe’s security and safety.

But you are right, this government has shown how they value key workers.

That might be true if this wasn't a long-term issue going back at least a decade, if not two.

How is that? How do you suppose the British government could have avoided this? You speak of Ukrainian lives, so presumably you are referring to foreign policy and not domestic policy. Through which foreign policy decisions has the British government caused this?

It's not like Britain could have kept energy prices down by not aiding Ukraine. It's also hardly realistic to suggest that British aid to Ukraine has come at a significant expense to the taxpayer, given the baseline defence spending by Britain to counter Russia.