Generally I assume measures not passing through will lead to "gaps" or "budget holes" with funding , generally things not passing , may make budget worse as a whole strength , for instance ; 20 billion fund for medical research , then other measures not passing leaves gaps which need to be filled and a re-allocation of funds in certain area's is necessary which can lead to problems .
-This can lead to further needs for re-allocation and less thought in re-allocation itself (a quickness needed) , less future thought in it , deterioration of a focus (possible elevation of frustration as well) - having parts of the budget , instead of direct achievable goals and a direct focus , over-correction and the strength applied then deterioration in this , but do they already calculate for this ?
My Answer : I am not sure if they calculate for this problem , though I assume it is all a part of the Governments "Budgeting" itself , though from what I can see the issues will still exist , if they resolve these issues or not I am not certain of this .
Governing can be all about appearances , having to convince public using media about "strength" of budget alterations long term , with public possibly having an effect on economy , though obviously a lot of the reasons public complain or rebel ; are typically due to lacks of knowledge (or a formed dis-trust) about budget itself also ability to complete the knowledge gaps may be impaired due to focus on a specific news story or recent issue in mind of public and typical TV being De-personalised so focus maintaining is harder , or simply a different viewing angle or perspective .
