Rayvin

Aye, fair enough.

All of which, I acknowledge, takes us back to "why wouldn't they just say that". And come to think of it, all they said was 50,000 additional nurses. It's only when people delved into the numbers that all of a sudden this became an issue - not by the design of the Tories, but because some journalist has picked it up, misinterpreted the implications, and suddenly it was everywhere. If you're talking about how you arrived at the number of 50,000 - then explaining that part of the figure comes from retentions is just an explanatory aspect of your justification. I doubt they ever really anticipated that anyone would probe this particular issue tbh because the net result is 50,000 additional nurses. So actually, that's probably your answer as to why they didn't just say what they meant - they thought they did.

The second part of your post I agree with and at no point have I made any claims that anything they've said it remotely achievable. Believe it or not, this whole thing for me at least is based around logical consistency. I know the Tories lie, I'm not trusting them with shit, and I know they'll fail to do any of this. Literally all I'm saying is that their maths seems to have been right, and that the outcry was directed at the wrong things. I don't think the first part works though... if they lose someone and don't replace them for months, they're at a net loss of 1 until they manage it, when they're back to 0 change. What do you think is wrong with my assumption that the NHS gets a yearly influx of nurses from university training courses, some 14,000 or so apparently? Because that's where I think the net gain is - they have 14,000 who are currently all being used to replace departing staff (more or less, as the vacancies filter through the ranks) - and by holding onto people they otherwise expected to lose, some of those 14,000 no longer go straight into a replacement role, they're just a net gain - and to allow for the net gain, the Tories have allocated 18,500 of the 50,000 new posts to be for them. You said yourself that people are always replaced so there's no backfill issue to take care of - and these trainee nurses have been coming through the system for years and will be delivered to the NHS at whatever number they graduate at. So unless you think they're suddenly going to start training the surplus nurses away, they have to be going in as a net positive if the Tories manage to lower turnover to the point where less than 14,000 vacancies come up each year.

Their manifesto, and I just checked it, says that there will be 50,000 more nurses available to the NHS. To my mind, there is no possible interpretation of that other than that 50,000 new posts will be created. I guess the next question is that given that I think that number can be defended reasonably simply based on what I've set out, and that they've stuck to it, why do you think they're adding only 31,000 more nurses - something that they haven't officially conceded at any point. Johnson acknowledged that 31,000 new nurses would be recruited. That's a subcategory of 'additional', in this context. So I would argue that they have indeed unambiguously said so. At least in the manifesto and subsequent explanations. Where they've failed is in the initial announcement, presumably because some halfwit came out and said they would be "new" nurses. The only other thing I can think of is that they expected everyone to understand this point relatively easily and were a bit surprised when all hell broke loose. I'm curious what you mean about practical reasons why keeping someone on will increase the work force available. The word equivalent to me reads as if it is being used to explain what the 2% figure looks like in reality, but I can see you're reading it as some kind of euphemism for... I don't know. Maybe it's within this that the answer lies.

ewerk my friend, you're more than welcome to have digs at me, in part because you actually did make the effort, and in part because I'm aware that me accepting it is less fun for you

I give a fuck because I've spent the last few pages taking fire from half the fucking forum because some of them somehow couldn't understand what I was saying despite my several quite basic attempts to state it, and the others just weighed in with digs which revealed nothing to me other than their lack of confidence in engaging the point. I don't care if I'm right or wrong, I have enough self-respect not to give a shit - I'd prefer to just know what the truth is. But it's taken me about 30 posts to get to the point where anyone actually genuinely tried to understand what I was saying. Quick to wade in, slow to engage. You think it's been a collective waste of your time? It's been a lot fucking worse on my side, let me tell you. In direct answer to your point, I want you to explain something for me. If the NHS has put in their own strategic policy document for the next five years that a 2% increase in retention will mean a net increase in 12,400 nurses - the document specifically says that - what do you think that they're getting at? Because for me, that's exactly the same point that the Tories are making. Exactly the same. So what the fuck am I getting wrong about that? It has to mean, surely, that the yearly intake of new nurses that graduate into the system will remain broadly constant - yes those graduates may then need 4 months of training or whatever, but they were coming into the system either way. That's the only possible way, surely, that the NHS can conclude that a 2% increase in retention leads to an overall numerical increase in nurses. So when the Tories come in and claim the same thing, albeit without understanding what the fuck they're saying, that's what we surely have to conclude. They are creating 50,000 posts, and they're doing it by co-opting and scaling up an existing NHS strategy. I've given several reasons why they might word it this way, the fact that the strategy was already in place is probably a significant one. Also: What do you think that retention does then? Has net zero impact? If so, why is the NHS claiming the opposite?

More than happy for someone to prove me wrong. I note that no one has yet been capable. I assume the NHS does maths poorly too, since I've basically directly quoted their own logic. Behold: Shockingly, it turns out that retaining staff does indeed create a net boost in numbers The thing is, this place is like a hive mind sometimes - I actually applaud ewerk for finally understanding what I was saying. The rest of you have been blindly sticking your fingers in your ears and trying to effectively peer pressure me into conceding It's kinda cute tbh, but not especially worthy of respect. If I'm wrong, bitches, prove it.

Don't worry, it happens

Can I take this deafening silence as confirmation that on this rare occasion, I was right? Despite 'having taken numerous blows to the head' and being a generally laughable figure. This is why it pays to not believe everything you read on Twitter

You're not going to like this, but it's just the correct way of interpreting it. The NHS itself, as I mentioned earlier, referred to an increase of 2% in retentions, leading to 12,000 additional nurses. The Tories have used the same logic. In fact they've literally just hijacked the plan that was in place anyway. So the NHS itself, in its own policy documents, made the same calculation as I'm trying to claim now - if the NHS thinks retentions will lead to a net gain, then actually I would say it's more in your court to argue that they're wrong. All I've done is look at it logically and make assumptions based on what the evidence is. The correct way of looking at the impact of any policy is to measure the things you are changing, and leave all other things the same. The problem here, clearly, is that your average Tory MP understood all of this about as poorly as apparently most of the public did - probably because it was indeed a hijacked idea that, while the policy writers may well have understood, the politicians hardly did.

Ok, at least that's coming at it properly. Why not? You're in effect saying that their policy is this: Hire 31,000 new nurses Persuade 18,500 nurses to stay Reduce the annual intake by the equivalent amount I'm saying their policy is Hire 31,000 new nurses Persuade 18,500 nurses to stay Because that's all they've said it is, and that's how their claim makes sense. And why they've claimed that we will hit 330,000.

Can you please read this post:

The first set of numbers comes to 31,000, and then the retentions take it to 50,000. I have no idea why you wanted me to do that when we both know you're just going to be frustrated by the answer.

Yes there will be. And you can suspect what you want, I mean 2030 is so far away that it doesn't matter anyway in fairness. But I'm not choosing to believe him per se, I'm saying that the maths is technically correct and that what they're saying does make sense, if they can achieve it. They make 50,000 new posts and populate them through a 31,000 recruitment drive, and 18,500 made up from the left over surplus of the usual intake that is no longer fully committed to replacing outgoing nurses because of a fall in departures. That's it. That's all there is to it.

I don't see that his comment changes anything mate. It's saying things we've all agreed on. What about his comment makes any difference to my argument?

All he's saying there, is that 31,000 will be newly recruited under this policy. That doesn't contradict anything I'm saying. "New recruits" is not the same as an "overall addition".

No, I want you to tell me what happens to that surplus. Either you don't believe there is one, or you think that the surplus is just going to be discarded or absorbed somehow. The Tories have specifically stated that they will go from 280,000 nurses, to 330,000.

How isn't it? Go on, if that surplus isn't adding to the overall net number of nurses, where is it going?

Thank fuck, someone asked the obvious question. Which I answered in my very first post... I would also like to add to it, that the NHS intended to do it anyway - which means they can capitalise on something someone else was already doing. And that retaining 18,500 skilled and experienced nurses sounds better than hiring 18,500 new and inexperienced ones. And they know how many are leaving based on current levels of departure. They will just extrapolate that over the period. This is what managers do to look at trends and plan for the future.

I'm saying that we recruit nurses every year as standard. The number is apparently 15,000. We do this every year because as Renton keeps saying (which I don't understand because it supports my argument), nurses in the NHS are replaced when they leave. They are. They are replaced ewerk, they fucking are. So here's the thing - if we need to replace fewer nurses, then there is a surplus left over by the yearly intakes. That is where the net gain is - because the number recruited year on year will not change. The Tories have claimed that we will reach a total of 50,000 by "saving" 18,500 nurses over 10 years, which will effectively be generated by this surplus year on year until they hit 18,500. And then they pull another 31k out of their arses somehow, and bang. 50,000.

You and me both

I don't know why you're obsessing about this so you're going to have to then explain what bearing that has on anything. Yes they are replaced.

This is literally my point. I'm not saying, nor have I said anywhere, that it isn't political grandstanding. It is. But the claim is technically correct. And right now, Meenzer, I fucking love you.