Rayvin

I didn't give this post enough attention in the swirl there - ok so you're agreeing with the logic of 50,000 more nurses than projected which was my original point. Thank you for being the only person who understood that at least. Unfortunately I appear to now be arguing that it's still a net 50k increase though because that appears to be the point that is being supported elsewhere

This is from the link I put up that I'm not sure anyone bothered reading: The Conservatives say they want 50,000 more nurses in the NHS by 2024/25. These aren't all "new" nurses as the figure includes successfully encouraging nearly 19,000 existing nurses to stay. Around 31,000 will be newly trained or recruited. So that’s 50,000 more nurses working in the NHS compared to if no policy action was taken. Whether or not this is accurate depends on whether the target is met, and that needs to be backed up by policy action. As we've fact checked already, the Conservatives' manifesto doesn't account for the full cost of eventually employing 50,000 more nurses in the NHS.

But that's not what the reality is ffs man. You grasped this with your numbers post and have since let it go again. What was all that about 31,000 including the 19,000 retained, and so by implication 12k new recruits? Have you read that link in the post you quoted? Are they wrong as well? Renton is right about the NHS keeping the number static and that's what none of you, perversely, are appreciating. If the number is static now, and the Tories create 50,000 posts, it is logically acceptable that this can be achieved by recruiting 31,000 new nurses, and holding onto 18,500 who were expected to leave. Weirdly what that actually means is that it will be 50,000 new nurses of a sort, because the implication is that the people who would replace the 18,500 who will be retained, will be hired anyway. But they'll be hired as part of the normal ebb and flow of yearly recruitment, as part of a bigger number.

Here is an allegedly independent fact checking service supporting my view: https://fullfact.org/election-2019/50000-more-nurses-claim-conservative-manifesto-accurate/ I would dearly love to move past this but i have to understand it

Why are you dismissing the mitigation of departures? What ewerk says is feasible but he's just making the same argument I am but for a smaller number now. He's claiming that my maths is right in principle but that the Tories have lied about the 31,000 figure being "new". He appears to have agreed with the principle of retained staff forming part of the overall increase. I can understand that logically but I'm struggling with this notion that reducing 100,000 to 81,000 somehow isn't going to increase the total number left in the service if the 31,000 are indeed all new, which is all I seem to be able to find.

https://inews.co.uk/news/health/boris-johnson-admits-that-50000-more-nurses-pledge-only-refers-to-31000-new-nurses-1335650 This clearly says 31,000 new nurses with an additional 18,500 the government hopes to retain from the number of expected departures. The earlier article I posted supports that too... I cant see any evidence of your current claim?

Ah so THAT is the point. So instead of 50,000 being made up of 31k + 19k, they've established a number of 31k which includes 19k retained nurses. So they will only actually hire 12k nurses newly into the service. Correct? If so then I can finally see this, although this is literally the first time anyone anywhere has said that of the 31k, 19k are retained. I'm going to go looking for evidence of that.

Hang on. Imagine we have idk, 500,000 nurses in the system at the moment. Ever year, another 100,000 are added through standard recruitment. On top of that, based standard departures, 100,000 leave. So as things stand, the number is kept steady at 500,000. And for simplicity let's assume this all happens in just one year. If the Tories add another 31,000 additional over one year, then the number goes up to 531,000 additional nurses. If they improve their working conditions so that the departure number falls to 81,000... then the ultimate result is that we are left with 550,000 nurses, which is indeed 50,000 more. EDIT - 500,000 + 100,000 + 31,000 - 81,000 Why is that not the case?

God help me with this seriously, the pledge makes total sense to me. As I said right from the off, it's badly communicated because they're trying to get around explaining that they've been effectively forcing nurses to leave in the previous ten years - but she is 100% correct that there will be an increase in the overall number of nurses, by 50,000, by 2030 (assuming they manage to do what they said). Do you disagree with this?

Morgan doesn't say "new". She says an overall increase.

I guess no one is explaining how I'm wrong tonight then... I actually genuinely am curious but I'm starting to think that maybe in our desperation to see the Tories as perpetual liars about everything, we assumed they really were doing something as moronic as double counting nurses, instead of being functionally incapable of correctly articulating their policy. Well I'm not starting to think it tbh. Its exactly what i think, until someone actually explains otherwise, anyway. At which point I'll hold my hands up and admit I was wrong of course, not at all scared of doing that...

I didn't say that wasn't happening tbf, I made that clear in my first post. But do you think that they're double counting these 18,000 people?

Because those 18,000 are projected on current rates of departure to have been lost by the service over the next 10 years. So what they are saying is that they will put measures in place to stop those people leaving by improving working conditions. Therefore they have looked at current projections for the number of nurses left in the service by 2030 if they do nothing, and put a package together to ensure that we will actually have 50,000 more than that. This is actually really simple and if the issue is that people don't understand this then I'm at a loss really. Some people seem to think they've just flat out double counted 18,000 people. They haven't. There's a rationale behind their numbers. This is a fairly standard business consideration. If i have workflow throughput of 1000 products, and 900 come out the other end with 100 lost in the process, and then improve that process so that only 50 are lost, I have boosted my projected number of products outputted by 50.

Please explain how I'm actually wrong? https://www.nursinginpractice.com/professional/conservative-pledge-50000-nurses-manifesto The Conservatives have pledged to deliver 50,000 more nurses into the workforce, but have confirmed this will include stopping some existing staff from leaving the health service. Following confusion over the flagship manifesto pledge of 50,000 extra nurses, it has emerged that this includes 18,500 existing and returning nurses - which the party confirmed would be either retained through measures such as ‘enhancing’ continuing professional development (CPD) training or recruited through return-to-practice schemes. This is exactly what I said. Susannah Reid is wrong in her interpretation of it unless at some point someone in the Tory campaign said 50,000 "new" nurses. If they said additional, it's not incorrect. And as for everyone knowing the "nuances" of Tory propaganda, unless what we're saying is that I'm right but stating the obvious, then actually no, it seems they don't. Lowering departures + hiring new nurses both provide "extra" against projected targets.

...What? Am I wrong?

There's plenty to throw at the Tories, but that one item about nurses isn't really it. What they're saying does make sense, they just explain it horrifically - possibly because they don't understand what they're saying themselves, but more probably because to be fully truthful about it, they would need to admit some uncomfortable truths. What they actually mean is that they have projected, based on current trends, that we will have lost a specific number of nurses by 2030 or whenever it is. This will have been down to shit pay, work conditions, morale, whatever. So the plan to 'gain' 50,000 nurses has two parts: 1 - improve working conditions and pay to the level that they manage to hold onto 19,000 nurses who are, based on current projections, expected to leave. 2 - hire an additional 31,000 nurses. Combined together, it means that compared to current projections about the numbers of nurses that will exist in the system by whatever date it was, we will have gained an overall 50,000. So Piers and whatsherface's argument about presenters isn't the same thing. It would only be comparable if we knew that on Tuesday, all three current presenters had no intention of being there - and then at the last minute, someone persuaded them to stay. Then, compared to the time when we thought there would be no presenters, we now have 3 more. And I believe the reason the Tories have failed to articulate this, other than the fact that they're all morons, is that it basically means that they have to admit that they've been forcing nurses to leave the NHS by being really shit about pay up until now. They're fixing a mistake basically, and are trying to gain praise for it while not really acknowledging the original error.

It's Keynesian economics though. Government putting money into infrastructure on the basis that it boosts the economy. Same as HS2. Instead of spending money on genuinely helpful initiatives that could address the bigger issues in British society, the Tories will spend it on nonsense that has the same effect but doesn't threaten them in an ideological sense. It's an admission that we've always been right on the economic front.

Aye, saw that. Doesn't seem to be coping well with his wife's illness or whatever it was that sent him down that path. I think his ship has sailed now anyway, he's not extreme enough for the newly victorious right wing.

Fair comment tbh, since that's the same phenomenon that has played out everywhere. But it's better that the left takes advantage of that than the right.

In more positive news, I see the left did some damage in Ireland. Winning the highest number of votes but failing to get an equivalent number of seats (they didn't run enough candidates it seems). So despite links to a terrorist past, it seems that the left can succeed. Good luck to Sinn Fein in forming some manner of government.

I really think the media are in trouble. By being partisan over important issues they've broken trust with the public who don't have the desire to support them now. The BBC are a good example of this in recent weeks - they pulled punches on Johnson because they believed that impartiality means you can only expose an equal amount of bullshit, irrespective of how much each side is spewing - and they helped cause this crisis by giving Farage such extensive airtime. And so now, there is no one in their corner. Same for the rest of the media although the right wing outlets will of course simply become the Russia Today's of the new right wing order. The internet talking heads will replace them and then we really are fucked.

Your memory is impressive.

Aye, never would have happened while we were still in the EU. There was solidarity then. Everyone pulling in the same direction, nailing their cocks to the mast... now they're spiraling around all over the place.

I keep hearing mixed things about Warren but a few years back I remember writing on here that she'd be the ideal person to run against him next time. But you're right in what you say, she started her political life as a republican I believe. That said, people can change. She's an improvement on Clinton. And tbf I do think she'd give Trump a hammering in debates or general competence.

You would hope so.