Europe --- In or Out

[Alex 34847]

On 04/02/2020 at 12:51, Meenzer said:

The hope is that they're saying what they think the domestic audience wants to hear and will be doing something else behind the scenes, since no one bothers to check whether words are followed up by promises any more.

 

Hope, however, hasn't got us terribly far recently.

I’m afraid to say that hope would appear to be in vain. Can’t really elaborate much beyond that. 

[Isegrim 9734]

 

[Meenzer 15408]

Good to see all this Project Fear stuff turning out to be... oh, right, reality. 

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/10/checks-on-eu-bound-goods-inevitable-gove-tells-business-leaders

 

Cracking. 

[Dr Gloom 21813]

Still, think of all the frictionless trade we have to look forward to.

in 5 years time 

[ewerk 30266]

While I always knew that Gove was an odious little cunt I at least credited him with a certain level of intelligence. It's clear that this policy is going to hit the economy badly. I don't think it's going to implode the day after transition ends but it's going to be death by 1000 cuts and the effects are going to be in full force come the time of the next election.

Javid says that business should have been getting ready since 2016 but what has the government done? Where are the extra facilities for customs checks? Where's the extra staff that will be required? There's no way this country will be ready in time for day one.

[Alex 34847]

The same Business that’s been asking for clarification on what Brexit actually means since 2016. 

[wykikitoon 19899]

 

[Rayvin 5185]

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.

[ewerk 30266]

Nope. They’re lying cunts. 

[wykikitoon 19899]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/10/checks-on-eu-bound-goods-inevitable-gove-tells-business-leaders?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1581357885

[Tom 14011]

Rayvin  

 

 

[Rayvin 5185]

...What? Am I wrong?

[Renton 21314]

53 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

...What? Am I wrong?

 

Pretty much entirely on this. Susanah Reid basically nailed it, you seem to have fallen for it. Everyone knows the "nuances" of the tory propaganda, but most just see how ridiculous it is. 

[Tom 14011]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

...What? Am I wrong?

Massively wrong. 

It's not far off '40 new hospitals' level of wrong tbh.

[Rayvin 5185]

1 hour ago, Renton said:

 

Pretty much entirely on this. Susanah Reid basically nailed it, you seem to have fallen for it. Everyone knows the "nuances" of the tory propaganda, but most just see how ridiculous it is. 

 

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.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Rayvin

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3809]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

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. Lowing departures + hiring new nurses both provide "extra" against projected targets.

How can it be 50,000 extra nurses if 18,000 are already there?

[Alex 34847]

8 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

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.

Well you could just read what you posted I suppose 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Alex

[Rayvin 5185]

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.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Rayvin

[Tom 14011]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

There's a rationale behind their numbers.

Aye, conning people. 

[Rayvin 5185]

Just now, Tom said:

Aye, conning people. 

 

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?

[Alex 34847]

Always suspected he was on the take like 

[Rayvin 5185]

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...

[Alex 34847]

 

[Alex 34847]

I’ll keep this simple - existing and ‘new’ are not the same thing. 

[Tom 14011]

It shouldn’t need explaining should it?