Europe --- In or Out

[Rayvin 5185]

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

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

 

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

[Alex 34848]

I genuinely thought you were taking the piss 😂

[Rayvin 5185]

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?

Edited February 11, 2020 by Rayvin

[Andrew 4718]

Yes. Because there won't be.

[Gemmill 44399]

6 hours ago, Rayvin said:

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?

 

It's as simple as looking at the "from" and "to" numbers, which completely expose the lie. I can't remember what the from number was (and I'm not watching a video of that fucking Picasso portrait Morgan to find out) but for simplicity let's call it 100,000 nurses. If they are going to add 50,000 MORE nurses, then we can all agree that the "to" number has to be 150,000 because 100,000 + 50,000 = 150,000 and 150,000 is indisputably 50,000 MORE than 100,000.

 

But that's not what they're saying. They're saying we'll end up with 131,000 nurses which is only 31,000 more.

 

They are then trying to convince people that retaining 19,000 nurses is the same as adding 19,000 nurses. It's plainly not. Retention is not the same as addition, and it is a lie to try to claim that it is. 

 

I fully understand the argument that if they hadn't done x, y and z, 19,000 nurses would have left but that doesn't matter. That is retention, it is not addition, and addition is required if you want to use the word MORE. If you go from 100,000 to 131,000, that is 31,000 more. Not 50,000. So stop fucking lying and saying that it's 50,000. The fundamentals of maths and the definition of the word "more" cannot be bent to fit your more convenient headline. 

 

Let's say you've got a tenner and I owe you a fiver. If you come out of the transaction with £13 and a story about how I was gonna nick £2 off you but decided against it, so you do in fact have £5 more than you started with, I'm not sure you'd be fully on board with that. So why would you be ok with this bullshit? 

[ewerk 30266]

So once again CT is on a duck pizza and Special Brew binge and he’s putting on 3lb week after week after week and is struggling to get into his 32” boot cut jeans.

He decides to go on a strict cherry tomato diet and after his first weigh in at Fat Fighters he’s 1lb lighter on the scales. He proudly goes home and declares to the wife he’s lost 4lb (without mentioning that he’s including the 3lb he would have ordinarily put on). 
 

Has he actually lost 4lb or is he a tubby little lying cunt?

[Rayvin 5185]

3 hours ago, Gemmill said:

 

It's as simple as looking at the "from" and "to" numbers, which completely expose the lie. I can't remember what the from number was (and I'm not watching a video of that fucking Picasso portrait Morgan to find out) but for simplicity let's call it 100,000 nurses. If they are going to add 50,000 MORE nurses, then we can all agree that the "to" number has to be 150,000 because 100,000 + 50,000 = 150,000 and 150,000 is indisputably 50,000 MORE than 100,000.

 

But that's not what they're saying. They're saying we'll end up with 131,000 nurses which is only 31,000 more.

 

They are then trying to convince people that retaining 19,000 nurses is the same as adding 19,000 nurses. It's plainly not. Retention is not the same as addition, and it is a lie to try to claim that it is. 

 

I fully understand the argument that if they hadn't done x, y and z, 19,000 nurses would have left but that doesn't matter. That is retention, it is not addition, and addition is required if you want to use the word MORE. If you go from 100,000 to 131,000, that is 31,000 more. Not 50,000. So stop fucking lying and saying that it's 50,000. The fundamentals of maths and the definition of the word "more" cannot be bent to fit your more convenient headline. 

 

Let's say you've got a tenner and I owe you a fiver. If you come out of the transaction with £13 and a story about how I was gonna nick £2 off you but decided against it, so you do in fact have £5 more than you started with, I'm not sure you'd be fully on board with that. So why would you be ok with this bullshit? 

 

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?

Edited February 12, 2020 by Rayvin

[ewerk 30266]

In Nicky Morgan's world the extra 31,000 includes the 19,000 which haven't left.

So, 500,000 + 100,000 + 12,000 - 81,000 = 531,000.

[Gemmill 44399]

Aye. The net addition is 31,000. There is no definition of "more" that turns that into 50,000.

[Rayvin 5185]

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.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Rayvin

[Gemmill 44399]

I mean I don't want to hinder your research but if you just type 531000-500000 into a calculator, you'll get your answer. 

[Rayvin 5185]

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?

[Rayvin 5185]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

I mean I don't want to hinder your research but if you just type 531000-500000 into a calculator, you'll get your answer. 

 

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.

[Gemmill 44399]

Because mitigating departures is not "more". They were saying we would have 50,000 more nurses than we have today. It's simply not true. It is a lie.

 

They then got caught out and had to say that it would be 50,000 more than would have been the case had they not mitigated departures. Which, alright, I understand that and I can follow the calculation. But that is not 50,000 more than today and I'm not joining them on the journey to the new figures and saying that it's all fine when their initial claim was a lie. 

[ewerk 30266]

Have you had a knock on the head recently?

[Rayvin 5185]

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

[Renton 21318]

 

Rayvin, ffs, understand that retaining nurses is not the same as employing additional nurses. There are a static number of nurses in the NHS bought about by replacing nurses who leave, obviously. This is dynamic, it's happening every day. The point is that only 31,000 new posts have been made available, thatsabout one nurse per 3000 population btw. Insignificant when looking at the aging demographics.

[Renton 21318]

Rayvin, do you think that the NHS loses 19,000 nurse per annum without replacing them? How come we still have any nurses then? 

[ewerk 30266]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

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

This is very simple stuff. If we have 500,000 nurses and the PM promises 50,000 more nurses then the natural expectation is that we will have 550,000. But instead we're only going to get 531,000 nurses.

It's a blatant attempt to mislead the public. If you can't see that I worry for you.

[Rayvin 5185]

5 minutes ago, ewerk said:

This is very simple stuff. If we have 500,000 nurses and the PM promises 50,000 more nurses then the natural expectation is that we will have 550,000. But instead we're only going to get 531,000 nurses.

It's a blatant attempt to mislead the public. If you can't see that I worry for you.

 

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.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 5185]

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.

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

[ewerk 30266]

Sweet Jesus, 'if no policy action was taken'. Those 19,000 nurses would be replaced. It's only 31,000 more nurses, not 50,000.

 

 

That's it. I'm out.

[Rayvin 5185]

18 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Because mitigating departures is not "more". They were saying we would have 50,000 more nurses than we have today. It's simply not true. It is a lie.

 

They then got caught out and had to say that it would be 50,000 more than would have been the case had they not mitigated departures. Which, alright, I understand that and I can follow the calculation. But that is not 50,000 more than today and I'm not joining them on the journey to the new figures and saying that it's all fine when their initial claim was a lie. 

 

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  

[Rayvin 5185]

Just now, ewerk said:

Sweet Jesus, 'if no policy action was taken'. Those 19,000 nurses would be replaced. It's only 31,000 more nurses, not 50,000.

 

 

That's it. I'm out.

 

You are saying here that if no policy action was taken, those 19,000 nurses would be replaced. I agree. How would they be replaced? My assumption is that most of the influx of new NHS nurses comes from university graduations. So that number remains reasonably constant and we take all of them in year on year as normal. Apparently that number is about 15,000. If we persuade these 19,000 to stay, and still keep hiring 15,000 each year, what happens to the overall number?