Europe --- In or Out

[Rayvin 5186]

Apparently the NHS released a long term plan in January of 2019 that claims the following:

 

The NHS’s Long Term Plan, released in January this year, already contains a commitment to improve “staff retention by at least 2 per cent by 2025, the equivalent of 12,400 additional nurses”.

 

Curiously, they are viewing an increase in retention as being equivalent to an additional 12,400 nurses. As an aside, this suggests to me that the Tories have simply inflated this number a bit and claimed it was all their idea - but still, it is again supporting what I'm saying.

 

This is painful lads, I don't at all get why none of you are understanding that if we hire a fixed number of new nurses over a period as part of the normal recruitment and training within the industry and accept (as Renton says) that the ideal is for this number to keep the overall tally static - but then choose to hang on to 18,500 who would otherwise have left by improving working conditions - that we overall get net 18,500 more.

 

They've even given an actual set of numbers. We have 280,000 nurses in total atm and they've claimed that by 2030 it will be 330,000. So that is them confirming that they will create 50,000 more posts. Whether they're capable of filling them is entirely irrelevant, they're being created.

[ewerk 30266]

We also have apprentice nurses and recruit nurses from overseas but honestly this conversation is so boring that I may actually go and do some work.

[Rayvin 5186]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

We also have apprentice nurses and recruit nurses from overseas but honestly this conversation is so boring that I may actually go and do some work.

 

What does that add to the conversation? Yes, that's great. Whatever we do now would keep going at the current levels to offset the current departures and keep the number static. They find some way of hiring an additional 31,000 on top of this, and they also stop 18,500 people from leaving.

 

It's net 50,000. It just is. I'm sorry like, but it fucking is.

[NJS 4371]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

We also have apprentice nurses and recruit nurses from overseas but honestly this conversation is so boring that I may actually go and do some work.

Would that count as 1 more worker or retention? 

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

It's like Ashley claiming Matty Longstaff as a net addition for next season if he manages to get him to sign a new contract

[Renton 21322]

10 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

What does that add to the conversation? Yes, that's great. Whatever we do now would keep going at the current levels to offset the current departures and keep the number static. They find some way of hiring an additional 31,000 on top of this, and they also stop 18,500 people from leaving.

 

It's net 50,000. It just is. I'm sorry like, but it fucking is.

 

It's fucking not. There will be 31,000 new posts. Period.  Full stop. End of.

 

Fucking hell man.  

[ewerk 30266]

6 minutes ago, TheGingerQuiff said:

It's like Ashley claiming Matty Longstaff as a net addition for next season if he manages to get him to sign a new contract

And when Andy Carroll comes back from injury it will literally be like a new signing.

[Rayvin 5186]

Just now, Renton said:

 

It's fucking not. There will be 31,000 new posts. Period.  Full stop. End of.

 

Fucking hell man.  

 

Can you just explain why maintaining normal recruiting levels that are, at present, presumably intended to replace departure levels - and then lowering those departure levels - does not result in a net increase?

[Rayvin 5186]

7 minutes ago, TheGingerQuiff said:

It's like Ashley claiming Matty Longstaff as a net addition for next season if he manages to get him to sign a new contract

 

Only if Ashley then replaces him anyway, is it the same.

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

Only if Ashley then replaces him anyway, is it the same.

 

So if he buys a new midfielder and gets Longstaff to stay, what will the net increase be to our midfield numbers?

[Rayvin 5186]

Just now, TheGingerQuiff said:

 

So if he buys a new midfielder and gets Longstaff to stay, what will the net increase be to our midfield numbers?

 

Net increase of 1.

[Renton 21322]

4 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Can you just explain why maintaining normal recruiting levels that are, at present, presumably intended to replace departure levels - and then lowering those departure levels - does not result in a net increase?

 

Because normally when someone leaves a post, its replaced by someone else. Otherwise the employmentevel would be in constant decline until nobody worked any more, agreed? If you stop them leaving, great, but it makes absolutely no  difference to the net employment.

 

Seriously,  have you had a knock to the head recently mate? 

Edited February 12, 2020 by Renton

[Rayvin 5186]

7 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Because normally when someone leaves a post, its replaced by someone else. Otherwise the employmentevel would be in constant decline until nobody worked any more, agreed? If you stop them leaving, great, but it makes absolutely no  difference to the net employment.

 

Seriously,  have you had a knock to the head recently mate? 

 

Me, Channel 4's fact check site, this fullfact charity, and even the guardian, it seems - we all had that knock apparently.

 

They're not replacing people as they go, they're getting a yearly intake no matter what, from graduates or whatever other normal intake channels exist. Every year, 15,000 people graduate into the nursing system and that number remains, I assume, fairly consistent. These people fill positions that are being vacated. In theory, they're meant to keep the number static at 280,000 overall nurses.

 

EDIT - forget the bit about the shortfall which I just edited out, it's referring to a different thing.

 

What the Tories are claiming, is that the 15,000 ever year will continue. 18,500 people over the next ten years will be persuaded to stay compared to current levels of departure (as in, if 15,000 people a year leave right now, it means that all 15,000 new recruits are used up replacing them - so therefore, if they reduce that number to 10,000, they are in effect increasing the yearly number of nurses by +5,000). And 31,000 additional nurses will be found somehow.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 5186]

You could look at your own personal finances the same way. If you earn £30,000 a year, and you spend £20,000 of it on living expenses, then you are left with £10,000 saved each year. If you find a way to cut down your living expenses to £18,000, then each year you save £12,000 instead. Your gran dies and you get a windfall of £30,000 on top of that. So after 10 years, you have saved £50,000 more than what you would have estimated to have saved before you cut your expenses down and received your inheritance.

 

What you guys are trying to claim, is that the extra £20,000 saved through cutting down your expenses, because it's technically retention, somehow doesn't actually count.

[Renton 21322]

This has no basis in reality, staffing rotas, etc. Each ward has a staffing requirement. If someone leaves, they are replaced. Often by foreign nationals actually, but where the come from is irrelevant.

 

The tories have promised 31,000 new nursing posts. The rest is smoke and mirrors and frankly if Susanah Reid can grasp this but you can't, you're beyond help. 

[Renton 21322]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

You could look at your own personal finances the same way. If you earn £30,000 a year, and you spend £20,000 of it on living expenses, then you are left with £10,000 saved each year. If you find a way to cut down your living expenses to £18,000, then each year you save £12,000 instead. Your gran dies and you get a windfall of £30,000 on top of that. So after 10 years, you have saved £50,000 more than what you would have estimated to have saved before you cut your expenses down and received your inheritance.

 

What you guys are trying to claim, is that the extra £20,000 saved through cutting down your expenses, because it's technically retention, somehow doesn't actually count.

 

Why are you you doing this? 

[ewerk 30266]

20 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Net increase of 1.

EXACTLY. So we have a net increase of 31,000 nurses. Not 50,000.

[Rayvin 5186]

Just now, Renton said:

 

Why are you you doing this? 

 

Because I need to understand this and no one is actually able to explain to me why I'm wrong. You keep thinking you have but you haven't. Your last answer addressed nothing I said, other than to dismiss it as 'not what happens in reality'. Which bit isn't what happens in reality? In reality there isn't a yearly intake of new recruits?

 

Where are you getting the figure of 31,000 new posts created from? Because the government and everyone else reporting on it continues to claim it's 50,000. I cannot understand for the life of me, why we are dismissing the fact that if intake numbers remain the same, and departures fall, this is a net gain.

 

Quiff has actually proven the point already with his football analogy. It is a net. fucking. gain.

 

At this point, I'll be honest with you - I want to be wrong. I really do. I want someone to just say "yeah but you haven't considered..." and then the penny will drop, I'll look stupid but I won't care because I'll feel fucking liberated. But I cannot make my head bend reality so as to ignore the fact that retaining staff while taking a consistent yearly intake is a net gain.

[ewerk 30266]

 Literally no one is arguing that it isn't a net gain. It's a gain of 31,000 rather than 50,000 though.

[Rayvin 5186]

Just now, ewerk said:

EXACTLY. So we have a net increase of 31,000 nurses. Not 50,000.

 

No, because in this limited example we aren't talking about the 31,000.

 

We're just talking about what is happening with the retentions. They're being kept and THEIR REPLACEMENTS IF THEY HAD LEFT ARE BEING HIRED ANYWAY. By the YEARLY INTAKE of recruited nurses which will remain CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD.

[Rayvin 5186]

Just now, ewerk said:

 Literally no one is arguing that it isn't a net gain. It's a gain of 31,000 rather than 50,000 though.

 

To try to simplfy things, I removed the 31,000 as part of my argument. We all agree on that point anyway. When I say net gain, I mean the 18,500 is a net gain. Let's just leave the 31,000 out of it.

[ewerk 30266]

[Rayvin 5186]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

No, because in this limited example we aren't talking about the 31,000.

 

We're just talking about what is happening with the retentions. They're being kept and THEIR REPLACEMENTS IF THEY HAD LEFT ARE BEING HIRED ANYWAY. By the YEARLY INTAKE of recruited nurses which will remain CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD.

 

Ewerk, please - what about the above isn't working for you? Please, I'm begging you

[Meenzer 15408]

The claim is both mathematically justifiable and obvious political grandstanding. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

(Fucking Lib Dems always sitting on the fence etc.)

[Renton 21322]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Because I need to understand this and no one is actually able to explain to me why I'm wrong. You keep thinking you have but you haven't. Your last answer addressed nothing I said, other than to dismiss it as 'not what happens in reality'. Which bit isn't what happens in reality? In reality there isn't a yearly intake of new recruits?

 

Where are you getting the figure of 31,000 new posts created from? Because the government and everyone else reporting on it continues to claim it's 50,000. I cannot understand for the life of me, why we are dismissing the fact that if intake numbers remain the same, and departures fall, this is a net gain.

 

Quiff has actually proven the point already with his football analogy. It is a net. fucking. gain.

 

At this point, I'll be honest with you - I want to be wrong. I really do. I want someone to just say "yeah but you haven't considered..." and then the penny will drop, I'll look stupid but I won't care because I'll feel fucking liberated. But I cannot make my head bend reality so as to ignore the fact that retaining staff while taking a consistent yearly intake is a net gain.

 

What do you think happens when a clinical member of staff leaves? Regardless of anything else, they're replaced, arent they?  Yes or no?