Europe --- In or Out

[Rayvin 4949]

Just now, ewerk said:

I think I've finally made sense of what you're saying. The NHS hopes to retain 18,500 nurses. They will add 31,000 nurses. They will not continue to recruit an additional 18,500 nurses as if they are still losing that number. 

You're welcome.

 

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.

[ewerk 26168]

Show me where they've offered your version of the calculations because it certainly wasn't in their manifesto.

[Rayvin 4949]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Show me where they've offered your version of the calculations because it certainly wasn't in their manifesto.

 

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.

[Rayvin 4949]

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

 

[ewerk 26168]

You can take my silence as an indication that I am bored to fucking tears with this argument.

The money wasn't in the manifesto for what you claimed. Every official utterance from the Tories on this is at odds with what you say. I honestly do not care about this.

[Rayvin 4949]

 Don't worry, it happens

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

Apologise 

[Gemmill 34166]

Can't believe this is still going.

[ewerk 26168]

On 6/28/2018 at 21:04, Christmas Tree said:

We won’t stay in the SM because that means free movement. We can have an FTA that allows tarrif free access to it.

 

We won’t stop in the customers union because that means no free trade deals. We can agree a customs arrangement that allows frictionless borders.

 

Add regulatory alignment and we have a deal that Airbus, BMW etc will be very happy with.

 

As I’ve said from day one, this will be wrapped up in an associate deal.

 

If this doesn’t happen you can come round here and piss on my prize roses.

What time of the year do your roses come into bloom?

[Alex 30239]

Fop-lite 

[Meenzer 13959]

3 minutes ago, Alex said:

Fop-lite 

 

*-heavy

[Dr Gloom 19735]

Fop-xl 

[Tom 13806]

Fucking hell @Rayvin could put Dom Cummings out of a job at this rate.  

[Alex 30239]

Bravado-fop

[Andrew 4183]

I don't know what's worse at the moment, J69 vs quiff and that other bloke all over the football Forum or or Rayvin vs maths in here. 

 

 

[Rayvin 4949]

30 minutes ago, Andrew said:

I don't know what's worse at the moment, J69 vs quiff and that other bloke all over the football Forum or or Rayvin vs maths in here. 

 

 

 

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.

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by Rayvin

[Renton 17606]

26 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

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.

 

 

I'm not sure that quote proves much. As i keep saying, what do you think happens to a nurse that leaves? They are replaced. Retaining is preferable as you want to keep experience and readvertising is a ball ache, it takes us about 4 months to replace a staff member and another 4 months to train them, maybe much longer,  depending on the role. Practically you might be a staff member down for a year.

 

But i still just think your wrong, ive not seen anything to suggest that there will be 50,000 net new nurses. If that was the case, the tories would just simply state it, no need to muddy the waters. I think the tories mean what they say, there will be 31,000 new posts only, and there is a plan to improve retention. You think differently,  but at least we understand where we are coming from. But who gives a fuck? They're a bunch of lying cunts anyway. 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by Renton

[Rayvin 4949]

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:

 

15 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

I think the tories mean what they say, there will be 31,000 new posts only, and there is a plan to improve retention.

 

 

 

What do you think that retention does then? Has net zero impact? If so, why is the NHS claiming the opposite?

Edited February 12, 2020 by Rayvin

[ewerk 26168]

[Rayvin 4949]

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

[Renton 17606]

25 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

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?

 

Chill out man. 

 

I just don't think retention means creation of new jobs, at best its ambiguous. As i explained, there are practical reasons why keeping someone on will increase the work force availailable (could easily account for the 12,400 number stated, note the use of the word "equivalent "), but this isn't the same as creating additional jobs. Now i can see your pov, can you acknowledge mine? If the tories were going to actually create 50,000 new jobs, then they'd certainly unambiguously say so. Johnson certainly would, yet he's said the opposite. 

[Rayvin 4949]

11 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Chill out man. 

 

I just don't think retention means creation of new jobs, at best its ambiguous. As i explained, there are practical reasons why keeping someone on will increase the work force availailable (could easily account for the 12,400 number stated, note the use of the word "equivalent "), but this isn't the same as creating additional jobs. Now i can see your pov, can you acknowledge mine? If the tories were going to actually create 50,000 new jobs, then they'd certainly unambiguously say so. Johnson certainly would, yet he's said the opposite. 

 

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.

[NJS 3960]

Liars lie, cunts cunt and tories tory - it really is that simple. 

[Renton 17606]

27 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

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.

 

I mean the process of replacing a perons job effectively removes the post for quite a long time (for reasons discussed), could even be years in some places where it's difficult to recruit (London springs to mind). In these instances i could see how retaining a member of staff is equivalent to creating a new position. But it most definitely is not the same. 

 

Which of course leads us to another problem. Where are these nurses going to come from after Brexit and without significant increases in training (with bursaries still removed). I can see trust executives making more trips to the Philippines soon. 

[Rayvin 4949]

28 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

I mean the process of replacing a perons job effectively removes the post for quite a long time (for reasons discussed), could even be years in some places where it's difficult to recruit (London springs to mind). In these instances i could see how retaining a member of staff is equivalent to creating a new position. But it most definitely is not the same. 

 

Which of course leads us to another problem. Where are these nurses going to come from after Brexit and without significant increases in training (with bursaries still removed). I can see trust executives making more trips to the Philippines soon. 

 

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.