Europe --- In or Out

[Rayvin 4964]

Just now, Meenzer said:

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.)

 

This is literally my point. I'm not saying, nor have I said anywhere, that it isn't political grandstanding. It is. But the claim is technically correct.

 

And right now, Meenzer, I fucking love you.

[Meenzer 14055]

Just now, Rayvin said:

And right now, Meenzer, I fucking love you.

 

If it helps, I still think you're wrong about almost everything else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rayvin 4964]

Just now, Renton said:

 

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

 

I don't know why you're obsessing about this so you're going to have to then explain what bearing that has on anything.

 

Yes they are replaced.

[ewerk 26344]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

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

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. So we're going to keep 18,500 nurses who would have left and keep recruiting 18,500 new nurses every year? So we'll have 185,000 new nurses after ten years? Is that what you're saying.

[Rayvin 4964]

1 minute ago, Meenzer said:

 

If it helps, I still think you're wrong about almost everything else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You and me both  

[Renton 17775]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

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

 

6 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.

 

Hold on, how does the NHS know which nurses are leaving? So you're saying management knows who are planning to leave, persuades them to stay, and employs an extra person anyway?

 

Then why just not say we're making 50,000 extra posts, which would be true in that scenario? They're not claiming this, BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE 

[Rayvin 4964]

Just now, ewerk said:

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. So we're going to keep 18,500 nurses who would have left and keep recruiting 18,500 new nurses every year? So we'll have 185,000 new nurses after ten years? Is that what you're saying.

 

I'm saying that we recruit nurses every year as standard. The number is apparently 15,000. We do this every year because as Renton keeps saying (which I don't understand because it supports my argument), nurses in the NHS are replaced when they leave. They are. They are replaced ewerk, they fucking are. So here's the thing - if we need to replace fewer nurses, then there is a surplus left over by the yearly intakes. That is where the net gain is - because the number recruited year on year will not change.

 

The Tories have claimed that we will reach a total of 50,000 by "saving" 18,500 nurses over 10 years, which will effectively be generated by this surplus year on year until they hit 18,500. And then they pull another 31k out of their arses somehow, and bang. 50,000.

[ewerk 26344]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

The Tories have claimed that we will reach a total of 50,000 by "saving" 18,500 nurses over 10 years, which will effectively be generated by this surplus year on year until they hit 18,500. And then they pull another 31k out of their arses somehow, and bang. 50,000.

 It's isn't 50,000 extra nurses compared to what he have now though, is it?

[Rayvin 4964]

Just now, Renton said:

 

 

Hold on, how does the NHS know which nurses are leaving? So you're saying management knows who are planning to leave, persuades them to stay, and employs an extra person anyway?

 

Then why just not say we're making 50,000 extra posts, which would be true in that scenario? They're not claiming this, BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE 

 

Thank fuck, someone asked the obvious question. Which I answered in my very first post...

 

19 hours ago, Rayvin said:

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.

 

I would also like to add to it, that the NHS intended to do it anyway - which means they can capitalise on something someone else was already doing. And that retaining 18,500 skilled and experienced nurses sounds better than hiring 18,500 new and inexperienced ones.

 

And they know how many are leaving based on current levels of departure. They will just extrapolate that over the period. This is what managers do to look at trends and plan for the future.

[Rayvin 4964]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

 It's isn't 50,000 extra nurses compared to what he have now though, is it?

 

How isn't it? Go on, if that surplus isn't adding to the overall net number of nurses, where is it going?

[ewerk 26344]

I can only repeat myself now. If we have 280,000 nurses now then the plan is to have 311,000 in ten years time. Agreed?

That's 31,000 extra than what we have now. Are you following me, Dougal?

 

[Rayvin 4964]

No, I want you to tell me what happens to that surplus. Either you don't believe there is one, or you think that the surplus is just going to be discarded or absorbed somehow.

 

The Tories have specifically stated that they will go from 280,000 nurses, to 330,000.

[Rayvin 4964]

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by Rayvin

[ewerk 26344]

Strange then that the PM should contradict that over a week later.

Quote

Boris Johnson has publicly admitted that only 31,000 of Tories’ 50,000 “more” nurses pledge for the NHS will actually be new recruits.

Questioned on the Conservative manifesto pledge to deliver “50,000 more nurses” – and how many would be new recruits to the health service – he said: “Yes, 31,000 is the answer to that.”

 

[Rayvin 4964]

Just now, ewerk said:

Strange then that the PM should contradict that over a week later.

 

 

All he's saying there, is that 31,000 will be newly recruited under this policy. That doesn't contradict anything I'm saying. "New recruits" is not the same as an "overall addition".

[ewerk 26344]

I give up.

[Renton 17775]

7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

No, I want you to tell me what happens to that surplus. Either you don't believe there is one, or you think that the surplus is just going to be discarded or absorbed somehow.

 

The Tories have specifically stated that they will go from 280,000 nurses, to 330,000.

 

So there will be 50,000 new posts? I suspect Matt Hancock is just doing what tories do, you know, lying. Why you've chosen to believe him I dont know. A retained post is not a new post. A new post is a new post. 

[ewerk 26344]

 

[Rayvin 4964]

I don't see that his comment changes anything mate. It's saying things we've all agreed on. What about his comment makes any difference to my argument?

[ewerk 26344]

Add up the fucking numbers.

[Rayvin 4964]

5 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

So there will be 50,000 new posts? I suspect Matt Hancock is just doing what tories do, you know, lying. Why you've chosen to believe him I dont know. A retained post is not a new post. A new post is a new post. 

 

Yes there will be. And you can suspect what you want, I mean 2030 is so far away that it doesn't matter anyway in fairness. But I'm not choosing to believe him per se, I'm saying that the maths is technically correct and that what they're saying does make sense, if they can achieve it. They make 50,000 new posts and populate them through a 31,000 recruitment drive, and 18,500 made up from the left over surplus of the usual intake that is no longer fully committed to replacing outgoing nurses because of a fall in departures.

 

That's it. That's all there is to it.

[Rayvin 4964]

Just now, ewerk said:

Add up the fucking numbers.

 

The first set of numbers comes to 31,000, and then the retentions take it to 50,000. I have no idea why you wanted me to do that when we both know you're just going to be frustrated by the answer.

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

Retentions aren't additions. Have you got coronavirus?

[Rayvin 4964]

1 minute ago, TheGingerQuiff said:

Retentions aren't additions. Have you got coronavirus?

 

Can you please read this post:

 

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Yes there will be. And you can suspect what you want, I mean 2030 is so far away that it doesn't matter anyway in fairness. But I'm not choosing to believe him per se, I'm saying that the maths is technically correct and that what they're saying does make sense, if they can achieve it. They make 50,000 new posts and populate them through a 31,000 recruitment drive, and 18,500 made up from the left over surplus of the usual intake that is no longer fully committed to replacing outgoing nurses because of a fall in departures.

 

That's it. That's all there is to it.

 

[ewerk 26344]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Yes there will be. And you can suspect what you want, I mean 2030 is so far away that it doesn't matter anyway in fairness. But I'm not choosing to believe him per se, I'm saying that the maths is technically correct and that what they're saying does make sense, if they can achieve it. They make 50,000 new posts and populate them through a 31,000 recruitment drive, and 18,500 made up from the left over surplus of the usual intake that is no longer fully committed to replacing outgoing nurses because of a fall in departures.

 

That's it. That's all there is to it.

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.