Jump to content
Christmas Tree

Europe --- In or Out

Europe?  

81 members have voted

  1. 1. Europe?

    • In
      47
    • Out
      20
    • Undecided
      4


Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Rayvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Rayvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Rayvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: 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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

:lol: 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:suicide:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×