Jump to content
Christmas Tree

Europe --- In or Out

Europe?  

82 members have voted

  1. 1. Europe?

    • In
      48
    • Out
      20
    • Undecided
      4


Recommended Posts

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 :lol:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Rayvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Renton
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Rayvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

:lol:

 

Why are you you doing this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Net increase of 1.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Renton said:

:lol:

 

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.

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


×