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

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 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :icon_lol:

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Chill out man. :icon_lol:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of which, I acknowledge, takes us back to "why wouldn't they just say that". And come to think of it, all they said was 50,000 additional nurses. It's only when people delved into the numbers that all of a sudden this became an issue - not by the design of the Tories, but because some journalist has picked it up, misinterpreted the implications, and suddenly it was everywhere.

 

If you're talking about how you arrived at the number of 50,000 - then explaining that part of the figure comes from retentions is just an explanatory aspect of your justification. I doubt they ever really anticipated that anyone would probe this particular issue tbh because the net result is 50,000 additional nurses. So actually, that's probably your answer as to why they didn't just say what they meant - they thought they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lads, there’s no way this is dragging into Day 3. I will burn this place to the ground before I let that happen.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rayvin, An old teacher once wrote on a blackboard on our first day with him.....

 

2 + 2 = 5

 

..... And then asked us ways to get to that answer. Obviously nobody could do it. He then told us 2 + 2 = 5 is only correct if he says it's correct and don't forget it or else. The teacher turned out to be a great teacher, (an eccentric bloke with a big dollop of 'hard cunt-ness'). Think of the Tories claims in the same way with the twist that they aren't great politicians and are soft as shite. :good:

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It reminds me of that old nursery rhyme that never quite took off....

 

There was 50,000 nurses

Sitting on the wall.

50,000 nurses added to them all

And if 31,000 nurses were already there,

There'd be 26 member's of the cabinet

Talking out their arse.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2020 at 21:24, 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?

in my defence i was slow to wade in or engage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

 

And yes, he is actually being serious.

 

Why has it changed already? I thought nothing changed until the end of the year.

 

Also, I agree on some analysis he's being serious, but what the hell did he expect? How can any Brexiter possibly not have seen this shit coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

in my defence i was slow to wade in or engage

 

I've just spent several days being grumpy because of an existential crisis, a presentation I had to give for a job interview at 7.30 in the morning yesterday, and the subsequent lack of sleep that I had in the days before.

 

I fixated on the nurses thing as a distraction. I'm just weird, basically.

Edited by Rayvin

Share this post


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

 

Why has it changed already? I thought nothing changed until the end of the year.

 

Also, I agree on some analysis he's being serious, but what the hell did he expect? How can any Brexiter possibly not have seen this shit coming.

It hasn’t changed. He’s a moron. Like the other 17,399,999 of them.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

 

I've just spent several days being grumpy because of an existential crisis, a presentation I had to give for a job interview at 7.30 in the morning yesterday, and the subsequent lack of sleep that I had in the days before.

 

sounds like this discussion was a good use of your time then :lol:

hope the presentation went well!

  • Like 1

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


×