UK Government Performance 2019-2024

Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2013
Posts
18,395
I know that, I was being obtuse — if it needs additional clarification like that post hoc then the pledge in the manifesto is either poorly written or deliberately misleading.

If they had simply said 31,000 more nurses and 19,000 existing nurses retained it wouldn’t be an issue.

So I’ll ask again — should we all agree that, as long as by the end of this Parliament, there are ~330,000 nurses we should consider the pledge met?

@String — as OP and master of the list, do you concur?

I concur, and will update the OP to clarify. :)
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
But true.

Or are you saying fraud should be allowed because a tiny number of people can't be arsed to get some ID?

Not sure how making I.D cards mandatory for all voters will stop Farage spouting his nonsense about voter fraud in the U.K.

Its a non-issue. Allegations of fraud are extremely low, convictions here are tiny.

I.D. cards do not help in the slightest in combating the spread of nonsense.

You do not need to see Farage's passport or drivers license to grasp his dishonesty here: a simple glance at the evidence is enough.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
13,848
And what about the hospitals?

The 40 new hospitals pledge probably need breaking down further in order to accurately track it:

Conservative Party Manifesto Website said:
Upgrading 20 hospitals and building 40 new ones
On top of more money for the NHS every year, we’re investing in hospitals so that our brilliant doctors and nurses have the facilities they need to give patients the best possible care.

We’re providing £850 million for 20 hospital upgrades, £2.7 billion for the first six new hospitals, and seed funding so that work on 34 more can make progress.

And 78 hospital trusts will receive state-of-the-art MRI, CT and mammography screening machines, so cancer can be detected more quickly to boost survival rates.

Full Fact said:
The government says “We’re giving the green light to more than 40 new hospital projects across the country, six getting the go-ahead immediately, and over 30 that could be built over the next decade”.

It has confirmed that six hospitals in England are being given £2.7 billion by 2025 as part of a “new hospital building programme”.

Another 21 hospital trusts are being given £100 million in seed funding to prepare a business case for their hospitals—but no money for any actual building work. The plan is for works on these hospitals to take place between 2025 and 2030.

The government says that seed funding will cover 34 hospitals, and has also published a list of which hospitals are included. By our count, there are 38 hospitals listed (if you count all 12 community hospitals in Dorset which are listed as “potentially” getting funding). Presumably, the 34 extra hospitals needed to reach the total figure of 40 are to be found within this list of 38, and we’ve asked the Department of Health and Social Care for more information on this.

So, to hold them to account:

Point 7 stands as-is. If the government provides £850m to upgrade 20 hospitals within this Parliamentary term the pledge will be met.

Point 6 probably needs some sub-sections.

6.1 — provide £2.7Bn by 2025 for the first six hospitals to be built.
6.2 — provide seed funding to 34 hospitals by 2025 in order for them to be built between 2025 and 2030.

That solves the issue of how to judge them if they provide the funding for the planning stage but the plans are then rejected and it keeps the list in the OP relevant to this Parliament.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2013
Posts
18,395
Point 6 probably needs some sub-sections.

6.1 — provide £2.7Bn by 2025 for the first six hospitals to be built.
6.2 — provide seed funding to 34 hospitals by 2025 in order for them to be built between 2025 and 2030.

That solves the issue of how to judge them if they provide the funding for the planning stage but the plans are then rejected and it keeps the list in the OP relevant to this Parliament.

OP updated.

Sincere thanks for the detail there; the OP is becoming more like a community collaboration. That's how I intended it because not only will this be a long haul in terms of tracking progress, but some of the manifesto pledges and opposition counter claims are quite difficult to decipher for clarification.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
29,377
But true.

Or are you saying fraud should be allowed because a tiny number of people can't be arsed to get some ID?

It's another one of those right wing hypocritical tropes about big government, the problem is utterly tiny that the solution can only be a waste of money, why not use that money on the elderly or education?

Let's ignore folks with passports or drivers licenses for a moment as that forces a literal buy in on democracy... people will have to depend on councils, a lot of them reeling from austerity, they'd be left with another postcode lottery over whether their particular council had a system in place that could handle it transparently and without bias of any kind. That doesn't seem like it's worth it to me to catch the 0.000003% (~100 cases out of ~32 million votes) of idiots who think they can get away with fraud.

Most of the offensives at elections have actually been campaign violations, not a peep about that though... and the usual criticism i have about this - What do you do when the opposition finally returns to power with increasingly authoritative tools at their disposal? What's good for the goose...
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
8,372
It's another one of those right wing hypocritical tropes about big government, the problem is utterly tiny that the solution can only be a waste of money, why not use that money on the elderly or education?
It won't cost us anything, we can get some private business to run it and they can turn a tidy profit from selling on your details to the highest bidder, maybe we can get those nice people who'll be running the porn pass or looking after your medical history to run it, they'll be nothing to worry about as if they misuse the data and someone goes blabbing to the press we'll fine them a token amount.
 
Joined
4 Aug 2007
Posts
14,148
Location
Wilds of suffolk
Frankly I wouldn't mind supporting the costs of some sort of ID card (should only be needed by those with neither a passport nor a driving licence)
It should however come in with some serious updating of our voting system. Ditch the old paper etc, bring in an electronic system that scans the document (basically like the machines at passport control), this could also be done with a phone for example, and then we would get a result a few minutes after the closing.
We could then adopt some elements of direct democracy and have an issue(s) voted for quarterly.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
29,377
Frankly I wouldn't mind supporting the costs of some sort of ID card (should only be needed by those with neither a passport nor a driving licence)
It should however come in with some serious updating of our voting system. Ditch the old paper etc, bring in an electronic system that scans the document (basically like the machines at passport control), this could also be done with a phone for example, and then we would get a result a few minutes after the closing.
We could then adopt some elements of direct democracy and have an issue(s) voted for quarterly.

Absolutely ******* no. If you want to destroy society, this is the fastest way. (though if that's the goal...)

Digitising voting or politics while people continue to degrade into unthinking idiots, might as well just give up pretending to be a democracy, groupthink would take over.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
8,372
Good job we can trust the government with our digital identity then, it's not like they've ever left laptops on trains with all our personal details on them, unencrypted USB sticks, or CD's laying around, what could possibly go wrong.
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Feb 2018
Posts
7,821
I know that, I was being obtuse — if it needs additional clarification like that post hoc then the pledge in the manifesto is either poorly written or deliberately misleading.

If they had simply said 31,000 more nurses and 19,000 existing nurses retained it wouldn’t be an issue.

So I’ll ask again — should we all agree that, as long as by the end of this Parliament, there are ~330,000 nurses we should consider the pledge met?

@String — as OP and master of the list, do you concur?

I concur, and will update the OP to clarify. :)

OP updated.

Sincere thanks for the detail there; the OP is becoming more like a community collaboration. That's how I intended it because not only will this be a long haul in terms of tracking progress, but some of the manifesto pledges and opposition counter claims are quite difficult to decipher for clarification.
Come on guys even the first cabinet meeting was full of the same lies. Sorry misinterpretation.
Oh dear.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...net-meeting-ministers-hospitals-a9250011.html
Boris Johnson made his ministers repeat campaign lies about the NHS in unison during his first cabinet meeting since the election.

In a call-and-response exchange that resembled a school teacher addressing his pupils, Mr Johnson repeated widely debunked claims made by the Conservative Party about investment in the health service.


“How many new hospitals are we going to build?” the prime minister asked his cabinet.

“40!” they replied, ignoring the fact the government has only put in place funding for building projects at six hospitals by 2025.

Matt Hancock, the health secretary, admitted in September that the other 34 projects, which are expected by 2030, have only been promised £100m of “seed funding” so far.
Mr Johnson went on to ask his cabinet about another misleading campaign promise on nursing numbers.

“How many more nurses are we going to hire?” he asked to replies of “50,000” from his ministers, despite Mr Johnson publicly admitting that the figure was inaccurate during the election campaign.

Earlier this month, Mr Johnson admitted on Sky News only 31,000 of the 50,000 “more” nurses pledged would be new recruits.
So what are we saying? Its changed now because they were found out but are still try to sell the lie?

if you asked one of them now how many new hospitals and nurses they would say 50k nurses and 40 hopsitals because they know that their supporters dont really care. They were lies they told to garner more votes just like the bus slogan.

The lie hasnt changed just because it was found out. They will still lie about it. If you asked Boris or Hancock how many nurses they would not say 30k.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2013
Posts
18,395
@Tony Edwards the figure for nurses was disputed pretty much as soon as it was announced. They spent more time trying to reinvent the definition of words than they did trying to clarify numbers. Everyone is aware that they went for a headline figure that was misleading.

If there's 330,000 nurses in place by the end of the term, the government will claim it as success therefore that's how we should measure it for the purpose of this thread.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
13,585
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
@Tony Edwards the figure for nurses was disputed pretty much as soon as it was announced. They spent more time trying to reinvent the definition of words than they did trying to clarify numbers. Everyone is aware that they went for a headline figure that was misleading.

If there's 330,000 nurses in place by the end of the term, the government will claim it as success therefore that's how we should measure it for the purpose of this thread.

I don't think they will, they want 350k by 2024. 330k to 350k is quite a difference. Anything above 345k is a success for me.
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Feb 2018
Posts
7,821
@Tony Edwards the figure for nurses was disputed pretty much as soon as it was announced. They spent more time trying to reinvent the definition of words than they did trying to clarify numbers. Everyone is aware that they went for a headline figure that was misleading.

If there's 330,000 nurses in place by the end of the term, the government will claim it as success therefore that's how we should measure it for the purpose of this thread.
I appreciate that but
Boris Johnson made his ministers repeat campaign lies about the NHS in unison during his first cabinet meeting since the election.

In a call-and-response exchange that resembled a school teacher addressing his pupils, Mr Johnson repeated widely debunked claims made by the Conservative Party about investment in the health service.


“How many new hospitals are we going to build?” the prime minister asked his cabinet.

“40!” they replied, ignoring the fact the government has only put in place funding for building projects at six hospitals by 2025.

Matt Hancock, the health secretary, admitted in September that the other 34 projects, which are expected by 2030, have only been promised £100m of “seed funding” so far.
Mr Johnson went on to ask his cabinet about another misleading campaign promise on nursing numbers.

“How many more nurses are we going to hire?” he asked to replies of “50,000” from his ministers, despite Mr Johnson publicly admitting that the figure was inaccurate during the election campaign.

Earlier this month, Mr Johnson admitted on Sky News only 31,000 of the 50,000 “more” nurses pledged would be new recruits.
If brexit turns out to be a turd are we going to say yeah thats fine. Its what we thought would happen after looking at the facts. It doesnt matter what they actually said so brexit was a success after all.

Its like people are willing to accept any old lie from the Tories and say it doesnt matter. Boris has written many racist and homophic pieces and yet hes not a racist nor a homophobe. Corbyn knows some antisemites and suddenly hes a full on raving antisemtie that is looking to recruit more to the Labour party.

Why is the bar so low for the Tories but so high for Labour?
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
9,916
It won't cost us anything, we can get some private business to run it and they can turn a tidy profit from selling on your details to the highest bidder, maybe we can get those nice people who'll be running the porn pass or looking after your medical history to run it, they'll be nothing to worry about as if they misuse the data and someone goes blabbing to the press we'll fine them a token amount.

There is a solid gold, vote winning policy lurking within your post: Boris promise to provide everyone with a free porn pass at age 18 which is also your voter ID. The state then gets to snoop on the disgusting proclivities of the masses, but if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear!
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
13,585
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
Good job we can trust the government with our digital identity then, it's not like they've ever left laptops on trains with all our personal details on them, unencrypted USB sticks, or CD's laying around, what could possibly go wrong.

Well it will be distributed ledger technology that will hold the details, there is no central point of failure with something like that.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
8,372
Well it will be distributed ledger technology that will hold the details, there is no central point of failure with something like that.
IDK that, if you're privy to such information perhaps you'd care to share.
 
Top