UK Government Performance 2019-2024

Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2013
Posts
11,533
Are there lots of engineers and construction workers currently living the high life on benefits then?
If you mean Engineer as in degree in engineering, possibly not that many... but 'engineer' as simply a job title, yeah a few.. and construction workers a few more than that. Plus a notable number of others with transferable skills, likely enough to cover any shortfall until official 'engineers' and construction workers can complete their training.

In addition, several industries already make use of suitable people in their own areas, either as employees or contractors, so with Brexit coming and many avenues likely to close, there will be a fair few of them who also find themselves without work.... I have a very good team of infrastructure guys (about 15 of them) whose contract we recently cancelled, if you have a line on anything?

Of course, this was just meant to be a flippant remark referencing a previous Tory scheme... but it might actually work if you take it seriously, too!! :D
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
8,981
Location
West Sussex, England
It wasn't just the items listed that I voted for but rather lower borrowing and taxes than Labour would have introduced. I also think BoJo's acknowledgement of gaining Labour voters in the north need to see a fair share of the countries growth so it's not so centered around London and the South East with a view of gaining their support next time too.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Jul 2014
Posts
3,599
Location
Oxon
How & why do you think they missed the previous deadlines ??

Because it's a hugely complicated process that can't be solved with a simple soundbite. We're not even in the transition period where we've left in name only and are still subject to all EU regulations and courts without any say in them. We haven't even started the real negotiations. There's not a chance in hell that Brexit will be finished within this parliament, or even the next one. It's going to last for decades.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
13,585
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
This is actually deceptive, it's retaining 19,000 nurses who would likely leave while also adding a further 31,000 more nurses

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-new-nurses-promise-50000-31000-a9237676.html

Can't really argue against it when the leader admits it's a lie

So...19,000 more nurses had nothing been done to curb people leaving. The end result is more nurses, isnt it? and the government still paying for 50,000 nurses that wouldn't have been there previously. The expense for the nhs is the same as 50,000 new nurses. It's unbelievable the amount of people that can't comprehend the mechanics of it.
 
Associate
Joined
6 Mar 2008
Posts
1,920
So...19,000 more nurses had nothing been done to curb people leaving. The end result is more nurses, isnt it? and the government still paying for 50,000 nurses that wouldn't have been there previously. The expense for the nhs is the same as 50,000 new nurses. It's unbelievable the amount of people that can't comprehend the mechanics of it.

its classic tory, read the small print to find the sad truth.

its not even 31,000 full nurses, theres alot of nursing assassistants? in that figure. which dont have the same degree of capability or training as a "normal" nurse i presume? as they are on a lower pay grade.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
13,585
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
its classic tory, read the small print to find the sad truth.

its not even 31,000 full nurses, theres alot of nursing assassistants? in that figure. which dont have the same degree of capability or training as a "normal" nurse i presume? as they are on a lower pay grade.

Do you know how many extra nurses the NHS needs then? I bet you don't have a clue whether the NHS needs 60k, 30k, 10k nurses. You won't have a clue.

But they promised to ringfence an extra 650m per week for the NHS, is that enough do you think? or is too much maybe? Looks like the poster on the bus promising 350m per week was very wrong, it was way too low.
 
Associate
Joined
6 Mar 2008
Posts
1,920
its around 33,000 vaccencies in the nhs currently for nurses?

quick google and i was wrong

"In the first quarter of 2019-20, 12% of full-time equivalent registered nurse posts in the provider sector were empty, equating to 43,617 missing staff."
https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/w...n-england-rise-to-more-than-43000-08-10-2019/

im not going to trust a tory promise tbh, they often give with one hand and take with the other.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
9,916
Some of you are still in serious denial that it wasn't about Brexit, cannot accept that a large majority of people clearly want to leave the EU can you?
complete bigots

Makes a factually incorrect statement AND accused others of being bigots for not agreeing with it. Incredible.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
9,207
The end result is more nurses, isnt it?

The end result is 31,000 more nurses, not 50,000 if you already have 19,000 that you're keeping from leaving (I wonder why they want to leave after how many years under tory rule)

But please go make a video showing us all where you have 19 items, you keep those 19 items but magically you also have 19 more items, I'm sure the world would love to see this sorcery, maybe it could be used to end world hunger and poverty :rolleyes:
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
13,585
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
The end result is 31,000 more nurses, not 50,000 if you already have 19,000 that you're keeping from leaving (I wonder why they want to leave after how many years under tory rule)

But please go make a video showing us all where you have 19 items, you keep those 19 items but magically you also have 19 more items, I'm sure the world would love to see this sorcery, maybe it could be used to end world hunger and poverty :rolleyes:

I have 30 items, i have a contract to sell 1 item per week for 30 weeks. At the end of 30 weeks, i have no items.

The contract changes.

I have 30 items, i have a contract to sell 1 item per month for 10 months. At the end of 10 months. I have 20 items.

I have more items than before.

The bit you are not taking into account, is the change in the contract which allows us to have more than we would have.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
9,207
You start with 30 end up with 20 and you're claiming that 20 is more than 30 ?

If you start with 30 and end up with 20 you have 10 less

If you start with 30 and end up with 30 you have 30

If you start with 30 and end up with 50 you have 20 more

Replacing something doesn't mean you have more of something
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
13,585
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
I'm claiming that if the NHS leaks nurses and something is done to change that, then we have more nurses that we would have had if nothing had been done. Remember those changes obviously costs money. Why spend extra money on "new" when you can spend less on "retaining"
It's not difficult to understand.

I can understand your side of the argument but it's really not the "ha, got ya" moment you are making out.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Feb 2006
Posts
14,255
Location
Surrey
I can understand your side of the argument but it's really not the "ha, got ya" moment you are making out
I think that's because most people knew it was a lie and fiddling of numbers from day one. It's not a recent discovery any more but another one to add to the list
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
9,207
I'm claiming that if the NHS leaks nurses and something is done to change that, then we have more nurses that we would have had if nothing had been done.

We don't though, if we have 20,000 nurses, 19,000 leave and we replace them with another 19,000 or stop them from leaving, we still have 20,000 nurses there is no "more" just as there is no "less"

I understand the point you're trying to make but it's a flat out lie to say that keeping 19,000 nurses on payroll means you have 19,000 more nurses even if those nurses are new replacements, it is still just 19,000, not 19,000 more

It's not a ha, got ya moment it's just a simple understanding of English

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/more

Definition of more
(Entry 1 of 7)

1 : greater something more than she expected
2 : additional, further more guests arrived
more

adverb
Definition of more (Entry 2 of 7)

1a : in addition a couple of times more
b : moreover
2 : to a greater or higher degree —often used with an adjective or adverb to form the comparativemore evenly matched

19 - 19 + 19 = 19 This is not more

19 + 19 = 38 This is more
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
13,585
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
We don't though, if we have 20,000 nurses, 19,000 leave and we replace them with another 19,000 or stop them from leaving, we still have 20,000 nurses there is no "more" just as there is no "less"

I understand the point you're trying to make but it's a flat out lie to say that keeping 19,000 nurses on payroll means you have 19,000 more nurses even if those nurses are new replacements, it is still just 19,000, not 19,000 more

It's not a ha, got ya moment it's just a simple understanding of English

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/more



19 - 19 + 19 = 19 This is not more

19 + 19 = 38 This is more

Taking the definition..

1 : greater something more than she expected

we expect 0 nurses if 19,000 leave. we have 0. keeping 19,000 nurses is more than we expected, we expected 0.
 
Top