UK Government Performance 2019-2024

Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
9,207
we expect 0 nurses if 19,000 leave. we have 0. keeping 19,000 nurses is more than we expected, we expected 0.

We only expect 0 nurses if 19,000 leave and we have no intention of replacing them

The need to replace them means we expect 19,000 will leave and will be replaced with 19,000 meaning we expect to have 19,000 nurses

Look, it's clear we're not going to agree, most of the population will agree that keeping/replacing does not mean you end up having more of something
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
13,585
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
We only expect 0 nurses if 19,000 leave and we have no intention of replacing them

The need to replace them means we expect 19,000 will leave and will be replaced with 19,000 meaning we expect to have 19,000 nurses

Look, it's clear we're not going to agree, most of the population will agree that keeping/replacing does not mean you end up having more of something

yea we're not going to agree.

"we ran out of bread"
"nah it's ok, i got more."
 
Associate
Joined
6 Mar 2008
Posts
1,920
It is though, its a fallacy to suggest a government can keep going into the abyss of debt and not have any repercussion. Might wanna check your economics 101 there :)

Debt is just borrowing from your future self. Simple as that.

households dont have tax in them, thats the main one
so the government should get back alot of the cash quickly back via tax on the payroll taxes and vat.

so say hs2 builders get 100billion, the government gets (random figure im making up) say 30% back on paye and vat purchaces of the builders. but they also get a % of whoever is down the line, so say they all the workers by stuff from the market, and furniture etc, the government gets a % of each transaction, one way or another. its a cycle of money.

while a household you might spend out say a grand on doing the garden, and while you now have a nice garden and higher property value, your not getting any of 1k back in taxes, and per household your benifit from stimulating the market/economy is very small.

and that does have an effect on how you set out spending on things, either trying to maximise "churn" of money, or reduce expenditure, slowing the chern/economy, but saving money on the starting outlay.

both are gross simplfications and not 100% correct ofcourse.

but if household budgets and government budgets where the same, the 2010 tories could have easily worked out how much needed trimming the balance the books, the deficit was quite low % wise this souce puts it at 1% before the recession :o. trimming 1-1.5% off government spending seems not too hard, much different from the level of cuts we have had. https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
28,680
Location
Cornwall
yea we're not going to agree.

"we ran out of bread"
"nah it's ok, i got more."
"Company A has 5,000 more staff than it had last year."
"But company A only has 2,000 staff!"
"Yeah but they have a high churn rate."

That just doesn't make any sense I'm afraid.

How you can compare with bread is beyond me. Bread is a consumable. Nurses are not...

But to use your analogy against you...

"We keep more bread in the house now than ever before."
"But you only have one loaf and last time I was here you had five."
"Yeah but we've eaten 20 in the last two days."

None of this makes any sense. It does show however how easily words can be twisted and why you have to really dig to get to the bottom of what any politician actually means.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
13,585
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
households dont have tax in them, thats the main one
so the government should get back alot of the cash quickly back via tax on the payroll taxes and vat.

so say hs2 builders get 100billion, the government gets (random figure im making up) say 30% back on paye and vat purchaces of the builders. but they also get a % of whoever is down the line, so say they all the workers by stuff from the market, and furniture etc, the government gets a % of each transaction, one way or another. its a cycle of money.

while a household you might spend out say a grand on doing the garden, and while you now have a nice garden and higher property value, your not getting any of 1k back in taxes, and per household your benifit from stimulating the market/economy is very small.

and that does have an effect on how you set out spending on things, either trying to maximise "churn" of money, or reduce expenditure, slowing the chern/economy, but saving money on the starting outlay.

both are gross simplfications and not 100% correct ofcourse.

but if household budgets and government budgets where the same, the 2010 tories could have easily worked out how much needed trimming the balance the books, the deficit was quite low % wise this souce puts it at 1% before the recession :o. trimming 1-1.5% off government spending seems not too hard, much different from the level of cuts we have had. https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis

lol..this post is funny. listen, if you wanna keep believing that the amount of government debt has no bearing on economic policy, you do that.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
13,585
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
"Company A has 5,000 more staff than it had last year."
"But company A only has 2,000 staff!"
"Yeah but they have a high churn rate."

That just doesn't make any sense I'm afraid.

How you can compare with bread is beyond me. Bread is a consumable. Nurses are not...

But to use your analogy against you...

"We keep more bread in the house now than ever before."
"But you only have one loaf and last time I was here you had five."
"Yeah but we've eaten 20 in the last two days."

None of this makes any sense. It does show however how easily words can be twisted and why you have to really dig to get to the bottom of what any politician actually means.

Nurses aren't a consumable?

they seem like a consumable when they leave the NHS. We train them, use them and then lose them. That sounds very much like a "consumable" actually.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
4 Feb 2018
Posts
7,821
Its a shame even with the good intentions of the thread you cant stop people either telling lies or spreading lies. Even if its as simple as 2+2=.

TORIES.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2010
Posts
22,220
  1. Brexit done by January 31st, 2020 (VERY unlikely to happen)
  2. Complete EU withdrawal by the end of 2020 (Also very unlikely to happen)
  3. There will be no customs checks between NI & rUK (Despite Boris’s claims, his own DTI reports state there will be)
  4. 40 new hospitals (you’ll be lucky if we see half a dozen with some refurbishment and maintenance done)
  5. 50,000 more nurses (Won’t happen, there are already THOUSANDS of nursing vacancies across the UK)
  6. Reintroduce maintenance grants of between £5,000 and £8,000 a year for nursing students (they already removed this, except in Scotland where the SNP kept it)
  7. 20,000 new police officers (Unless there’s a major shift in pay and shifts this is just a restoring of numbers from top five years ago. That they cut.)
  8. No income tax, VAT or National Insurance rises(There will be changes, I GUARANTEE IT, Income tax will be cut for high earners. Got to keep the Tory chums happy!)
  9. The state pension will be increased by CPI measure of inflation, wage growth or 2.5% each year - whichever is the highest (I doubt this, most rises will be capped at 1.5-2%. And there will likely be another increase in retirement age too)
  10. Introduce a points-based immigration system (I can see this, but the points system will be difficult to use and put people off applying on purpose)
  11. Full gigabit broadband by the end of their term. (Absolutely won’t happen. 100% guaranteed not to happen.)
  12. Take back control of our waters (fishing) (Will be part of any new EU trade deal and they will end up with access)
End automatic early release from prison (Likely to happen, but Prisons will become more overcrowded unless they build more. Which they likely won’t.)

The Tory party look after their own and their donors. I will be genuinely shocked and surprised if more than two or three of what they’ve said they’d do above will happen.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Aug 2006
Posts
5,120
On the whole what do people think about the economy since the 2008 crash? Does it feel like it has recovered?

My feeling is that the economy isn't doing that badly currently, sure growth has dropped over the uncertainty of brexit etc, but I think our debt as a share of GDP is better than a lot countries in the EU like France (98.4%) Italy (134%), and inflation is quite low also at 1.9%.

I guess where I feel the economy is not performing well and for other people, is where train and rent prices keep rising above wage growth. So it gives an almost distorted view on how well the economy is performing.

Other aspects, such as the NHS problems, again give a distorted view on things. I don't doubt that annual funding increases were low from 2010-2015 (1% from 6%) and that along with the Lansley reforms may have changed things on its performance along with cuts to beds (144,445 to 127,225) and an increasing elderly population, but I have also seen from my own perspective massive improvements and changes to services I have used in the NHS as well.

So looking into the future, if they can sort out the rail network problems and prices, along with rent prices, housing in general, and sort out social care, then perhaps some of those things people are angry about the economy and the past decade may change, along with (I hope) a resolution to brexit that will encourage investment to return as well as business confidence - although I will admit that I remain slightly pessimistic.

There is a lot of work to be done there, but I think it can be done, if the government can act competently enough.
 
Top