UK Government Performance 2019-2024

Soldato
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Posts
21,703
Location
Hertfordshire
post 94 is all you need..

There is currently 320,000 nurses in the NHS. With no policy changes or funding for nurses, the NHS would end up with 301,000 nurses in 2024.

With the new plan, the NHS will have 351,000 nurses by 2024.

So that's 30,000 then or is tory maths different to normal maths?
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
13,584
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
What would the number of nurses be in 2024 under the current situation but with no new funding for nurses? 301,000 nurses? or 320,000 nurses?

there would be 301,000 in 2024.

with the proposed changes, there will be 351,000 nurses. So, 50,000 more nurses than there would have been.
 
Associate
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Posts
429
Location
Essex
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,
What you are trying to explain is the multiplier effect which is the economic theory and term for that and you are right and the best form of it is infrastructure spending as that kind of spending also tends to create new opportunities, reduce costs for firms and taxpayers, and/or save time.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Posts
21,703
Location
Hertfordshire
What would the number of nurses be in 2024 under the current situation but with no new funding for nurses? 301,000 nurses? or 320,000 nurses?

there would be 301,000 in 2024.

with the proposed changes, there will be 351,000 nurses. So, 50,000 more nurses than there would have been.

However you try and spin it, it's a lie.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
13,584
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
However you try and spin it, it's a lie.

that's all you keep saying, it's a lie, but you can't show how it is. I'm at least showing how it can easily be interpreted as 50k more.

I mean, it's not like its that big of a deal anyway, would you know whether the NHS needs 30k, 40k, 70k more nurses? no.

Stats don't lie. The NHS will aim to have 350k nurses by 2024. If NHS had received no extra funding on top of what they already get, that figure would be 300k by 2024
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Feb 2006
Posts
14,255
Location
Surrey
that's all you keep saying, it's a lie, but you can't show how it is. I'm at least showing how it can easily be interpreted as 50k more.

I mean, it's not like its that big of a deal anyway, would you know whether the NHS needs 30k, 40k, 70k more nurses? no.

Stats don't lie. The NHS will aim to have 350k nurses by 2024. If NHS had received no extra funding on top of what they already get, that figure would be 300k by 2024

So they would have less in 2024 than they currently have or the same if they do nothing?
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Posts
21,703
Location
Hertfordshire
that's all you keep saying, it's a lie, but you can't show how it is. I'm at least showing how it can easily be interpreted as 50k more.

I mean, it's not like its that big of a deal anyway, would you know whether the NHS needs 30k, 40k, 70k more nurses? no.

Stats don't lie. The NHS will aim to have 350k nurses by 2024. If NHS had received no extra funding on top of what they already get, that figure would be 300k by 2024

The claim was 50,000 more nurses. Its not, its 30,000 more.

Its similar to the 40 new hospital lie.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
13,584
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
The claim was 50,000 more nurses. Its not, its 30,000 more.

Its similar to the 40 new hospital lie.

We're not gonna agree, simple as that.

The NHS has been promised 650m extra per week. Is that satisfactory? or should it be more?

So they would have less in 2024 than they currently have or the same if they do nothing?

The NHS would have less nurses in 5 years time if no policies were changed to stop nurses leaving.
This is what the 19,000 debate is about, changes have been made so they continue, i assume the changes are better pay and better career progression with state funded courses, allowing Nurses to specialise in particular departments. That apparently doesn't count as funding for the NHS according to some. I think it should count.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Posts
21,703
Location
Hertfordshire
We're not gonna agree, simple as that.

The NHS has been promised 650m extra per week. Is that satisfactory? or should it be more?



The NHS would have less nurses in 5 years time if no policies were changed to stop nurses leaving.
This is what the 19,000 debate is about, changes have been made so they continue, i assume the changes are better pay and better career progression with state funded courses, allowing Nurses to specialise in particular departments. That apparently doesn't count as funding for the NHS according to some. I think it should count.

Not gonna agree because you dont mind the lies.

I wonder if you will mind if future campaigns are run on the same basis of wholesale lies but you dont "win".
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Feb 2018
Posts
7,821
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
12 Feb 2006
Posts
14,255
Location
Surrey
We're not gonna agree, simple as that.

The NHS has been promised 650m extra per week. Is that satisfactory? or should it be more?



The NHS would have less nurses in 5 years time if no policies were changed to stop nurses leaving.
This is what the 19,000 debate is about, changes have been made so they continue, i assume the changes are better pay and better career progression with state funded courses, allowing Nurses to specialise in particular departments. That apparently doesn't count as funding for the NHS according to some. I think it should count.

Hold on. If they do nothing, then you're counting there to be less nurses? But that's your zero figure. The amount currently, minus the ones they expect to lose, that is your zero figure. So there would be the same amount of nurses surely if they do nothing? You can't say if they do nothing there will be 20 thousand lost, if they do something there will be 50 thousand gained.

You see your problem yet or still doubling down?
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Oct 2002
Posts
11,606
Hold on. If they do nothing, then you're counting there to be less nurses? But that's your zero figure. The amount currently, minus the ones they expect to lose, that is your zero figure. So there would be the same amount of nurses surely if they do nothing? You can't say if they do nothing there will be 20 thousand lost, if they do something there will be 50 thousand gained.

You see your problem yet or still doubling down?

It is the same planners who said they would build 200,000 new houses under the Govt scheme so their figures must be right.:p:p
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
13,584
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
Hold on. If they do nothing, then you're counting there to be less nurses? But that's your zero figure. The amount currently, minus the ones they expect to lose, that is your zero figure. So there would be the same amount of nurses surely if they do nothing? You can't say if they do nothing there will be 20 thousand lost, if they do something there will be 50 thousand gained.

You see your problem yet or still doubling down?

I don't really understand what your post is saying.

Put some figures in there to help me, lay it out like a maths question/answer
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Feb 2006
Posts
14,255
Location
Surrey
I don't really understand what your post is saying.

Put some figures in there to help me, lay it out like a maths question/answer

you're using the current figures to compare if there is less as the comparison point, but using future figures as the comparison point to say there would be more.

if your start number is 200, if it goes to 180 that is 20 less, and 230 is 30 more.

you can't say 180 is 20 less, and 230 is 50 more.

it's either there will be 20 less or 30 more,

or

there will be zero less, or 50 more

using your way of counting. and that's where i fall down. You can't say the number is currently 200 and when it hits 180 there's no less nurses.


i'm not sure how else I can help. everyone else here gets it.

I don't know why now after the campaigning has happened you can't admit it was a lie to fiddle the numbers to look bigger than they actually will be.

that's it. the issue is that it's a further example of the lack of trust you should place in boris team. I personally don't like this method at this point in time, however i can admit that could be because it negatively effected the party i liked. maybe if my party did it and got the results i wanted i wouldn't mind, but i'd happily admit that, especially after the campaign was over. I don't get why you can't admit it was a dodgy playing of numbers.

i've never voted conservative but always been happy having them in power, the coalition i was super happy with, however this is the first time i really wish they weren't there. i don't see many faces i can support and get behind. let's hope that changes.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
20 Dec 2004
Posts
12,778
Tories are boycotting the Today program.

Clearly Cummings is still in charge of Downing Street. This is not good news for the country....our descent into American gutter politics where those in power only talk to flag-waving cheerleaders.

How long before we see the first Conservative rally :rolleyes:
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2005
Posts
18,201
Tories are boycotting the Today program.

Clearly Cummings is still in charge of Downing Street. This is not good news for the country....our descent into American gutter politics where those in power only talk to flag-waving cheerleaders.

How long before we see the first Conservative rally :rolleyes:
Meanwhile, according to the Telegraph...

''The prime minister's chief adviser Dominic Cummings is reportedly preparing a radical overhaul of the Civil Service.

According to The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Cummings will review the way officials are hired, while The Sunday Times claims some departments could be abolished and civil servants replaced by outside experts...''
 
Top