# Talk me off the edge: UK democracy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 14, 2019, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847 "2019-12-14T08:15:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/81 "2019-12-17T13:05:15Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > The so-called elites and ‘sensible and moderates’ still continue to make dire forecasts but on the election of the Tories shares rose and sterling increased in value - which is quite the opposite that you would expect given that the first true part of the Brexit process will now definitely happen. The pound has now sunk back to election eve levels on news that the Tories are doing what they said they would do and planning for a Dec 20 exit come what may. The main take out from this is that currency traders are not steely-eyed masters of the universe, but impetuous coked up clowns. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/82 "2019-12-17T13:24:41Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > The pound has now sunk back to election eve levels on news that the Tories are doing what they said they would do and planning for a Dec 20 exit come what may. > > The main take out from this is that currency traders are not steely-eyed masters of the universe, but impetuous coked up clowns. Funny, but the FX markets \*\*are \*\*notoriously volatile. If the pound goes up or down in a day, it may well do the opposite tomorrow. When it stays up or down for longer periods, or trends upwards or downwards, that’s more significant. We’ll see where it settles. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/83 "2019-12-17T14:03:16Z")
I guess I just don’t read that document in the same way that you do and that may be because I do deal with that sort of risk analysis as part of my job. I’ve written something very similar on the subject of Pharmaceutical supply in the event of various Brexit scenarios. The whole point is to paint a picture of how bad it realistically could be under certain assumptions and you do this as a starting point to plan for mitigation. Stating how bad it \*could \*be is a million miles from the reality of what will \*actually \*happen simply because, based on the risks, you are going to weight and prioritise your actions accordingly. I don’t approach that document as if it were a prediction, if it serves its purpose a fair chunk of the assumptions will not end up as bleak and some outcomes not as bad or avoided entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/84 "2019-12-17T14:16:51Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > To claim that this is somehow politics as usual, that “both sides do it” and that this is about Left v Right rather than about the extent to which we the public are willing to tolerate such dirty tricks is inherently ludicrous. But go on then: if both sides do it, show us the same falsehood-driven activities on the left. Show us the dissemination of lies about Boris Johnson, repeated over and over again in the major media outlets. Show us the Labour dirty tricks and smear campaigns. Surely they must be out there, no? > > You may believe that your frothing little rants are in defence of a “fair and balanced” landscape but what you’re really defending is the ascendancy of lying on a whole new scale, something which has already done marked damage to our democracy. Obviously, this is your prerogative to do so. But if you wish to continue in this vein then by all means please proceed, **casdave**. And I’m sure we will all read your views in the appropriate light going forward. Yeah, what they said, and said well. Liked and subscribed. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/85 "2019-12-17T16:02:12Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I guess I just don’t read that document in the same way that you do and that may be because I do deal with that sort of risk analysis as part of my job. > > I’ve written something very similar on the subject of Pharmaceutical supply in the event of various Brexit scenarios. The whole point is to paint a picture of how bad it realistically could be under certain assumptions and you do this as a starting point to plan for mitigation. Stating how bad it \*could \*be is a million miles from the reality of what will \*actually \*happen simply because, based on the risks, you are going to weight and prioritise your actions accordingly. > > I don’t approach that document as if it were a prediction, if it serves its purpose a fair chunk of the assumptions will not end up as bleak and some outcomes not as bad or avoided entirely. It’s obviously not a prediction. The question is whether it’s a worst case scenario like you said that was written by people being as pessimistic as possible, or simply a realistic set of assumptions. I don’t see anything in there that isn’t just a description of what No Deal Brexit in the winter actually means. Any assumptions that don’t involve the UK being a third country, or relations with the EU being a bit frosty, or business not being prepared would just be ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/86 "2019-12-17T16:20:09Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > It’s obviously not a prediction. The question is whether it’s a worst case scenario like you said that was written by people being as pessimistic as possible, or simply a realistic set of assumptions. I don’t see anything in there that isn’t just a description of what No Deal Brexit in the winter actually means. Any assumptions that don’t involve the UK being a third country, or relations with the EU being a bit frosty, or business not being prepared would just be ludicrous. All fair points but I guess my prime concern would be people using it as a straight “prediction” as support for their own political position. That is what some people have done and I have no doubt that a sunny, “best case” scenario would similarly be misused. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/87 "2019-12-17T18:24:48Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > pretty sure I did …I’m pretty sure you didn’t. > [@](#): > > Catastrophe was predicted just for the aftermath of the vote. Cite please. > [@](#): > > This very much was in the post that you were responding to, I think you may have forgotten the context yourself. But it wasn’t in the post that you **quoted**. > [@](#): > > It was on the subject on the misuse of predictions, of course it was relevant. It wasn’t relevant to the point I was making, it wasn’t relevant to the quote that you posted. > [@](#): > > And lecture? it was lamenting the misuse of facts and kept purposefully impersonal. > Imagine, people taking something you’ve said and using it to make a wider point whilst being very careful to make it clear that I’m not putting words in your mouth? outrageous. Stop using my posts to make a “wider point.” If you want to make a wider point just make that wider point. No need to quote me to do so. > [@](#): > > How about, instead of trying to micromanage the discussion, you respond how you want to, make the points you want to and I’ll do the same? I am responding how I want to, and I am making the points that I want to make. > [@](#): > > I’m not a fan of big-thread, multi-point rebuttals, it is the “gish-gallop” of message boards and the factual points get lost. That isn’t what gish gallop is. Gish gallop can often only be dealt with by multi-point rebuttals: casdave’s post being a case in point. If you don’t like gish-gallop then have a word with him. > [@](#): > > I can see that this how this is travelling. I find it exhausting and not particularly productive so I’m bowing out. BYE!!! ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/88 "2019-12-17T20:39:46Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > But you’re still not addressing the main point I’ve asking which is wider than Brexit. This election was won with a mass deception and lawbreaking campaign unseen before in the UK. I cannot see how the genie can be put back in the bottle. I have no idea either, but if you do come up with something could you be a dear and post it to your Yankee cousins here across the pond? Ideally before November? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/89 "2019-12-18T09:57:38Z")
With the subject of political misunderstanding, confusion and misuse of facts in my head, I was interested to see on BBC this morning a perfect example of where some of this nonsense comes from. The Health minister states, quite clearly, that the UK is aiming to have 50,000 more nurses by a certain point in the future. Sounds good doesn’t it? 280,000 now, 330,000 in the future. Now it is absolutely right to challenge them on whether they can do this, will they keep their promise? But no, the time available for that type of questioning was wasted by the interviewer trying to make the point that some of that increase will be achieved by tempting some nurses not to leave who otherwise would have done so, that somehow if it is not 50,000 brand new shiny nurses then the increase to 330,000 doesn’t count somehow. The minister did very well to keep his cool and not call the interviewer a fucking idiot. Losing already trained, experienced nurses is immensely wasteful, it would be great if you could bring about that 50,000 increase \*mostly \*by retaining what you already have. because recruiting and training is time-consuming and expensive. When your boat springs a leak you would not considered a fool if you chose to reduce the water level by buying buckets and stopping the severity of the leak. I fear though that the public walks away from that interview with the wrong impression, the chance to educate and inform is lost and ignorance is spread. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/90 "2019-12-18T16:09:23Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > With the subject of political misunderstanding, confusion and misuse of facts in my head, I was interested to see on BBC this morning a perfect example of where some of this nonsense comes from. > > The Health minister states, quite clearly, that the UK is aiming to have 50,000 more nurses by a certain point in the future. Sounds good doesn’t it? 280,000 now, 330,000 in the future. Now it is absolutely right to challenge them on whether they can do this, will they keep their promise? But no, the time available for that type of questioning was wasted by the interviewer trying to make the point that some of that increase will be achieved by tempting some nurses not to leave who otherwise would have done so, that somehow if it is not 50,000 brand new shiny nurses then the increase to 330,000 doesn’t count somehow. > > The minister did very well to keep his cool and not call the interviewer a fucking idiot. Losing already trained, experienced nurses is immensely wasteful, it would be great if you could bring about that 50,000 increase \*mostly \*by retaining what you already have. because recruiting and training is time-consuming and expensive. When your boat springs a leak you would not considered a fool if you chose to reduce the water level by buying buckets and stopping the severity of the leak. > > I fear though that the public walks away from that interview with the wrong impression, the chance to educate and inform is lost and ignorance is spread. I haven’t seen that particular interview, but I’m aware of the kerfluffle it’s about ; and you really can’t blame it on stupidity on the part of the interviewer. The government announced, or at least spoke in such a way that the public would understand that they would create 50.000 new openings for nurses. Which made headlines, under the ever popular “jobs, jobs, JOBS !” understanding of this type of declarations. It was then discovered by reading the fine print that some (I think ? Don’t quote me on the actual number, but it’s in the ballpark) 18.000 of these “openings” were expected to be incentives for existing nurses not to quit. Which does not in fact create more employment. Now you can absolutely argue that keeping veteran staff is a public good, and I would agree. But in that case, you do not get to jubilantly announce that you’re creating 50.000 jobs. And I know why they chose to do so - because 50k is a nice, round, impressive number. Sticks to mind, gets asses into voting booths. But when the reality is you’re going to create 30.000 jobs and retain another 20k for a few more years, then you should announce that instead. On account of it being, yanno, the \*actual \*, non misleading truth. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/91 "2019-12-18T16:54:42Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I haven’t seen that particular interview, but I’m aware of the kerfluffle it’s about ; and you really can’t blame it on stupidity on the part of the interviewer… This is the interview that I saw and yes, you \*can \*point the finger directly at the interviewer. It was idiotic. It was never claimed that these were 50,000 _new_ nurses, it was 50,000 \*more \*nurses, I think that was pretty much the first bullet in the manifesto. It was all about support for the NHS not increased employment. Those 50,000 extra wages still need to be paid whether they are new employees or retained ones. The sums were blindingly simple - now - 280,000 nurses, future - 330,000 nurses. Not hard to do the math(s). The health minister stated this clearly and repeated it several times, my wife, who has no real political affiliation said herself of the interviewer “what is so difficult to grasp about this? what is he having trouble with?” ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/92 "2019-12-18T17:21:57Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I haven’t seen that particular interview, but I’m aware of the kerfluffle it’s about ; and you really can’t blame it on stupidity on the part of the interviewer. The government announced, or at least spoke in such a way that the public would understand that they would create 50.000 new openings for nurses. Which made headlines, under the ever popular “jobs, jobs, JOBS !” understanding of this type of declarations. > It was then discovered by reading the fine print that some (I think ? Don’t quote me on the actual number, but it’s in the ballpark) 18.000 of these “openings” were expected to be incentives for existing nurses not to quit. Which does not in fact create more employment. > > Now you can absolutely argue that keeping veteran staff is a public good, and I would agree. But in that case, you do not get to jubilantly announce that you’re creating 50.000 jobs. And I know why they chose to do so - because 50k is a nice, round, impressive number. Sticks to mind, gets asses into voting booths. But when the reality is you’re going to create 30.000 jobs and retain another 20k for a few more years, then you should announce that instead. On account of it being, yanno, the \*actual \*, non misleading truth. > [@](#): > > The health secretary, Matt Hancock, said: “There’s currently just over 280,000 nurses in the NHS and our commitment is to take that to just over 330,000 nurses in the NHS. That’s 50,000 more nurses and that’s what we are going to do.” > **[FactCheck: new twist in Conservatives ‘50,000 nurses’ promise](https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-new-twist-in-conservatives-50000-nurses-promise)** > > A Conservative source told FactCheck that the target of 50,000 more nurses includes those already targeted in the Long Term Plan. The plan is to take a three-pronged approach to increasing the number of nurses. They want to increase the number of domestic nurses entering the system by increasing apprenticeships and re-establishing the bursaries paid to nursing students who are working with patients. Also, they want to recruit more overseas nurses. Third, they want to reduce the number of nurses leaving the profession, thus increasing the net number of nurses within the profession. Think about it like this. If 20,000 nurses join the NHS and 20,000 nurses leave the NHS each year, there’s a net gain of zero nurses each year. Reduce the number of nurses leaving to 15,000, and there’s a net gain of 5,000 nurses a year. In that scenario, there’s not an increase in the number of new nurses entering the profession each year, but there is an increase in the number of nursing positions. Calling the increase in nursing positions new nurses is slightly disingenuous, but hardly worth shouting about. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/93 "2019-12-18T17:46:39Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > It was never claimed that these were 50,000 _new_ nurses, it was 50,000 \*more \*nurses. That’s interesting. I thought that Johnson actually promised “50,000 **new** nurses” during a moment of bluster, but I can’t find it quoted anywhere. Lots of people are quoted as stating Johnson lied by stating there would be 50,000 new nurses, but most of those claims are refuted by pointing out that it’s “50,000 **more** nurses” that was promised. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/94 "2019-12-18T18:07:54Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > It was never claimed that these were 50,000 _new_ nurses, it was 50,000 \*more \*nurses, But you can see how even that phrasing can be misleading absent qualification, yes ? Especially in a climate of young people anxious about their jobs and careers ? And how one might be suspicious whether the absence of qualification was intentional or not ? You claim “miscommunication”, but come on. These people have been in power for 9 years now. I don’t know that we can take post facto excuses about how either the press or the public’s mind works at face value. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/95 "2019-12-18T18:11:54Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > [FactCheck: new twist in Conservatives ‘50,000 nurses’ promise – Channel 4 News](https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-new-twist-in-conservatives-50000-nurses-promise) > > The plan is to take a three-pronged approach to increasing the number of nurses. They want to increase the number of domestic nurses entering the system by increasing apprenticeships and re-establishing the bursaries paid to nursing students who are working with patients. Also, they want to recruit more overseas nurses. Third, they want to reduce the number of nurses leaving the profession, thus increasing the net number of nurses within the profession. Think about it like this. If 20,000 nurses join the NHS and 20,000 nurses leave the NHS each year, there’s a net gain of zero nurses each year. Reduce the number of nurses leaving to 15,000, and there’s a net gain of 5,000 nurses a year. In that scenario, there’s not an increase in the number of new nurses entering the profession each year, but there is an increase in the number of nursing positions. I’m aware of the numbers and the rationales and the policies. We’re dealing with messages here. It’s about style, not substance. Whicn you might well deem superficial or pointless - but if this election has proved anything, it’s that substance matters not one iota. > [@](#): > > Calling the increase in nursing positions new nurses is slightly disingenuous, but hardly worth shouting about. Again, I can’t say I saw that interview - but was there any shouting ? Or was there quibbling over…errr… ingenuousness ? I can’t English perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/96 "2019-12-18T18:49:09Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > But you can see how even that phrasing can be misleading absent qualification, yes ? Especially in a climate of young people anxious about their jobs and careers ? And how one might be suspicious whether the absence of qualification was intentional or not ? You claim “miscommunication”, but come on. These people have been in power for 9 years now. I don’t know that we can take post facto excuses about how either the press or the public’s mind works at face value. I’m not sure how “more” is particulary misleading. The manifesto said “more” and in the interview the minister said “more” and explained exactly what he meant. There wasn’t an attempt to pass them off as new. I just didn’t see a good reason for the interviewer to rattle on forever about a claim that wasn’t made. I think it is good journalism to dig beneath the headline figures because all political parties try to put the most positive spin on their claims and artfully construct them. The digging in this case seemed utterly pointless as the facts were clear and unambiguous from the start. It seemed designed to try and descredit the factual point that there would be 50,000 more nurses. Some from retention, some from new recruitment, some from immigration. There were far more important questions to ask about those details rather than seeking repeated concessions on a point that had already been conceded several times. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/97 "2019-12-18T18:58:07Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > That’s interesting. I thought that Johnson actually promised “50,000 **new** nurses” during a moment of bluster, but I can’t find it quoted anywhere. Lots of people are quoted as stating Johnson lied by stating there would be 50,000 new nurses, but most of those claims are refuted by pointing out that it’s “50,000 **more** nurses” that was promised. I don’t know about Johnson, he wasn’t involved. The minister was straight-up and clear on the “more” aspect. Johnson’s manifesto said “more” but I can well imagine him purposefully or accidentally exaggerating and saying “new” instead. Politicians being economical with the truth and overstating their case is pretty standard but if that were the case all it takes is one clarifying statement that it is “more” not “new” and that should be it. The real problem for me is that a really sensible point gets lost in the hoo-hah. It should absolutely be your first priority to retain the talent you have, it is unforgivably wasteful to let people go if you can avoid it and a commitment to reduce that wastage should be applauded, the same commitment is probably even more badly needed for teachers. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/98 "2019-12-18T19:01:25Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > That seems to be fair enough, the balance is provided by the shrill and siren left wing ratings and memes on social media. There was a time years ago when I thought of you as a pretty sensible poster. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/99 "2019-12-18T19:08:45Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I’m not sure how “more” is particulary misleading. > > The manifesto said “more” and in the interview the minister said “more” and explained exactly what he meant. There wasn’t an attempt to pass them off as new. I just didn’t see a good reason for the interviewer to rattle on forever about a claim that wasn’t made. Well, depending on the timeframe, that controversy had been brewing among the opposition for a few days. So addressing it isn’t out of the blue. > [@](#): > > I think it is good journalism to dig beneath the headline figures because all political parties try to put the most positive spin on their claims and artfully construct them. The digging in this case seemed utterly pointless as the facts were clear and unambiguous from the start. It seemed designed to try and descredit the factual point that there would be 50,000 more nurses. I… yes ? I mean I feel like there’s some cognitive dissonance going on there. The facts were _not_ clear (in fact, they were delivered in a misleading way, possibly intentionally) but most importantly taking the minister to task re: the exact distribution of the increased\_on\_paper number of nurses seems to insist on grounding the touted predictions in the strictly factual ? Like, “there won’t be 50.000 more nurses ; there will be 30.000 more nurses, 20.000 more retained nurses (we fookin’ hope) and however many typically graduates from nurse school every year”. My point is, the _actual_ improvement, where jobs are concerned, is 30k. Any speculative improved retainment is, for one thing speculative, for another thing not “really” included in any statement that “there will be more nurses soon !”. There really will be some more nurses around, and also some nurses won’t be allowed to retire. Or won’t feel like retiring - have they \*ever \*clarified how they were planning on those nurses not retiring, anyway ? And, again, you might well argue this is all quibbling over details - I would argue it is about much more basic stuff. Like truth, advertising, message… and an IMO accurate portrayal of the ruling party as dishonest and deliberately misleading. Or, to put it in other terms, nobody gives an actual fuck how many new nurses there will be. They care that they tried to bullshit 'em. _Again_. (or, rather and maybe, and perhaps terminally cynically ; the media cares about not appearing like they were complicit in bullshitting 'em. Which they were) ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/100 "2019-12-18T19:22:44Z")
(I will post scriptum the above by mentioning that a) I’m drunk. Again. And b) my read might well be influenced by my dual background in literature and history. Like, at this point to me what you say is almost negligible compared to what you choose (deliberately ? Or not ? Who cares death of the author lol) not to say. I might also be what you’d call a naively hopeful yet deeply cynical bastard. “The whole Yin-yang Thing” - Pvt. Joker) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847.md?page=6)