# 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:** 8
**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 20, 2019, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/141 "2019-12-20T10:31:20Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > To hit 50,000 more nurses than the baseline (280,000) to bring us to the target (330,000) n4 has to be a number that firstly brings us back to the baseline, then adds another 18,500 to that baseline. You don’t need to consider a specific n4. Numbers of nurses are stabilised as the normal way of doing business, otherwise the numbers would be dropping precipitously every year. The NHS \*maintains \*the status quo by keeping a cohort in training each year, it has dropouts and fluctuations and a certain number of additional hires outside of that may or may not be needed to keep that level of staffing at around the currently budgeted 280,000, just assume that is a constant and isn’t going anywhere. It is “business as usual”. This policy is only about \*additional \*measures to improve retention, \*additional \*external recruitment, \*additional \*training places. It is speaking directly to what will done differently in the future over and above what is currently done to merely maintain and stabilise the numbers. The combination of each strand of that can add up to 50,000 more nurses. That’s it. Consider it simplistic and incomplete if you like ( I do) but it isn’t wrong and the logic is perfectly sound. ETA - just wondering, Let’s say the policy had been prefaced with “the initial assumption for this policy is that all measures currently in place to maintain nursing numbers will continue as usual”. Would that then allow you to accept the logic of the policy recommendations? is that the bit that is missing? ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/142 "2019-12-20T13:47:42Z")
Hospital trusts that are struggling to balance budgets have absolutely no incentive to fill vacant posts, each unfilled post represents a non-incurred cost. Using bank nurses might seem more costly but when you add in the associated on costs they can turn out to be cheaper. I think you have to first define what is actually counted as a nurse, which means looking at the number of hours, level of training and what they actually do - because a nurse doing paperwork might in some cases be doing direct patient work and might well not. Increases in the number of nurses is not possible to impose centrally either - so how is a hospital trust going to develop a business case for an increase number of posts? My suspicion is that the number of nurses will become a target to be achieved - which means that hospital trusts will almost certainly find ways to manipulate the figures, this is all the more likely because that number is politically sensitive ---
**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 20, 2019, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/143 "2019-12-20T17:49:24Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …we aren’t talking about a general formula here. We’ve been given specific numbers. We’ve been given a number: the number of nurses that will be retained, which we will call n3, and that number is 18,500. > > n1 (the number of nurses trained to replace n2) isn’t the number we need to know: the number we need to know is n4, the number of nurses hired to replace the nurses that typically leave, not the number of nurses that are trained. The assumption that n4 will be kept at the same level is not one that is explicitly set by the policy, but even if we assume that it would be kept at the same level we run into a big problem here. To hit 50,000 more nurses than the baseline (280,000) to bring us to the target (330,000) n4 has to be a number that firstly brings us back to the baseline, then adds another 18,500 to that baseline. > > But we don’t know what n4 is. But in order for the statement “50,000 more nurses” to be true we know you are going to have to be hiring substantially more than 50,000 nurses unless retention levels are set to 100%. > > There is absolutely nothing wrong with improving retention. > > But there is something wrong with conflating retention with adding more nurses. > > They are two different metrics, measured in two completely different ways and conflating those two are disingenuous and misleading. > > The number that is training is a different number to those that actually get employed. > > LOL. > > Of course the numbers aren’t gonna pan out. They literally can’t pan out for all the reasons laid out in this thread. You’re still ignoring churn. Over the next five years, to maintain the current 280,000 number, the NHS would need to hire something like 70,000 new nurses (guesstimate). That’s the number needed to offset the number of nurses leaving the profession. What the Conservative Party is proposing is to reduce the number leaving to something like 51,500 nurses. They’re also planning to hire 31,500 new nurses. 280,000 + 70,000 – 51,500 + 31,500 = 330,000. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/144 "2019-12-20T22:10:38Z")
The number of nurses not leaving might well naturally increase somewhat due to increasing state retirement ages, without any extra incentives to stay. ---
**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 20, 2019, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/145 "2019-12-20T22:11:51Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > You don’t need to consider a specific n4. …you absolutely have to consider a specific n4. Because n4 is the number that you claim is the number that will bring the amount of nurses to 330,000. And that number by design has to be higher than the 18,500 nurses retained in order to hit 50,000 unless retention rates hit 100%. > [@](#): > > Numbers of nurses are stabilised as the normal way of doing business, otherwise the numbers would be dropping precipitously every year. The numbers are dropping [precipitously](https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/a-quarter-of-all-nursing-students-are-dropping-out-of-their-degrees)[every](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/08/nhs-nursing-crisis-worsened-by-brexit-exodus)[year](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1166582/NHS-hospital-crisis-britain-student-nurses). > [@](#): > > The NHS \*maintains \*the status quo by keeping a cohort in training each year, it has dropouts and fluctuations and a certain number of additional hires outside of that may or may not be needed to keep that level of staffing at around the currently budgeted 280,000, just assume that is a constant and isn’t going anywhere. It is “business as usual”. I’m not going to make these assumptions. My cites show that it isn’t “business as usual.” > [@](#): > > This policy is only about \*additional \*measures to improve retention, \*additional \*external recruitment, \*additional \*training places. It is speaking directly to what will done differently in the future over and above what is currently done to merely maintain and stabilise the numbers. > The combination of each strand of that can add up to 50,000 more nurses. That’s it. Consider it simplistic and incomplete if you like ( I do) but it isn’t wrong and the logic is perfectly sound. The logic isn’t perfectly sound. Look how many assumption you have to make to get to 50,000. It is perfectly fair to look at the minister statement and to say that it was misleading. What you have said here and what the minister said are two completely different things. > [@](#): > > ETA - just wondering, Let’s say the policy had been prefaced with “the initial assumption for this policy is that all measures currently in place to maintain nursing numbers will continue as usual”. > Would that then allow you to accept the logic of the policy recommendations? is that the bit that is missing? Nope. Because I have zero confidence that the nursing numbers are being ‘maintained.’ > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > You’re still ignoring churn. Over the next five years, to maintain the current 280,000 number, the NHS would need to hire something like 70,000 new nurses (guesstimate). That’s the number needed to offset the number of nurses leaving the profession. What the Conservative Party is proposing is to reduce the number leaving to something like 51,500 nurses. They’re also planning to hire 31,500 new nurses. 280,000 + 70,000 – 51,500 + 31,500 = 330,000. I’m not ignoring churn. I’m just not relying on guesstimates like you have chosen to do. ---
**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 21, 2019, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/146 "2019-12-21T09:36:47Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > I’m not ignoring churn. I’m just not relying on guesstimates like you have chosen to do. The 70,000 guesstimate doesn’t really matter. It’s the difference in the number of nurses entering the NHS versus the number of nurses leaving the NHS that matters. The goal of the Conservative’s retention program is to have 18,500 nurses staying in the NHS who would otherwise as left. For example, change the 70,000 to 80,000. Again, this is the hypothetical number of nurses leaving the NHS over a five year period, and being replaced by the same number of nurses in order to maintain current nursing levels. If 18,500 nurses are retained, then the figures change to 280,000 + 80,000 – 61,500 + 31,500 = 330,000. Remember the whole question of this hijack is whether the Conservative numbers add up to 330,000 or not. You should really just accept Matt Hancock’s statement that the number of nurses will increase to 330,000. If you want the math of how the retained nurses go into the 330,000, there it is. Argue all you want about student nurses, if the retention program will be successful, or if the numbers are ignoring Brexit effects. Those are arguments that the proposed policy won’t be successful. But saying that the Conservatives are lying by using figures that don’t add up is demonstrably false. ---
**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 21, 2019, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/147 "2019-12-21T10:10:22Z")
> [@George Orwell](#): > > “And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > You should really just accept Matt Hancock’s statement that the number of nurses will increase to 330,000. …ummmmm, no thanks. ---
**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 21, 2019, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/148 "2019-12-21T10:35:16Z")
Getting back to the OP, Johnson seems quite proud to have broken the “Red Wall” and determined to retain those seats in the next election. He’s being quite nationalistic, both in terms of Brexit and immigration, and in the generally patriotic tone he’s taking. But he’s also promising a lot of spending on middle and north England. He’s in a honeymoon period, and his prime-ministership will depend on how he faces the setbacks and crises that eventually will happen. But so far he’s being generous with spending on several areas that can use additional funding. He’s obviously gambling on the economy staying up and interest rates remaining low in order to pay for all that spending. But, at just over a week since the election, he’s coming across as pretty centrist. So if the OP is scared of a swing to the right, early indications are that the opposite is happening. ---
**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 21, 2019, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/149 "2019-12-21T20:50:37Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > The numbers are dropping [precipitously](https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/a-quarter-of-all-nursing-students-are-dropping-out-of-their-degrees)[every](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/08/nhs-nursing-crisis-worsened-by-brexit-exodus)[year](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1166582/NHS-hospital-crisis-britain-student-nurses)… [you](https://fullfact.org/health/number-nurses-midwives-uk/) are [wrong.](https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/the-nhs-workforce-in-numbers#3-what-do-the-shortages-look-like-within-hospital-services) > [@](#): > > The number of full-time equivalent adult nurses has fluctuated in recent years but, on average, numbers have increased by less than 1% a year since 2009 (from 169,400 to 183,700 in July 2019). For other nursing groups, the trend has been anything but static. The number of children’s nurses increased by over half (52%) over those 10 years (from 15,100 to 23,000), while the number of learning disability nurses fell by 42% (from 5,520 to 3,200) over the same period. So no, the numbers aren’t “dropping precipitously” are they? or is this a use of the word that I’m unfamiliar with? But you may well say that though they are increasing they aren’t increasing by enough, or that the numbers of student and full time nurses dropping out is too high, you may even go so far as to say that we should do something about this and commit to having more nurses in the future. Good plan, I know some people that would agree with you. ---
**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 21, 2019, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/150 "2019-12-21T23:52:43Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > [you](https://fullfact.org/health/number-nurses-midwives-uk/) are [wrong.](https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/the-nhs-workforce-in-numbers#3-what-do-the-shortages-look-like-within-hospital-services) > > So no, the numbers aren’t “dropping precipitously” are they? or is this a use of the word that I’m unfamiliar with? > [@The Independent](#): > > One in four NHS wards routinely operates at staffing levels so low that patient safety is threatened, experts have warned. > > Researchers have found that a national shortage of nurses and a failure to increase their numbers sufficiently has not been addressed. > > … > > “Registered nurses (RNs) account for 66 per cent of nursing staff in 2017 compared with 69 per cent in in 2013.” Over the last 10 years the [UK population has gone up](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/26/uk-population-rises-to-664-million-but-rate-of-growth-slows)but registered nurses have gone down. If one in four NHS wards has dangerously low numbers of nurses and if that wasn’t the case 10 years ago then the numbers have dropped precipitously as far as I’m concerned because they haven’t employed the numbers that are actually needed. > [@](#): > > Good plan, I know some people that would agree with you. Its a shame that these people with a plan couldn’t be honest about it. ---
**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 22, 2019, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/151 "2019-12-22T14:45:48Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Over the last 10 years the [UK population has gone up](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/26/uk-population-rises-to-664-million-but-rate-of-growth-slows)but registered nurses have gone down. If one in four NHS wards has dangerously low numbers of nurses and if that wasn’t the case 10 years ago then the numbers have dropped precipitously as far as I’m concerned because they haven’t employed the numbers that are actually needed. When you hit bedrock, it is best to stop digging. You are now introducing your own definition of “dropped”, one that doesn’t actually mean “get less” unless you chose to focus certain specific areas and ignore those where the numbers are increasing. [Here are some better and independent figures for you.](https://fullfact.org/health/whats-happening-nursing-numbers/). ---
**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 22, 2019, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/152 "2019-12-22T19:07:18Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > When you hit bedrock, it is best to stop digging. > > You are now introducing your own definition of “dropped”, one that doesn’t actually mean “get less” unless you chose to focus certain specific areas and ignore those where the numbers are increasing. [Here are some better and independent figures for you.](https://fullfact.org/health/whats-happening-nursing-numbers/). …LOL. Your can talk. You’ve spent over half of this thread using a creative definition of the term “more nurses”. You hit bedrock in your very first post on the subject in this thread. ---
**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 23, 2019, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/153 "2019-12-23T10:32:19Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …LOL. > > Your can talk. You’ve spent over half of this thread using a creative definition of the term “more nurses”. You hit bedrock in your very first post on the subject in this thread. What’s Laughable-Out-Loud is the contortions you’re going through rather than admitting you’re wrong. But go ahead. Give us your latest explanation of why the promised 330,000 target doesn’t actually mean 330,000. Do us a favour and tell what us the actual promised target is. Please show your math. ---
**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 23, 2019, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/154 "2019-12-23T14:48:25Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > You’ve spent over half of this thread using a creative definition of the term “more nurses”. I am no mathmatician but I feel confident in saying that 330,000 is more than 280,000. That’s the only definition I’ve used. ---
**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 23, 2019, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/155 "2019-12-23T18:41:55Z")
The election results didn’t worry me that much, but this thread has convinced me that Britain is doomed. ---
**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 23, 2019, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/156 "2019-12-23T19:27:16Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > What’s Laughable-Out-Loud is the contortions you’re going through rather than admitting you’re wrong. But go ahead. Give us your latest explanation of why the promised 330,000 target doesn’t actually mean 330,000. Do us a favour and tell what us the actual promised target is. Please show your math. …how about we just look at your maths instead? > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > The 70,000 guesstimate doesn’t really matter. It’s the difference in the number of nurses entering the NHS versus the number of nurses leaving the NHS that matters. The goal of the Conservative’s retention program is to have 18,500 nurses staying in the NHS who would otherwise as left. > > For example, change the 70,000 to 80,000. Again, this is the hypothetical number of nurses leaving the NHS over a five year period, and being replaced by the same number of nurses in order to maintain current nursing levels. If 18,500 nurses are retained, then the figures change to 280,000 + 80,000 – 61,500 + 31,500 = 330,000. > > Remember the whole question of this hijack is whether the Conservative numbers add up to 330,000 or not. You should really just accept Matt Hancock’s statement that the number of nurses will increase to 330,000. If you want the math of how the retained nurses go into the 330,000, there it is. Argue all you want about student nurses, if the retention program will be successful, or if the numbers are ignoring Brexit effects. Those are arguments that the proposed policy won’t be successful. But saying that the Conservatives are lying by using figures that don’t add up is demonstrably false. How does Wrenching Spanners get to 330,000 nurses? By literally making up numbers. Just believe Matt Hancock Wrenching Spanners insists. Just make up whatever number you like, as long as it adds up to 330,000. This is positively Orwellian. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I am no mathmatician but I feel confident in saying that 330,000 is more than 280,000. > > That’s the only definition I’ve used. This is the definition you used: > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > The 330,000 is the number of nurses that the minister specifically stated will exist, you know, in the interview, the one I first talked about? a number that is 50,000 \*more \*than the 280,000 we have currently. > > Look at it this way. > > Imagine you run a company that has 100 employees. > Every year you lose 10 of them for various reasons. > Because you know this you already budget for training up 10 people to replace them, that’s just the standard way you run your business because the jobs they do need a long period of training and qualification so you always have a cohort in training (and it is indeed the way that the NHS runs) > > **Current state** - The number of employees stays at 100, there are no more employees than there were before > > Now imagine you want to increase your capacity. You continue to budget for the training of 10 replacements as before, nothing changes there, but you \*also \*put in place a program of incentives to reduce the number you lose by half. That’s sensible, it is far cheaper to keep the ones you’ve already got, that is the right place to start. > > \*\*Current state now \*\*- The number of employees now rises to 105, there are 5 \*more \*employees than there were before. > > Now imagine that on top of that you \*also \*increase the number in training by 5 and you \*also \*specifically bring in an additional 5 people from another company. > > **Current state now** - The number of employees is now 115, you have 15 \*more \*employees but only 10 of those can be honestly described as wholly “_new_” positions and indeed 5 of the 15 are people that were already in the company. > > To claim you now have 15 more employees is _perfectly_ legitimate, to claim that only 10 of them are truly “new” seems also to be perfectly legitimate. > > The claimed increase is not the story, the ability of the government to do it, _is_. The piss-poor interview I saw focused on the former and not the latter. You will need more than 50,000 nurses to hit the 330,000 target unless retention figures happen to equal 100%. You just can’t admit that. ---
**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 24, 2019, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/157 "2019-12-24T07:04:01Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > You will need more than 50,000 nurses to hit the 330,000 target unless retention figures happen to equal 100%. You just can’t admit that. 330,000 is 50,000 more than 280,000. In order to hit that target there will be a period of greater retention of existing nurses and greater recruitment of brand new nurses leading to a _net_ increase of 50,000 overall. An estimate was given as to what the government plans to do and what they think has a reasonable chance of getting the NHS to 330,000. The numbers work, you are just completely ignoring the normal training and recrutiment numbers that currently keep things stable and also seem to be thinking that we are talking about _only_ putting 50,000 new nurses in the system and expecting to get to 330,000. That is not what I’ve been saying. ---
**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 24, 2019, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/158 "2019-12-24T09:12:06Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > 330,000 is 50,000 more than 280,000. > > In order to hit that target there will be a period of greater retention of existing nurses and greater recruitment of brand new nurses leading to a _net_ increase of 50,000 overall. An estimate was given as to what the government plans to do and what they think has a reasonable chance of getting the NHS to 330,000. > > The numbers work, you are just completely ignoring the normal training and recrutiment numbers that currently keep things stable and also seem to be thinking that we are talking about _only_ putting 50,000 new nurses in the system and expecting to get to 330,000. That is not what I’ve been saying. …these weren’t the numbers that Hancock used. Hancock said some of those will be new to the NHS, [but the number also includes\*\* those who are currently in the NHS\*\*](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-50585428/general-election-2019-tories-saying-more-nurses-not-new-nurses-says-hancock). I’m not the one who doesn’t understand the normal recruitment cycle, etc, its Hancock who literally doesn’t understand what it was he was saying. Hancock’s numbers and Hancock’s methodology doesn’t work. ---
**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 24, 2019, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/159 "2019-12-24T13:26:00Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …these weren’t the numbers that Hancock used. Hancock said some of those will be new to the NHS, [but the number also includes\*\* those who are currently in the NHS\*\*](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-50585428/general-election-2019-tories-saying-more-nurses-not-new-nurses-says-hancock). I’m not the one who doesn’t understand the normal recruitment cycle, etc, its Hancock who literally doesn’t understand what it was he was saying. Hancock’s numbers and Hancock’s methodology doesn’t work. At this point (and in fact for some time) it is clear that not only do you not understand it, I think you are now willfully chosing to misunderstand it. There is nothing more that I can add to help you, Simplified explanations don’t work, dealing with the detail doesn’t work. I’m out. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2019, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847/160 "2019-12-26T22:49:19Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > He hid in a fridge. [Boris Johnson 'hides in a fridge' to avoid Piers Morgan interview | Boris Johnson | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/11/boris-johnson-hides-in-fridge-to-avoid-piers-morgan-interview) > > That includes a photo of him in the fridge. Sorry, I wasn’t clear - I was aware of the fridge story, the point I was trying to make was that I think that is relatively unimportant compared to details of actual policies and whether they in fact come to fruition. In other words, if this government does indeed manage to increase the number of filled nursing posts to 330,000, I’ll give that considerably more weight in assessing their effectiveness than the fact the PM once hid in a fridge to dodge an interview. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The election results didn’t worry me that much, but this thread has convinced me that Britain is doomed. Don’t worry, I don’t think Banquet Bear is a UK voter (but I could be wrong). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talk-me-off-the-edge-uk-democracy/844847.md?page=9)