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.
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.
Yeah, what they said, and said well. Liked and subscribed.
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.
…I’m pretty sure you didn’t.
Cite please.
But it wasn’t in the post that you quoted.
It wasn’t relevant to the point I was making, it wasn’t relevant to the quote that you posted.
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.
I am responding how I want to, and I am making the points that I want to make.
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.
BYE!!!
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?
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.
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?”
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
There was a time years ago when I thought of you as a pretty sensible poster.
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… 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)
(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)