BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rjsterry

There's also the complete fantasy that Brexit will be done by the end of next year.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

How do you get from 280,000 to 330,000 without there being 50,000 more nurses?

I understand it isn't 50,000 NEW nurses, but if that's not what the manifesto says, then where's the deception by the Tories? Sounds like an aspiration rather than a realistic plan, but not the worst of those in the manifesto.

Exactly. The pledge they made was to increase the number of nurses by 50,000. How they go about it is irrelevant but Labour chose to say they were claiming 50,000 new nurses and then criticise them for counting people who already work in the NHS - proper strawman stuff that they then con the media into regurgitating on their behalf. It's making things up in the same way that Boris got criticised for with his bus but it seems to get a free pass (not that I believe for a minute there will end up being 50,000 nurses in the next few years any more than I believe that we'll be working a 4 day week if Labour get in).

rjsterry

From page 10 of the Manifesto.

"We will build and fund 40 new hospitals over the next 10 years."

Which is odd, because in the Costings document absolutely nothing is allocated to hospital building. Nursing recruitment is there as is hospital car parking. Presumably the seed funding pennies will do for the next 5 years and then in the following 5 years they'll build them all.

If there are currently just under 40,000 vacancies and 50,000 are to be recruited that only leaves 250 nurses to cover each of these new hospitals.

Stevo_666

Small beer compared to the Labour manifesto which omits to cost up the compensation for women denied an early pension (£58 billion IIRC) and the cost of nationalising utilities, trains and broadband (well North of £200 billion).

Jeremy.89

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

How do you get from 280,000 to 330,000 without there being 50,000 more nurses?

I understand it isn't 50,000 NEW nurses, but if that's not what the manifesto says, then where's the deception by the Tories? Sounds like an aspiration rather than a realistic plan, but not the worst of those in the manifesto.

Exactly. The pledge they made was to increase the number of nurses by 50,000. How they go about it is irrelevant but Labour chose to say they were claiming 50,000 new nurses and then criticise them for counting people who already work in the NHS - proper strawman stuff that they then con the media into regurgitating on their behalf. It's making things up in the same way that Boris got criticised for with his bus but it seems to get a free pass (not that I believe for a minute there will end up being 50,000 nurses in the next few years any more than I believe that we'll be working a 4 day week if Labour get in).

If you have 200 nurses at the moment, and the govt said they were going have 20 more nurses in 2020, you'd expect the number of nurses in 2020 to be 220. Trying to account for the number of nurses that would have left, but are somehow going to magically be made to stay is sort of fair enough, but feels quite misleading.

The tories could have gone with the total number of new nurses, which is more than labour have comitted to, and not have had to go through this. Instead they get to argue about this, show its still more than labour, and they avoid talking about the biggest load of bs in their campaign, which is that they can get brexit done in a year.

I'd argue that the left wing press are more falling for a deliberate trap rather then them being horrendously unfair to the tories.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

Small beer compared to the Labour manifesto which omits to cost up the compensation for women denied an early pension (£58 billion IIRC) and the cost of nationalising utilities, trains and broadband (well North of £200 billion).

So you agree it's fantasy, but it's a bit less fantastical than Labour, so we're all good? Let's say £400million to build a hospital; looking at the figures for my local trust, a hospitals cost about £200million a year to run, all in. Forty of those is £16billion capital investment and £8bn a year ongoing costs. But not a peep of that spending in the Manifesto or Costing.

Still, at least you will be able to park for free in these imaginary hospitals.

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

I understand it isn't 50,000 NEW nurses, but if that's not what the manifesto says, then where's the deception by the Tories? Sounds like an aspiration rather than a realistic plan, but not the worst of those in the manifesto.

“ Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year.”
That is a direct quote from their own manifesto. Using retention in the figures is like saying "I only lost £100 to the bookies instead of £200 so I am £100 up."

I agree that it is not even the worst aspect of the manifesto.

For clarification I am only picking up on a point made that the Tories are clean. All parties are blatantly lying.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Small beer compared to the Labour manifesto which omits to cost up the compensation for women denied an early pension (£58 billion IIRC) and the cost of nationalising utilities, trains and broadband (well North of £200 billion).

So you agree it's fantasy, but it's a bit less fantastical than Labour, so we're all good? Let's say £400million to build a hospital; looking at the figures for my local trust, a hospitals cost about £200million a year to run, all in. Forty of those is £16billion capital investment and £8bn a year ongoing costs. But not a peep of that spending in the Manifesto or Costing.

Still, at least you will be able to park for free in these imaginary hospitals.

Nearly all manifestos are fantasy as has been said on here before. So I guess I'll vote for the party with the least fantasy manifesto.

And the Lib Dem promise that they will reverse Brexit isn't fantasy in any way?

rick_chasey

So on that note, here are some charts from Jo Maugham's twitter feed.

LDs more redistributive than Labour or Tories


This chart examines the Tory track record on benefits etc by impact on annual income

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

And the Lib Dem promise that they will reverse Brexit isn't fantasy in any way?

Makes more economic sense and is a better example of good and prudent governance than anything the other parties have proposed and you know it.

rick_chasey

Basically it's a choice between a party that's being called out by a top rabbi for being anti-semitic or a party who seems inclined to massive increase child poverty (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50554214) and is risking "the biggest brexit crisis" according to Britain's former top diplomat.

FWIW, FT just published a letter backing labour's maninfesto on the economic by 163 fairly high ranking economists. But then, they're also a bunch of anti-semites.

What a wonderful choice.

rick_chasey

The state of this election:

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/conservative-manifesto-risks-child-poverty-reaching-record-highs-while-no-manifesto-will-reduce-it/

Conservative manifesto risks child poverty reaching record highs while no manifesto will reduce it
26 November 2019

Child poverty is set to continue rising under the Conservative Party’s social security plans, while Labour’s £9 billion of extra spending would mean 550,000 fewer children in poverty but not see current poverty rates fall, according to new research published today (Tuesday) by the Resolution Foundation.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Small beer compared to the Labour manifesto which omits to cost up the compensation for women denied an early pension (£58 billion IIRC) and the cost of nationalising utilities, trains and broadband (well North of £200 billion).

So you agree it's fantasy, but it's a bit less fantastical than Labour, so we're all good? Let's say £400million to build a hospital; looking at the figures for my local trust, a hospitals cost about £200million a year to run, all in. Forty of those is £16billion capital investment and £8bn a year ongoing costs. But not a peep of that spending in the Manifesto or Costing.

Still, at least you will be able to park for free in these imaginary hospitals.

Nearly all manifestos are fantasy as has been said on here before. So I guess I'll vote for the party with the least fantasy manifesto.

And the Lib Dem promise that they will reverse Brexit isn't fantasy in any way?

I think you'll find that policy is being quietly dropped ☺

rjsterry

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Small beer compared to the Labour manifesto which omits to cost up the compensation for women denied an early pension (£58 billion IIRC) and the cost of nationalising utilities, trains and broadband (well North of £200 billion).

So you agree it's fantasy, but it's a bit less fantastical than Labour, so we're all good? Let's say £400million to build a hospital; looking at the figures for my local trust, a hospitals cost about £200million a year to run, all in. Forty of those is £16billion capital investment and £8bn a year ongoing costs. But not a peep of that spending in the Manifesto or Costing.

Still, at least you will be able to park for free in these imaginary hospitals.

Nearly all manifestos are fantasy as has been said on here before. So I guess I'll vote for the party with the least fantasy manifesto.

And the Lib Dem promise that they will reverse Brexit isn't fantasy in any way?

I think you'll find that policy is being quietly dropped ☺

Could have sworn it was you arguing that we should give the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt until their manifesto was published. Now you're saying it's fantasy anyway and we shouldn't worry about the undeliverable things it promised.

rick_chasey

rick_chasey said:

Basically it's a choice between a party that's being called out by a top rabbi for being anti-semitic or a party who seems inclined to massive increase child poverty (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50554214) and is risking "the biggest brexit crisis" according to Britain's former top diplomat.

FWIW, FT just published a letter backing labour's maninfesto on the economic by 163 fairly high ranking economists. But then, they're also a bunch of anti-semites.

What a wonderful choice.

Ah good. The Muslim Council of Britain backs the Rabbi's claims on anti-semitism in Labour and then says that the Tory parties equally have a problem with islamophobia.

What choices we are presented with.

FFS.

rick_chasey

I guess I can make lots of friends now by replying with "are you an antisemite/islamophobic, then?" when people tell me they're voting for Labour/Conservative.

Every cloud.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

And the Lib Dem promise that they will reverse Brexit isn't fantasy in any way?

Makes more economic sense and is a better example of good and prudent governance than anything the other parties have proposed and you know it.

We're more likely to spot Elvis riding the Loch Ness monster than see a Lib Dem majority in parliament and you know that. Hence it's fantasy. More so than either of the major parties promises.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

So on that note, here are some charts from Jo Maugham's twitter feed.

LDs more redistributive than Labour or Tories


This chart examines the Tory track record on benefits etc by impact on annual income

Depends whether welfare payments etc were too high to start with.

However these redistributive polices don't seem to be doing the Lib Dems (or Labour) much good in the polls, so maybe more people agree that they may have been too high originally.

rick_chasey

I think it's important to know what you are actually voting for. If you're in the bottom 4 deciles re income, you should know that a Tory gov't will likely hurt your pocket in a noticeable way.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

I think it's important to know what you are actually voting for. If you're in the bottom 4 deciles re income, you should know that a Tory gov't will likely hurt your pocket in a noticeable way.

have you got the equivalent graphs for taxation?

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I think it's important to know what you are actually voting for. If you're in the bottom 4 deciles re income, you should know that a Tory gov't will likely hurt your pocket in a noticeable way.

have you got the equivalent graphs for taxation?

No but I know the FT has put them together.

verylonglegs

I heard on Radio 3 news this morning that 3 million people registered to vote in the last month. Seems a remarkable number but I've no idea what the numbers were before other elections. I'm guessing it includes people registering at a new address and not just first time voters?

rick_chasey

It does

Jeremy.89

rick_chasey said:

I guess I can make lots of friends now by replying with "are you an antisemite/islamophobic, then?" when people tell me they're voting for Labour/Conservative.

Every cloud.

Giant douche or Turd Sandwich.

I have to say, I'm sort of surprised that no party is making more of a deal about how poor fptp is at this election.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

And the Lib Dem promise that they will reverse Brexit isn't fantasy in any way?

Makes more economic sense and is a better example of good and prudent governance than anything the other parties have proposed and you know it.

We're more likely to spot Elvis riding the Loch Ness monster than see a Lib Dem majority in parliament and you know that. Hence it's fantasy. More so than either of the major parties promises.

Like I said it has been quietly dropped and was always conditional anyway. No qualification to the fantasy hospitals nationalisation or "getting Brexit done", though.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

And the Lib Dem promise that they will reverse Brexit isn't fantasy in any way?

Makes more economic sense and is a better example of good and prudent governance than anything the other parties have proposed and you know it.

We're more likely to spot Elvis riding the Loch Ness monster than see a Lib Dem majority in parliament and you know that. Hence it's fantasy. More so than either of the major parties promises.

Like I said it has been quietly dropped and was always conditional anyway. No qualification to the fantasy hospitals nationalisation or "getting Brexit done", though.

Which bit was dropped - the bit about getting a majority, or the bit about cancelling Brexit?

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I understand it isn't 50,000 NEW nurses, but if that's not what the manifesto says, then where's the deception by the Tories? Sounds like an aspiration rather than a realistic plan, but not the worst of those in the manifesto.

“ Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year.”
That is a direct quote from their own manifesto. Using retention in the figures is like saying "I only lost £100 to the bookies instead of £200 so I am £100 up."

I agree that it is not even the worst aspect of the manifesto.

For clarification I am only picking up on a point made that the Tories are clean. All parties are blatantly lying.

If there are 50,000 more nurses, they have to be paid for. If there are 280,000 and there will be 330,000, then that's 50,000 more.

Using retention in the figures is sensible, as long as they have a plan to achieve it and maintain it over the long term. I'm no Tory apologist, but I don't see the issue.

If they had said they were going to bring in 50,000 new nurses, then you'd have a point.

surrey_commuter

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I understand it isn't 50,000 NEW nurses, but if that's not what the manifesto says, then where's the deception by the Tories? Sounds like an aspiration rather than a realistic plan, but not the worst of those in the manifesto.

“ Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year.”
That is a direct quote from their own manifesto. Using retention in the figures is like saying "I only lost £100 to the bookies instead of £200 so I am £100 up."

I agree that it is not even the worst aspect of the manifesto.

For clarification I am only picking up on a point made that the Tories are clean. All parties are blatantly lying.

If there are 50,000 more nurses, they have to be paid for. If there are 280,000 and there will be 330,000, then that's 50,000 more.

Using retention in the figures is sensible, as long as they have a plan to achieve it and maintain it over the long term. I'm no Tory apologist, but I don't see the issue.

If they had said they were going to bring in 50,000 new nurses, then you'd have a point.

You are right if they have 280,000 nurses, retain 19,000, and recruit another 31,000 then they have 330,000. I really don’t see why Nicky Morgan is a figure of fun.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

And the Lib Dem promise that they will reverse Brexit isn't fantasy in any way?

Makes more economic sense and is a better example of good and prudent governance than anything the other parties have proposed and you know it.

We're more likely to spot Elvis riding the Loch Ness monster than see a Lib Dem majority in parliament and you know that. Hence it's fantasy. More so than either of the major parties promises.

Like I said it has been quietly dropped and was always conditional anyway. No qualification to the fantasy hospitals nationalisation or "getting Brexit done", though.

Which bit was dropped - the bit about getting a majority, or the bit about cancelling Brexit?

Mainly the former. All the talk is now of the slightly more realistic using their influence to push for a second ref. Apparently the idea polled very well in the summer when their seemed like Johnson was dead set on a no-deal exit, but as that particular threat seems to have been put off for now, it's proving more of a hard sell.

rick_chasey

From my friends who are on the doorstep punters sound confused by repeal. A lot of “I thought you were backing another ref?”