The lead up to our latest election is in full swing and the spin is quite a wonder to behold.
This is my favourite so far....it starts at 3 minutes 25 seconds in and lasts for about 7 minutes.
My faith in politicians has never been greater.
That’s new math!
Just say the answer you want over and over again and hope it eventually makes sense.
Very funny clip.
It’s a bit like our builder repeatedly saying “I can’t see what you mean”, when we pointed out the roof tiles hung so far over the gutters they were useless.
I had to make him get up on the roof with a bottle of water and tell him to pour it off the edge. “Can you see now?” I asked. It didn’t seem to go down very well because he had to reroof a whole section of it.
maddiemo, I was in Dingle, Ireland earlier this year. This was in the lobby of Benners Hotel.
The lady at the desk seemed very put out when my husband asked for directions to our room. Couldn't we read?
And the sad part is... there will be people bamboozled into thinking such math is correct.
Just spin those numbers... and where they stop, no one knows!
OMG Roxsol, that is seriously Irish!!! Absolutely love it and them:)))
I know Jodik, it’s easy to assume everyone will get the ‘crystal clear’ message that’s as clear as hogwash.
I just wonder how these people remain so resolute while they’re being exposed on national TV.
That takes some serious and long term training in double speak.
A "graduate" of trump's university? LOL!
Good grief, I just found out there was such a thing as a Trump University!
I’m having a lie down.
maddiemo, the first that I had ever really paid any attention to Donald Trump was when I watched a CBC documentary on Trump University. It was a few years ago.
I remember thinking what an awful man he was and feeling very sorry for those who had been ripped off.
When he began his campaign for the US presidency, I asked some people, who were backing him, to explain the whole Trump U. thing to me. I never got an explanation from any of them.
It was something that made me go “hmm”.
The whole time watching that I was thinking, “$2500 savings from what it would have been.”
Thanks Roxsol, I was just watching a video about it.
You also just reminded me of a song called ‘Things That Make You Go Hmmmm’ and I was having a little listen to it:)
I remember that song!
I just listened to it, too. There seems to be more and more things nowadays that make you go “hmm”.
Foodonastump, I’m a bit stumped (which is nothing new for me) especially if numbers in addition to words are involved:)
No, listen, you don't understand because you didn't go to politician school. You see, what she meant to say was that they have made an irrevocable decision not to fire 50 000 nurses. Now obviously, that means there will be 50 000 more than if they had desired to fire them. I think you're just Conservative bashing. Sigh.
Any excuse Rina, although Boris is kind of fun in an entertaining dinner guest kind of way.
Maddiemo, it goes against the grain to say it but, although N Morgan made a mess of explaining, it seems the figures do sort of work. Listen to today's 'More or Less' election special. (Radio 4 Tuesday am at 9.00 first item) P Morgan was the one who didn't understand. Btw this programme is required listening for getting behind politicians' numbers. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_fourfm
She’s a robot? Maybe it’s a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word “more”?
One of the things that bothers me is that if you don’t pay attention to what is being said, she sounds believable. So sure of herself. Standing her ground against both of them, and Math!
Like taking sharpies and drawing on maps. Who cares about math or science?
Thanks for the link, Floral. So they really ARE proposing net 50K more nurses, 280K up to 330K. Pretty amazing that this should be so hard to articulate. “Net” being the necessary word.
On Instagram, I follow dogs, a cat from Spain, and a couple national parks and nature photographers.
One of my favorite British dog posters showed their pup playing with a stuffed Boris Johnson dog toy a while back. I noticed a few days ago a new video of the doggy enthusiastically shaking the heck out of Boris and figured the election must be heating up.
Oy, no one comes out of this looking intelligent. It wasn't explained well, and Piers and his cohort were dense about it. Maybe that was deliberate, but more likely it's because most people are terrible at math, but good at BSing.
Sounds like a two-pronged approach:
The program estimates that 19,000 nurses will stay on over the 10 year period. Those 19,000 previously would have left the NHS (along with others. They are hoping to keep 19,000 of the total number who leave over 10 years).
The numbers make sense to me. I don't understand the struggle with the concept. The politics of it is a different matter altogether.
Good way to liven up the morning--great visuals also:
"Things that Make You Go Hmmm"
Lionheart - Based on the program (programme?) that floral linked, I believe you are misinterpreting as well. True that they are hoping to reduce attrition to the tune of 19,000 nurses. But that’s just lowering the amount of hires required to increase the total number of nurses by 50,000. So the number of new hires will not be 31,000 but some number greater than 50,000. 50,000+attrition. Which is probably a LOT greater than 50,000:
Over the last five years they have both lost and hired 160,000 nurses, for net zero change. They hope to reduce losses by 19,000 in the next five years, which means that to gain 50,000 they’ll have to hire 191,000. As opposed to 210,000 if those 19,000 leave.
Lionheart, that still doesn't make up 50 000 more than the present total of nurses. They may be saying:
Present total minus 19 000 = currently projected total for target date if no action is taken.*
Take action to retain the 19 000.
Hire an additional 31 000.
Result: 50 000 more than the currently projected total for target date if no action were taken.
* However, this assumes that no normal replacement hiring takes place.
I think the question put to her, "50 000 more than what?" was the key to unravelling the mystery, but it wasn't answered -- partly, I think, that may be because Piers M talked over it. (ETA: not sure of that and I'm not going back to check.)
My maths isn't bad, my logic is good ... but I suppose I might be missing something. Not at my hearty best today. Still, you know, hurrah if they can meet a target of 31 000 additional hirings. Any bet that a large percentage would be immigrants?
Once again, per the BBC link they are talking 50,000 more than the current number. 280,000 to 330,000. The more they lose the more they have to add, the less they lose the less they have to add. But they are talking a NET GAIN of 50,000. The number “31,000” needs not enter the discussion unless you’re confused.
And those "various sources" she talked about were for the 50 000? Additional hires to trying to keep 19 000 otherwise expected to resign?
Sorry if I sound dumb, but of course that does make sense. I still bet that a large percentage of the 50 000 new nurses would be immigrants.
Thank you all for your explanations...
Does that mean that all they needed to say was we currently employ 280,000 nurses and we intend to increase that figure to 330,000?
Yes, I think that would have done the trick.
OMG - Hilarious!
Why make it so complicated!!!
(PS I was referring to the politicians and presenters)
Floral, I’ve just listened to programme from your link. It was a treat to listen to people calmly explaining what lies behind all these figures.
Yes, 'More or less' is a great programme. Even outside election time.
Well the latest on the 50,000 more nurses, is that it does include 19,000 that are already employed, which means there will actually be 31, 000 NEW nurses.
BUT it’s still 50,000 more than it would have been if you take into account the ones that would have left!
Got to watch the vital difference between more than the lower figure you arrive at once you take into account natural deductions, and the NEW ones on top of what there is at the moment!
Boris confirmed it on The Election Debate.
Piers n Suz were right it seems.
I’ve decided to half the number of promises and divide that by two, then assume all quoted figures are more or less doubled, then I might end up with some of what remains.
There are about 320,000 nurses in the NHS. More than 10%, or 32,000, leave each year. Of those, about half are retirees.
Is it reasonable to figure out a way to retain at least 1,900 of the 16,000 non-retirees who leave each year? Probably. Over 10 years you could meet the 19,000 number before you even take on newly-minted warm bodies.
There's always going to be churn. People will come and go, but they might be able to put in incentives to keep existing nurses for a longer period of time. In other words, slow the bleeding.
No, it doesn't have to be 50,000 new people. It has to be 50,000 more than currently remain in the NHS after the leavers take off. Keeping experienced people longer is usually preferable to bringing in a large number of newbies.
*These are all rough figures based on numbers from different websites.
It was designed to make people believe there would be 50,000 new nurses on top of those currently employed. It will be 31,000.
Not nearly as creative as those 40 new hospitals though.