Matt Hancock 50,000 extra nurses

Steve N

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
13,356
Reaction score
8,658
Points
3,733
Location
Peterborough
Matt Hancock has convinced me that I've got two wives now.
I've done this by persuading my current wife not to leave.
:eek:

 
Last edited:
Well it’s 50k more nurses than there would have been with no intervention.

they did choose a stupid way of announcing/positioning this. Even if they said 31k new nurses that would have been a good pledge.

either way the plan is 50k more nurses than would have been otherwise.

now let’s see if they can do it.
 
I think it is what the politicians like to call being economic with the truth.
When the discrepancy in the numbers was put to the politicians including Boris they admitted that it was not exactly 51,000 'new' nurses but not one offered an apology for the confusion, so no change there then.
 
I think it is what the politicians like to call being economic with the truth.
When the discrepancy in the numbers was put to the politicians including Boris they admitted that it was not exactly 51,000 'new' nurses but not one offered an apology for the confusion, so no change there then.
Did they ever say it’s new nurses? Or do people not understand the difference between more and new?
 
It’s a programme where money has been allocated provisionally, but they still need to make the business case for it. Seems imminently sensible to me.

It's certainly a good way to put a very large number for "new" hospitals into your costed manifesto, whilst only having to actually allocate £100M to it. I'll give them one thing, it's a clever way to manipulate your figures/targets.

If they'd actually costed 40 new hospitals, even at a conservative estimate of £750m per hospital, their manifesto would have an extra £30Bn added to it and they would have been asked a lot of difficult questions about how they would fund that. Instead, £100m and the repeated mantra of "40 new hospitals" is a much easier message to publish and for their supporters to lap up.
 
It's certainly a good way to put a very large number for "new" hospitals into your costed manifesto, whilst only having to actually allocate £100M to it. I'll give them one thing, it's a clever way to manipulate your figures/targets.

If they'd actually costed 40 new hospitals, even at a conservative estimate of £750m per hospital, their manifesto would have an extra £30Bn added to it and they would have been asked a lot of difficult questions about how they would fund that. Instead, £100m and the repeated mantra of "40 new hospitals" is a much easier message to publish and for their supporters to lap up.
It would come dangerously close to the figures in Labour's manifesto...
 
It's certainly a good way to put a very large number for "new" hospitals into your costed manifesto, whilst only having to actually allocate £100M to it. I'll give them one thing, it's a clever way to manipulate your figures/targets.

If they'd actually costed 40 new hospitals, even at a conservative estimate of £750m per hospital, their manifesto would have an extra £30Bn added to it and they would have been asked a lot of difficult questions about how they would fund that. Instead, £100m and the repeated mantra of "40 new hospitals" is a much easier message to publish and for their supporters to lap up.
It’s a sensible way opposed to acting like Al Bundy and just handing out the cash. Nothing wrong with insisting on a good business case.
 
It’s a sensible way opposed to acting like Al Bundy and just handing out the cash. Nothing wrong with insisting on a good business case.

Why not just agree that it's a clever way to essentially 'hide' the actual costs of building 40 new hospitals, so that they can point the finger at the Labour manifesto (which had the actual long term costs shown)? If it's a sensible approach that relies on good business cases, why isn't it being pitched as that?

Unless you really do believe that this Government will build 40 new hospitals, as costed at £100m in the manifesto, and Johnson's repeated claim.
 
Why not just agree that it's a clever way to essentially 'hide' the actual costs of building 40 new hospitals, so that they can point the finger at the Labour manifesto (which had the actual long term costs shown)? If it's a sensible approach that relies on good business cases, why isn't it being pitched as that?

Unless you really do believe that this Government will build 40 new hospitals, as costed at £100m in the manifesto, and Johnson's repeated claim.
Because I don’t interpret it like that at all.
 
Because I don’t interpret it like that at all.

So humour me, how do you interpret;

- "We will build 40 new hospitals" (as stated by Johnson on the video I linked to above)

- Manifesto costing for "new" hospitals - £100m

- "a programme where money has been allocated provisionally, but they still need to make the business case for it." - e.g. The £100m is earmarked for proposals for new hospitals to be put forward.

- Assuming those 40 new hospital proposals are all approved, and Johnson does build 40 new hospitals, will that also come out of the same £100m that was in the costed manifesto.


And, to use a straw man, how would you honestly interpret the same situation if it was in the Labour manifesto?
 
So humour me, how do you interpret;

- "We will build 40 new hospitals" (as stated by Johnson on the video I linked to above)

- Manifesto costing for "new" hospitals - £100m

- "a programme where money has been allocated provisionally, but they still need to make the business case for it." - e.g. The £100m is earmarked for proposals for new hospitals to be put forward.

- Assuming those 40 new hospital proposals are all approved, and Johnson does build 40 new hospitals, will that also come out of the same £100m that was in the costed manifesto.


And, to use a straw man, how would you honestly interpret the same situation if it was in the Labour manifesto?
As above I’ve already mentioned that. No rewording required.
 
As above I’ve already mentioned that. No rewording required.

It’s a shame that only opposition parties are held to account on the reality of their manifesto pledges. If they were, rather than justifying their spin, maybe we’d see actual realistic proposals from all.
 
It’s a shame that only opposition parties are held to account on the reality of their manifesto pledges. If they were, rather than justifying their spin, maybe we’d see actual realistic proposals from all.
In your opinion. For the record I did not say that either...
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom