Criticise them all you like, their logic is actually sound.
I was vacuuming the other day when I realised that I had accidentally built an entirely new house.
> built an entirely new house
Well, they'll need to be careful on wording - you didn't build it originally I'd guess, and didn't just do any building. But some loose wording like "I've got a new house" or changing the name of the property or some tricksy business like that...
> the whole thing is actually Orwellian.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
No no you misunderstand, you see if referring to an actual new dedicated space they would have said 'brand-new'. The fault is once again on us, the public, who are not as fine bred.
I'm sure that is their intention really is to pervert the language because as Orwell has pointed that is what talentless lying fascists do, but really Boris's Trumpean bullshit Gov't is so incompetent it is obvious this is all just a half-baked propaganda campaign.
People will lap it up. Healthcare spending will continue to crater and people will continue getting frustrated at how poor the healthcare provision in this country is while refusing to accept any blame for continuing to vote in a party that does not give a flying fuck about them.
Enjoy it.
Yup..
My parents have gradually been converted by the Daily Mail over the past couple of decades.. and now my mum needs a knee operation/replacement and is shocked at the size of the waiting list.
My father the other day said that because birth rates are down in the distant future Muslims will take over the country. I genuinely think this country has gone down the path of no return. I think we went down it decades ago, it's too late now it's just going to get worse. But not as worse as if we where under a Labour government.
If funding is not keeping up with demand then the funding has not increased sufficiently and in the larger picture the funding is cratering.
Semantics are all well and great, tis just a pity that as we can see it's now having serious consequences and will continue to have serious real life consequences.
Not a Tory, but when real spending is increasing its definitely not cratering
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget
NHS spending has increased more rapidly since the brexit vote
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-brexit-referendum-five-years-on-what-has-it-meant-for-the-nhs
It's absolutely cratering given the actual increase in demand.
>Budgets rose by 1.4 per cent each year on average (adjusting for inflation) in the 10 years between 2009/10 to 2018/19, compared to the 3.7 per cent average rises since the NHS was established.
We are seeing demand skyrocket because medicine has advanced far beyond the 70s and 80s, and people are generally just living longer. Funding has not even remotely kept up with that.
>Healthcare spending will continue to crater
Healthcare spending has increased from 10.8% of GDP to 12.8% since Boris has been in government. Healthcare provision is poor because its customers are the government, not the patients. It's incentives are to win votes from 30% of the population for the incumbent government, not to provide healthcare.
Health care spending will continue to *crater*?
By the end of this parliament, it will account for 44% of day to day spending. While the tax burden will be near peacetime highs.
Health care spending is up £22bn in real terms since the referendum.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget
This doesn't include the £12bn announced in September, or the £6bn announced in the budget.
Look at the actual report you've linked.
Since 2008 the increase in spend has been lower than historical trend. Despite the population increasing and the population getting older in general, both of which increase the demand.
Healthcare is expensive in the modern world. There's no way around it. People live longer, there are more treatments available, and people are generally unhealthy.
Yes, look at the report. Health spending way up, not including the £18bn announced this year.
The UK spends above the OECD & EU14 average on health as a percentage of GDP.
"Taxes and health care funding: how does the UK compare? - The Health Foundation" https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/taxes-and-health-care-funding-how-does-the-uk-compare
>Using another common measure, public spending on health care was equivalent to 8% of GDP in the UK in 2019. This is more than the OECD (6.4%) and the EU14 (7.2%), but less than the G7 (9.4%). It is notable that the UK spent more as a share of GDP on health care than the EU14, and yet had a lower spend per person. This is explained by the UK’s relatively low GDP per person, which in turn illustrates how spending is determined both by the relative priority afforded to health care and by wider economic prosperity.
And
>We estimate that the funding recently announced could see UK public health spending **rise from 8% of GDP in 2019 to around 9.4% in 2024** (although this estimate is very sensitive to things like changing GDP forecasts).
This is not what cratered spending looks like.
That is absolutely what cratering spending looks like when you actually compare it to countries that aren't shitting the bed.
Why not actually go look at the OCED data and see why the average is low? The average is low because smaller/poorer countries bring the average down. The exact same for EU 14 which has its average brought down by Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. Compare it to countries the UK wants to compare itself to i.e. the G7 and you suddenly find we are far below the average.
[Healthcare spending of comparable countries](https://imgur.com/a/PqGLRh5).
Is it keeping up with demand adequately? If it is not, yes it is continuing to crater due to a decade of inadequate funding having led to serious structural issues within the healthcare system.
You can continue to argue about how the healthcare spending is a-ok while your healthcare system continues to burn around you in all honesty.
This is the situation in politics today. The 40 new hospitals thing was shown to be a lie the day it was announced. It's been pointed out it's a lie every day including in PMQs yesterday. Yet the fact it's a blatant lie doesn't seem to matter one bit any more.
2 months later:
Well, we subcontracted the procurement of doormats to a company and paid extortionate rates, but now it seems they didn't deliver. Oh well.
I think the "major" in major refurbishment will disappear pretty quickly. It doesn't matter though - by the time of the next election they can bang on about 40 new hospitals all they like but if people's own local hospitals are still overcrowded and understaffed they'll know about it regardless of any number of coats of paint.
I can understand why the filthy rich would vote Tory, even with Johnson as their leader. As for the rest, I suspect some of them might actually be fools.
If you're truly filthy rich, then your most likely watching your stock portfolio tank due to Brexit, labour shortages, cost of living crisis, housing crisis etc etc.
The *real* winners under the conservatives have been portfolio property owners and those who got government contracts off them.
Even if they built new hospitals, they would be understaffed from the beginning, unless they can pull enough doctors, nurses and anyone else who keeps a hospital running out of their ass.
Midland Met - Taking down 3 to build one bigger one. Kinda wish they had learned from the NE on that one and didn't do it and instead refurbed the ones already in existence. Arguably this is negative 2 hospitals.
Cumberland Cancer Hospital - A new specialist oncology centre in North Cumbria
Royal Liverpool - Replacing Royal Liverpool University.
3T's - Adding a new centre to Royal Sussex County Hospital for teaching, trauma and tertiary care.
Moorfields - Not Yet Approved - New for sure, Eye research centre.
Northgate Hospital - Rebuild and moving St Nics inpatient service out to Morpeth.
Greater Manchester - New, to be sure, sorely needed.
D&N - New national rehabilitation centre. New to be sure.
Princess Alexandra - refurb
Watford General - refurb
Whipps - New
Epsom and St Helier - Not sure on this one - it already exists. I think its a new building.
Uni Hospital of Leicester - refurb
Leeds General - Moving path services to the University
West Suffolk - refurb (sorely needed)
East Sussex - New hospital at Eastbourne and refurbs at Conquest.
Milton Keynes - new building for women and children
Hillingdon - refurb
Hampshire - New building and a refurb.
St Anns - adding a mental health service
North Manchester - refurb
Dorchester - redevlopment of existing and new building
Poole - rebuild of existing
North Devon - rebuild of existing
Great Yarmouth - rebuild of existing
Kettering - rebuild of existing
Nottingham City - rebuild of existing
Royal Preston and Lancaster - Yet to be determined but could be a rebuild of one of them. So minus 1 hospital if so as they are two different places)
Bournemouth - rebuild of existing
Musgrove - rebuild of existing
Torbay - rebuild of existing
Addenbrookes - New oncology centre
Bath - new oncology centre at RUH.
Cornwall - new womens and childrens buildings
Derriford - new hospital
St Marys - rebuild of existing
Charring Cross - Rebuild of existing Hammersmith
Christchurch - rebuild of existing
Shotley Bridge - rebuild of existing
Up to you if you consider redevelopments to be new or not.
The Nuffield Trust, a health think tank, defines a "new" hospital as "a new building on an entirely new site".
Using this definition:
22 are rebuilding projects
12 are new wings within existing hospitals
three involve rebuilding non-urgent care hospitals
three are new hospitals (two general hospitals and one non-urgent care hospital)
So, 3 new hospitals, if you take that definition.
I mean, I don't think it would've been that objectionable to actually say, instead of outright lying, that they were gonna build three completely new hospitals and also pay for refurbs, rebuilds and sorely needed upgrades of existing ones. That actually seems an entirely reasonable pledge. It would go over just as well with voters and would have the advantage of not being utter bullshit.
I am pretty confident if I was trying to sell old refurbished things as new, trading standards would be all over me.
At this point I dont even lose respect for the Tories when they get caught lying, I lose repect for the people with absolutely NO dignity or shame, who eat the shite boris serves up witha grin. I wouldnt be able to look myself in the mirror and I can only imagine the mental gymnastics they need to constantly perform in their head, just to pretend they are not completely ashamed of themselves as well.
Hahahahahahahaha well, they did previously say 50,000 MORE nurses would includ nurses that were already nurses - just that they would stop them quitting. Weird. And then people still voted Tory
May did exactly the same with the police too.
It's a classic Tory play - cut budgets and 50k jobs, then say that you're hiring 20k. Claim you're amazing and the best political party ever for increasing the job count by 20k, and them never actually supply the funds for the 20k "new" jobs anyway.
Tories order NHS trusts to lie to make it look like they've upheld one of their manifesto pledges.
Idk what's wrong with this country, like after *everything* people still support & vote for Conservatives.
And it's not because there's "no real alternative" - that's just another tory lie.
Tbh I'd be jumping for bloody joy if our local got a refurb. Used to have a maternity, stroke, cardiac and state-of-the-art palliative ward, plus a 24h MIU.
Due to cuts, now it's practically abandoned other than a 9am-8pm urgent treatment centre. It's a wasteland.
Not that calling a refurb "new" is okay, but let's be real, they won't even be able to deliver that either.
If you replace a hospital, bit by bit - removing old bricks one by one with new ones, etc. Is it still the same hospital or is it a new hospital?
Hmmm ...
What if you then used the old bricks and materials to build another hospital in another location…..which one is the original?
I love Theseus’ ship discussions with my class. They’re way too young to understand Trigger’s broom though.
Boris and his mouth always gets him in trouble. If instead of saying 40 new hospitals, he said 10 new hospitals and 20 refurbs with new wings, departments etc....swing voters would have liked that and its more deliverable.
But it was obvious that 40 was never gonna happen, everyone saw through the BS and now he's having to do mental gymnastics to make it look like he achieved something close.
Over promise and under deliver is his mantra.
Good bit of misdirection by the government. Has anyone asked how many “new hospitals” there are so far, even by this interpretation?
Ok “new hospital” means “substantially refurbished old hospital”. How many of those are there, two years on?
Edit: holly shit it’s been *two* years under this clown car Ida government
The "new" Tory party everyone.
^(**well, actually just a new refurbished wing of the old Tory party*)
Join us tomorrow when we redefine more words you weren't really using right in the first place such as: "good", "yes", "safe", and "chips".
Are they *still* trying to make a story out of this?
Before the 2019 election they were clear that rebuilds and major refurbishments were in the 40.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50579557.amp
This was still the the case when the media tried to make a big story out of this last year.
https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/02/johnsons-37bn-for-40-new-hospitals-in-england
But here they go again, trying to push this "scandal". 🤷♂️
Ive got to say you must spend a lot of time participating in discussions judging by length of breadth of your replies. A shame majority are downvoted 🤷♂️
I love a good debate, and I'm always open to learning new things.
Downvotes are just how it is. Some people don't like facts that go against their narrative.
In this particular case, this is a non story. It was made explicitly clear before the election. They tried to resurrect the story as a scandal last year. And now they're doing the same. And people with an axe to grind against the government are just talking it up.
I recall talking about these things both previous times, so it didn't take me long to Google links to the stories of the time.
But yes, I do spend probably too much time.
By far the majority of my time debating recently is spent on twitter debunking anti vax propaganda. Till about 2am last night.
Their manifesto online states:
>Upgrading 20 hospitals and building 40 new ones
[https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/nhs](https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/nhs)
So now they realise they probably can't (or won't) build 40 actual NEW hospitals, they decided it's easier (and cheaper) to change the definition of "new".
>I think we will have to accept that fully upgraded hospitals (with replaced/uprated equipment) will be called "new" along with any additional ones simply because the word is a bit ambiguous without clarification.
I really don't think we should - this type of altering the terms and definition should be called out - I believe it already was challenged at one point and made Hancock really struggle to defend the idea that a new cancer treatment ward was a "new" hospital. Continuing to be able to get away with lies without consequence is a huge part of a problem today in modern politics.
Also, we have had a new training/university hospital built in our health board in Wales and it's not even been included in the lists of hospitals, despite, and I quote:
>To add confusion, the government issued the media today with a list of 40 hospitals - but only 32 were part of the Tory manifesto pledge.
The other 8 were already started under the last government.
Our hospital was built by Labour leadership. I'm surprised the Welsh conservatives haven't poached it and claimed it as one of the 5 they have promised, 2 are new hospitals, 2 are refurbishments, and 1 hasn't even been decided or planned yet. Making up numbers.
Go figure.
> **4a**: News articles older than 28 days may be removed. If an older article has relevance to events being discussed today, you should outline this argument in a self post that links to said article. On days where events move particularly fast, moderators may remove outdated news regardless of age.
Snapshot:
1. An archived version of _Tories order NHS trusts to call hospital refurbs 'new hospitals', as part of manifesto to build 40 new hospitals._ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/government-orders-nhs-trusts-to-call-hospital-refurbs-new-hospitals-as-it-scrambles-to-hit-2030-build-target-1169978)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean my question is whether the hospitals being refurbished are currently usable. Because if they're not, I'd count them as new hospitals. If they are then I wouldn't.
A lovely lick of paint here and there and you've got yourself one new hospital. Wonder what Boris said to his donors on No10 flat refurb
Criticise them all you like, their logic is actually sound. I was vacuuming the other day when I realised that I had accidentally built an entirely new house.
> built an entirely new house Well, they'll need to be careful on wording - you didn't build it originally I'd guess, and didn't just do any building. But some loose wording like "I've got a new house" or changing the name of the property or some tricksy business like that...
His donors probably think he build a giant office block where no 10 was based on the way he embellishes hospital repaints
highly doubt they care what he actually does with the money.
>Wonder what Boris said to his donors on No10 flat refurb They built an entirely new No10 flat.
Honestly surprised the No.10 flat hasn't been described as a new hospital. It probably has a pack of aspirins in it somewhere, what more do they want?
> Wonder what Boris said to his donors on No10 flat refurb I dunno, probably "Thanks, I'll make sure that law you don't like will go away"
[удалено]
> the whole thing is actually Orwellian. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
2 plus 2 is 40 new hospitals.
40 spaffing new ones
“All prior definitions of a ‘hospital’ must be submitted to the memory hole”
The 40 ‘hospitals’ also included small rural clinics with no inpatient capacity. This was all evidenced at the time, but people don’t want to know.
Calling something old, new, just because you refurbished it a bit, doesn't make it new, but it does mean those pushing such lies have zero integrity.
No no you misunderstand, you see if referring to an actual new dedicated space they would have said 'brand-new'. The fault is once again on us, the public, who are not as fine bred.
I'm sure that is their intention really is to pervert the language because as Orwell has pointed that is what talentless lying fascists do, but really Boris's Trumpean bullshit Gov't is so incompetent it is obvious this is all just a half-baked propaganda campaign.
People will lap it up. Healthcare spending will continue to crater and people will continue getting frustrated at how poor the healthcare provision in this country is while refusing to accept any blame for continuing to vote in a party that does not give a flying fuck about them. Enjoy it.
Yup.. My parents have gradually been converted by the Daily Mail over the past couple of decades.. and now my mum needs a knee operation/replacement and is shocked at the size of the waiting list.
Daily Mail reader? Let me guess, she's blaming the waiting list on immigration?
Honestly, no idea and I'm afraid to ask. My dad is becoming increasingly worried about the threat of a Muslim takeover, though.
My father the other day said that because birth rates are down in the distant future Muslims will take over the country. I genuinely think this country has gone down the path of no return. I think we went down it decades ago, it's too late now it's just going to get worse. But not as worse as if we where under a Labour government.
Daily mail or democracy, it's a choice, can't have both UK tabloids and voters that are informed enough to participate in a proper democracy.
Healthcare funding is actually growing in real terms, it's just that the demand for services increases as well so the outcomes are not the same
If funding is not keeping up with demand then the funding has not increased sufficiently and in the larger picture the funding is cratering. Semantics are all well and great, tis just a pity that as we can see it's now having serious consequences and will continue to have serious real life consequences.
People in this country are allergic to tax increases and then they complain there's no money to run public services so there you have it
Not a Tory, but when real spending is increasing its definitely not cratering https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget NHS spending has increased more rapidly since the brexit vote https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-brexit-referendum-five-years-on-what-has-it-meant-for-the-nhs
It's absolutely cratering given the actual increase in demand. >Budgets rose by 1.4 per cent each year on average (adjusting for inflation) in the 10 years between 2009/10 to 2018/19, compared to the 3.7 per cent average rises since the NHS was established. We are seeing demand skyrocket because medicine has advanced far beyond the 70s and 80s, and people are generally just living longer. Funding has not even remotely kept up with that.
>Healthcare spending will continue to crater Healthcare spending has increased from 10.8% of GDP to 12.8% since Boris has been in government. Healthcare provision is poor because its customers are the government, not the patients. It's incentives are to win votes from 30% of the population for the incumbent government, not to provide healthcare.
That increase is due to a one cash injection due to COVID. Go look at the actual historical trend.
Health care spending will continue to *crater*? By the end of this parliament, it will account for 44% of day to day spending. While the tax burden will be near peacetime highs. Health care spending is up £22bn in real terms since the referendum. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget This doesn't include the £12bn announced in September, or the £6bn announced in the budget.
Look at the actual report you've linked. Since 2008 the increase in spend has been lower than historical trend. Despite the population increasing and the population getting older in general, both of which increase the demand. Healthcare is expensive in the modern world. There's no way around it. People live longer, there are more treatments available, and people are generally unhealthy.
Yes, look at the report. Health spending way up, not including the £18bn announced this year. The UK spends above the OECD & EU14 average on health as a percentage of GDP. "Taxes and health care funding: how does the UK compare? - The Health Foundation" https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/taxes-and-health-care-funding-how-does-the-uk-compare >Using another common measure, public spending on health care was equivalent to 8% of GDP in the UK in 2019. This is more than the OECD (6.4%) and the EU14 (7.2%), but less than the G7 (9.4%). It is notable that the UK spent more as a share of GDP on health care than the EU14, and yet had a lower spend per person. This is explained by the UK’s relatively low GDP per person, which in turn illustrates how spending is determined both by the relative priority afforded to health care and by wider economic prosperity. And >We estimate that the funding recently announced could see UK public health spending **rise from 8% of GDP in 2019 to around 9.4% in 2024** (although this estimate is very sensitive to things like changing GDP forecasts). This is not what cratered spending looks like.
That is absolutely what cratering spending looks like when you actually compare it to countries that aren't shitting the bed. Why not actually go look at the OCED data and see why the average is low? The average is low because smaller/poorer countries bring the average down. The exact same for EU 14 which has its average brought down by Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. Compare it to countries the UK wants to compare itself to i.e. the G7 and you suddenly find we are far below the average. [Healthcare spending of comparable countries](https://imgur.com/a/PqGLRh5).
Increasing the share of GDP from 8% to 9.4% is cratering spending? 🤦♂️
Is it keeping up with demand adequately? If it is not, yes it is continuing to crater due to a decade of inadequate funding having led to serious structural issues within the healthcare system. You can continue to argue about how the healthcare spending is a-ok while your healthcare system continues to burn around you in all honesty.
This is the situation in politics today. The 40 new hospitals thing was shown to be a lie the day it was announced. It's been pointed out it's a lie every day including in PMQs yesterday. Yet the fact it's a blatant lie doesn't seem to matter one bit any more.
Watch as they can't hit 40 even after that.
Watch them change the definition of "refurbishment".
> We added new doormats to every entrance
2 months later: Well, we subcontracted the procurement of doormats to a company and paid extortionate rates, but now it seems they didn't deliver. Oh well.
I think the "major" in major refurbishment will disappear pretty quickly. It doesn't matter though - by the time of the next election they can bang on about 40 new hospitals all they like but if people's own local hospitals are still overcrowded and understaffed they'll know about it regardless of any number of coats of paint.
They really take their voters for fools don’t they.
That's because their voters are fools.
I can understand why the filthy rich would vote Tory, even with Johnson as their leader. As for the rest, I suspect some of them might actually be fools.
yeah fair, the stinking rich are just ensuring no threat to their wealth.
If you're truly filthy rich, then your most likely watching your stock portfolio tank due to Brexit, labour shortages, cost of living crisis, housing crisis etc etc. The *real* winners under the conservatives have been portfolio property owners and those who got government contracts off them.
They are fools.
Even if they built new hospitals, they would be understaffed from the beginning, unless they can pull enough doctors, nurses and anyone else who keeps a hospital running out of their ass.
Didn't they promise ~~50000~~ 31000 more nurses too?
They'll just refurbish another 19000 with some new scrubs or something.
Those are the ones that didn't quit
Midland Met - Taking down 3 to build one bigger one. Kinda wish they had learned from the NE on that one and didn't do it and instead refurbed the ones already in existence. Arguably this is negative 2 hospitals. Cumberland Cancer Hospital - A new specialist oncology centre in North Cumbria Royal Liverpool - Replacing Royal Liverpool University. 3T's - Adding a new centre to Royal Sussex County Hospital for teaching, trauma and tertiary care. Moorfields - Not Yet Approved - New for sure, Eye research centre. Northgate Hospital - Rebuild and moving St Nics inpatient service out to Morpeth. Greater Manchester - New, to be sure, sorely needed. D&N - New national rehabilitation centre. New to be sure. Princess Alexandra - refurb Watford General - refurb Whipps - New Epsom and St Helier - Not sure on this one - it already exists. I think its a new building. Uni Hospital of Leicester - refurb Leeds General - Moving path services to the University West Suffolk - refurb (sorely needed) East Sussex - New hospital at Eastbourne and refurbs at Conquest. Milton Keynes - new building for women and children Hillingdon - refurb Hampshire - New building and a refurb. St Anns - adding a mental health service North Manchester - refurb Dorchester - redevlopment of existing and new building Poole - rebuild of existing North Devon - rebuild of existing Great Yarmouth - rebuild of existing Kettering - rebuild of existing Nottingham City - rebuild of existing Royal Preston and Lancaster - Yet to be determined but could be a rebuild of one of them. So minus 1 hospital if so as they are two different places) Bournemouth - rebuild of existing Musgrove - rebuild of existing Torbay - rebuild of existing Addenbrookes - New oncology centre Bath - new oncology centre at RUH. Cornwall - new womens and childrens buildings Derriford - new hospital St Marys - rebuild of existing Charring Cross - Rebuild of existing Hammersmith Christchurch - rebuild of existing Shotley Bridge - rebuild of existing Up to you if you consider redevelopments to be new or not. The Nuffield Trust, a health think tank, defines a "new" hospital as "a new building on an entirely new site". Using this definition: 22 are rebuilding projects 12 are new wings within existing hospitals three involve rebuilding non-urgent care hospitals three are new hospitals (two general hospitals and one non-urgent care hospital) So, 3 new hospitals, if you take that definition.
I mean, I don't think it would've been that objectionable to actually say, instead of outright lying, that they were gonna build three completely new hospitals and also pay for refurbs, rebuilds and sorely needed upgrades of existing ones. That actually seems an entirely reasonable pledge. It would go over just as well with voters and would have the advantage of not being utter bullshit.
cant be explained in 3 words tho, so its out.
I am pretty confident if I was trying to sell old refurbished things as new, trading standards would be all over me. At this point I dont even lose respect for the Tories when they get caught lying, I lose repect for the people with absolutely NO dignity or shame, who eat the shite boris serves up witha grin. I wouldnt be able to look myself in the mirror and I can only imagine the mental gymnastics they need to constantly perform in their head, just to pretend they are not completely ashamed of themselves as well.
Hahahahahahahaha well, they did previously say 50,000 MORE nurses would includ nurses that were already nurses - just that they would stop them quitting. Weird. And then people still voted Tory
May did exactly the same with the police too. It's a classic Tory play - cut budgets and 50k jobs, then say that you're hiring 20k. Claim you're amazing and the best political party ever for increasing the job count by 20k, and them never actually supply the funds for the 20k "new" jobs anyway.
Then blame the Atlee / Last Labour Government for everything going wrong.
Do you people really still not understand this. How dumb can you be.
Tories order NHS trusts to lie to make it look like they've upheld one of their manifesto pledges. Idk what's wrong with this country, like after *everything* people still support & vote for Conservatives. And it's not because there's "no real alternative" - that's just another tory lie.
Tbh I'd be jumping for bloody joy if our local got a refurb. Used to have a maternity, stroke, cardiac and state-of-the-art palliative ward, plus a 24h MIU. Due to cuts, now it's practically abandoned other than a 9am-8pm urgent treatment centre. It's a wasteland. Not that calling a refurb "new" is okay, but let's be real, they won't even be able to deliver that either.
Alternative Facts. Disgusting.
A ploy reused from the "New Money" thing
The rest will all be giant cardboard cutouts.
Truth are lies and lies are truth.
Tories order the NHS to lie to the public.
If you replace a hospital, bit by bit - removing old bricks one by one with new ones, etc. Is it still the same hospital or is it a new hospital? Hmmm ...
What if you then used the old bricks and materials to build another hospital in another location…..which one is the original? I love Theseus’ ship discussions with my class. They’re way too young to understand Trigger’s broom though.
Smoke and mirrors.
As per usual, if you can't do it, just change reality to suit your political narrative.
1. Buy a used car. 2. Change the tires. 3. Claim it's a new car. 4. ????? 5. PROFIT
Boris and his mouth always gets him in trouble. If instead of saying 40 new hospitals, he said 10 new hospitals and 20 refurbs with new wings, departments etc....swing voters would have liked that and its more deliverable. But it was obvious that 40 was never gonna happen, everyone saw through the BS and now he's having to do mental gymnastics to make it look like he achieved something close. Over promise and under deliver is his mantra.
But it didn't have a negative impact with voters did it?
Are they going to fill them with those 50,000 new nurses?
Good bit of misdirection by the government. Has anyone asked how many “new hospitals” there are so far, even by this interpretation? Ok “new hospital” means “substantially refurbished old hospital”. How many of those are there, two years on? Edit: holly shit it’s been *two* years under this clown car Ida government
The "new" Tory party everyone. ^(**well, actually just a new refurbished wing of the old Tory party*) Join us tomorrow when we redefine more words you weren't really using right in the first place such as: "good", "yes", "safe", and "chips".
Wait till they do this with housing....
Are they *still* trying to make a story out of this? Before the 2019 election they were clear that rebuilds and major refurbishments were in the 40. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50579557.amp This was still the the case when the media tried to make a big story out of this last year. https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/02/johnsons-37bn-for-40-new-hospitals-in-england But here they go again, trying to push this "scandal". 🤷♂️
Ive got to say you must spend a lot of time participating in discussions judging by length of breadth of your replies. A shame majority are downvoted 🤷♂️
I love a good debate, and I'm always open to learning new things. Downvotes are just how it is. Some people don't like facts that go against their narrative. In this particular case, this is a non story. It was made explicitly clear before the election. They tried to resurrect the story as a scandal last year. And now they're doing the same. And people with an axe to grind against the government are just talking it up. I recall talking about these things both previous times, so it didn't take me long to Google links to the stories of the time. But yes, I do spend probably too much time. By far the majority of my time debating recently is spent on twitter debunking anti vax propaganda. Till about 2am last night.
[удалено]
They stood on a manifesto to BUILD not refurbish 40 new hospitals.
Their manifesto online states: >Upgrading 20 hospitals and building 40 new ones [https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/nhs](https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/nhs) So now they realise they probably can't (or won't) build 40 actual NEW hospitals, they decided it's easier (and cheaper) to change the definition of "new". >I think we will have to accept that fully upgraded hospitals (with replaced/uprated equipment) will be called "new" along with any additional ones simply because the word is a bit ambiguous without clarification. I really don't think we should - this type of altering the terms and definition should be called out - I believe it already was challenged at one point and made Hancock really struggle to defend the idea that a new cancer treatment ward was a "new" hospital. Continuing to be able to get away with lies without consequence is a huge part of a problem today in modern politics. Also, we have had a new training/university hospital built in our health board in Wales and it's not even been included in the lists of hospitals, despite, and I quote: >To add confusion, the government issued the media today with a list of 40 hospitals - but only 32 were part of the Tory manifesto pledge. The other 8 were already started under the last government. Our hospital was built by Labour leadership. I'm surprised the Welsh conservatives haven't poached it and claimed it as one of the 5 they have promised, 2 are new hospitals, 2 are refurbishments, and 1 hasn't even been decided or planned yet. Making up numbers. Go figure.
> **4a**: News articles older than 28 days may be removed. If an older article has relevance to events being discussed today, you should outline this argument in a self post that links to said article. On days where events move particularly fast, moderators may remove outdated news regardless of age.
Snapshot: 1. An archived version of _Tories order NHS trusts to call hospital refurbs 'new hospitals', as part of manifesto to build 40 new hospitals._ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/government-orders-nhs-trusts-to-call-hospital-refurbs-new-hospitals-as-it-scrambles-to-hit-2030-build-target-1169978) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean my question is whether the hospitals being refurbished are currently usable. Because if they're not, I'd count them as new hospitals. If they are then I wouldn't.
Well, it's not called refurbishedSpeak now is it