Cameron to axe 2,000 nurses

greenyonegreenyone Posts: 3,545
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Official government papers show that Cameron will axe 2,000 nurses if he wins the election saving £86 million
«134

Comments

  • FusionFuryFusionFury Posts: 14,121
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sick.
  • Sky_GuySky_Guy Posts: 6,859
    Forum Member
    Source?
  • Ethel_FredEthel_Fred Posts: 34,127
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
  • FusionFuryFusionFury Posts: 14,121
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ethel_Fred wrote: »

    So it's actually 2.5K :o
  • Sky_GuySky_Guy Posts: 6,859
    Forum Member
    Out of 400,000 nurses.
  • MaxatoriaMaxatoria Posts: 17,980
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    we have to ask for proof, a linky would be good
  • steveh31steveh31 Posts: 13,516
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Maxatoria wrote: »
    we have to ask for proof, a linky would be good

    Just takes a few seconds to google

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/official-plans-reveal-david-cameron-5546235
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,697
    Forum Member
    Maxatoria wrote: »
    we have to ask for proof, a linky would be good

    Ethel Fred has provided a link
  • hansuehansue Posts: 14,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    steveh31 wrote: »

    What a surprise. Its The Mirror.
  • FusionFuryFusionFury Posts: 14,121
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    As opposed to Labour and Milinands "creating more nurses and protecting the NHS" approach.

    Which do you prefer? to lose nurses or gain them and maintain the highest quality?
  • BrokenArrowBrokenArrow Posts: 21,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    FusionFury wrote: »
    As opposed to Labour and Milinands "creating more nurses and protecting the NHS" approach.

    Which do you prefer? to lose nurses or gain them and maintain the highest quality?

    It's the mirror, so Cameron is actually planning to hire more nurses.
  • phill363phill363 Posts: 24,312
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's the mirror, so Cameron is actually planning to hire more nurses.

    more agency nurses probably at a huge cost to the NHS :o
  • SnowStorm86SnowStorm86 Posts: 17,273
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    NEVER trust the Tories with the NHS. When they say they will invest money in it, you would be wise to assume the opposite will happen.
  • Sky_GuySky_Guy Posts: 6,859
    Forum Member
    NEVER trust the Tories with the NHS. When they say they will invest money in it, you would be wise to assume the opposite will happen.

    Who was the first to privatise parts of the NHS? remind us?
  • SnowStorm86SnowStorm86 Posts: 17,273
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sky_Guy wrote: »
    Who was the first to privatise parts of the NHS? remind us?

    Does that somehow make the slashing of nurse numbers more acceptable?

    I suppose that is probably the best defence one could offer, isn't it? Deflect attention away from current wrong doings.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,697
    Forum Member
    hansue wrote: »
    What a surprise. Its The Mirror.

    There's no factual inaccuracy in the article. Sorry if the article isn't music to your ears.
  • Sky_GuySky_Guy Posts: 6,859
    Forum Member
    Does that somehow make the slashing of nurse numbers more acceptable?

    I suppose that is probably the best defence one could offer, isn't it? Deflect attention away from current wrong doings.

    As I said, 2000 out of 400,000. Puts things into perspectivive.
  • david16david16 Posts: 14,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nurses being forced to work 60 + hours per week is disgraceful.
  • Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,377
    Forum Member
    Right wingers are ideologically opposed to a public healthcare system, so this shouldn't surprise anyone.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,697
    Forum Member
    Sky_Guy wrote: »
    As I said, 2000 out of 400,000. Puts things into perspectivive.

    Not really not when with an ageing population demand is likely to INCREASE on the NHS.
  • SnowStorm86SnowStorm86 Posts: 17,273
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sky_Guy wrote: »
    As I said, 2000 out of 400,000. Puts things into perspectivive.

    We need more not less!!! Badly.

    If you talk to anyone on the floor of a NHS hospital they will tell you that.
  • FusionFuryFusionFury Posts: 14,121
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Does that somehow make the slashing of nurse numbers more acceptable?

    I suppose that is probably the best defence one could offer, isn't it? Deflect attention away from current wrong doings.

    It's a Tory Boy mentality. Can't have a proper intelligent debate - just like Cameron.
  • Sky_GuySky_Guy Posts: 6,859
    Forum Member
    We need more not less!!! Badly.

    If you talk to anyone on the floor of a NHS hospital they will tell you that.

    I was treated in hospital last year, I know they are short. But 2000 is not going to solve this problem.
  • OLD HIPPY GUYOLD HIPPY GUY Posts: 28,199
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sky_Guy wrote: »
    I was treated in hospital last year, I know they are short. But 2000 is not going to solve this problem.

    Question, if they are, as you say "short" then what would the best way to help to combat that situation, reducing the number of nurses by ONE?
    or increasing the number of nurses by ONE?
    Now, repeat the question 2000 times.
    ;-)
  • rusty123rusty123 Posts: 22,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That report is from NHS England (not the Tories) and it suggests that hospitals might be forced to cut nearly 2000 nurses due to (presumably current) affordability....

    ...so, if the tories are pledging to fund the billions NHS England says it will need by 2020 how does that pledge translate into them planning to sack nurses?

    Email your answers to:

    Politicallymotivatedtosh@scaremongeringmuppet.gov
Sign In or Register to comment.