CornwallFox

He just needs to run at people and stop tarting about. Stop stopping and doing step overs and start running with pace and power. Could be exceptional at this level of he just simplifies his game.

Feels like we're awful not somehow still in the mix. If we even half get it together we've a real chance

This is true yeah. Once had a ref intentionally wait until 75th minute to stop a game in atrocious weather when I was coaching, with the intention that the result could stand.

S&P500 Vanguard ETF has also finally recovered to overtake its peak at the start of trump's presidency. Took a year nearly to recover from his messing about with tariffs but we're there.

Suspect it's very vulnerable to price variations as there seems to be a lot of amateurs involved. Even my 21yo daughter has bought £500 worth after being told about it by her friends who has thousands in. Seems EEE is something a lot of ordinary people have jumped on.

Oh I see. Yeah fair enough. Tbh I'll go back to something over said before which is that most things are the fault of social media and 24/7 news. There's a constant need cycle regurgitating news, or pure opinion on some channels, and so it's almost like a pressure to constantly have an answer to everything immediately. I hate kneejerk politics but we've created a world where no politician can win. In reality it takes around 18 months for most policies to actually come into being and bear any fruit. Labour haven't even been in 18 months but are having to scramble around because they've been attacked basically from day 1 with zero chance to actually do anything first. And the same is true for other parties also. We expect an instant answer, when they do change policy we don't wait to see if it works, then accuse them of lying before the policy has even come into effect.

Mandelson isn't Epstein. He just knew him, fell for him, maybe believed him. That's literally all that's happened.

The £150bn isn't coming from trump, it's coming from private companies and was announced separately to the US-UK trade deal. Do you have any reason to discredit the figures. Out of interest have you ever discredited the figures of whichever party you vote for? The mandelson issue is a complete nonsense issue. It's Westminster tittle-tattle that has no effect on the economy or you or I. A major set of investments does affect those things.

Fair enough mate 👍🏻 Just didn't read that way so was worried for you

As much as I dislike trump, you have to admit Starmar's played a blinder. The £150bn in investments announced overnight is in addition to the US-UK deal. Fantastic bit of diplomacy bringing so much investment into the UK.

Inflation is a mess partly due to ni costs but also a lot because food prices keep going up due to poor harvests, something happening more and more across the world now. You ain't changing that without taking prompt action against climate change.

Tbh I just buy into an S&P 500 ETF monthly usually. Go for safe and simple. Eee is an anomaly for me but I've only got a few hundred in that.

This sounds like horrific planning. Don't get me wrong, it could well work for you, but lumping your pension funds into one up and coming stock is like building your forever home on the edge of a cliff.

Ronnie Pickering?

What we really need is an honest debate involving economists, public sector experts, planners etc to truly discuss the pros and cons of immigration. Instead we get slogans and two sides that refuse any sort of conversation.

I'll do that

At no point did I argue health outcomes were worse with the number of patients being the same. You're creating a different scenario to suit what you want to say. So I'll withdraw from this conversation as it's not an honest one.

The NHS has treated more patients for the same money, so it's efficiency has improved. Meanwhile, other people haven't been able to access the NHS. That's not within the NHS system. If you don't think that's an efficiency improvement, it's your understanding that's awry.

You go from successfully treating 35,000 people to 50,000 in a year for the same cost. You are more efficient in what you've done. Meanwhile, because there's insufficient funding to keep up with demand, there's now 15,000 a year not being seen at all. So health outcomes overall are worse.

No, it simply means more activity for less input. Hence NHS efficiency improving as it's done more with less, but health outcomes have suffered. You either want a quality system or a cheap system.

I suppose if you think efficiency is more important that health outcomes

Doesn't this only takes into account state spending? It doesn't include insurance costs which people have to pay, so not really a fair comparison, as it isn't counting the full cost?

My understanding is that NHS efficiency improvements over the last decade have outstripped any other organisation. I think it's very easy for people to point at a large sum of money going in and to then say it's inefficient without any real analysis or reason for that belief

Again though, having insurance just brings inefficiencies into the system. Suddenly you're paying for the shareholders' bubbly. I'm never a fan of the fake removal of tax costs - that is to say, when a government tells you something costs taxpayers x amount so better to do it privately, there's never been anything that hasn't ended up costing more in this country. If you have to pay either way, taxation is more efficient.