5 dma has crossed the 10 dma and we closed on a nice bullish white candle . I am looking for confirmation tomorrow , if we close on another white candle it's game on chaps .
The Macd bars are narrowing and the charts have unwound nicely with the rsi on 45.13 . Momentum is building in the background and I'm expecting that all the traders will pile back in tomorrow on confirmation of uptrend continuation .
I'm pretty sure we are over the worst of it now , I said 0.25p was the bottom so I was only half pip out IMHO .
My apologies, actually credit where credit's due you do have a point with that particular excerpt, well spotted. Still no need to post the same link again though :-P
I wonder then what they mean by "procurement" system i.e. how may of VS modules will they use. If we are to ever get an actual NHS signed contract, its rather frustrating to know it will be almost 2 years away at the least.
Unless I'm missing something, all you've done there is copy and paste someone else's comment and re-posted the link you posted earlier. Why did you not post the other comment as well (posted below for completeness)? It agrees that the NHS has a big problem with change, hopefully one that we can overcome, but still a big problem.
"This is a serious challenge. There is some uniquely British behaviour in NHS procurement which isn’t tolerated in more productive economies. As an experienced supplier to the NHS (and chair of Architects for Health) I see more barriers emerging to providing services effectively - rather than less. There are hundreds of “frameworks” all touting the virtues of e-procurement and merit of managing EU procurement rules. To be selected, a supplier may have to provide 60,000 words tailored to ill defined generic criteria. Added to this a set of inappropriate, often irrelevant and costly “accreditations” are required with unmoderated expectations of insurance and warranty. Any supplier that participates in these will recognise the “cut and paste” with barriers being raised over time. Why wouldn’t a framework expect the highest levels of “quality assurance” and financial robustness? From my perspective, the effect is often to favour the larger corporate generalist over the SME supplier with relevant specialist skills. The poor grasp of detail is often compounded by inappropriate commercial criteria. Rates are poorly defined and in many cases “lowest cost” calculations are simply incorrect. There is little point in legal challenge, get on with the next bid and hope for better results. The perspective from the supplier procurement frameworks introduce inefficiency, are poorly targeted, cost by charging for spurious "management services", carry no liability and undermine productivity by adding procedural overheads. Obviously there are persuasive benefits to the NHS now depleted of procurement experience in the simplicity a single “amazon” style portal. However unless there is a significant shift in procurement performance metrics from front end cost to outcome benefit this will be missing the objective of the Carter review."
This research initiative is clearly seeking to inculcate the right purchasing behaviours at the front line of NHS hospitals by exploiting proven, modern, e-commerce technology and techniques. It is aimed at determining and testing the simple, yet highly effective 'nudge' techniques that have been deployed so often and so efficiently by the many of world’s leading online portals, marketplaces and websites. I believe that the Guy's and St Thomas 'Amazon-style' purchasing portal, if it became NHS-wide, would actually help break down barriers for thousands of innovators and SMEs - just as Amazon has in the consumer world. Amazon now manages over 500m products through its channel, yet it is one of the most efficient organisations in the world. The NHS manages less than 1% of Amazon's product range, yet it is one of the most inefficient organisations for the way in which products are purchased and supplied. This is a desperately needed academic-led initiative. As a senior procurement practitioner in the NHS, it is very much welcomed and must be embraced. Christopher Shaw’s comment attempts to deal with a number of issues related to public sector procurement and practice (in the NHS). Primarily, it concerns the regulations, as defined by Brussels, that are subsequently translated into legislation and practice across England by Whitehall officials who ceased to be practitioners many years ago. Regardless, these regulations, as defined, must be applied by procurement professionals across the NHS, otherwise they transgress the prevailing law. Christopher’s comment touches on his experience of the poor procurement practice which seems to pervade the NHS, particularly the repetition and duplication. The cumulative effect of irrelevant regulation/legislation and poor practice is being felt by NHS suppliers, especially SMEs. As he suggests, they encourage the consideration of a legal challenge, or defeatism and disillusionment. From what I can observe here - on the Health Foundation website – the project is not attempting to address the current failings of the EU procurement regulations, nor resolve any perceived gaps in capability and process that may exist today across the NHS procurement landscape. But it is a significant step in the right direction to modernising the approach of procurement and to reduce waste and improve efficiency.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.