egg

I want them both to lose.

Yep. The guards that the tube manages without. Jobs for the boys.

Bamboo

It is, but I think there's a case for more countries to be involved, although the 3 teams per group is a daft idea. The new club world cup is a strange one and not sure how that can work alongside the champions league, domestic leagues, and international football. I don't think it'll be long before the big boys all feck off and do their own thing 🤞🙏🤞

Master Bates mentioned Barca but I've not anything else about that or anything else apart from the Bristol City run out. You'd like to think that we've been getting some other proper match action in before the restart.

Sexual

Mental, but to be fair, there probably is about 85 different genders (and sexualities) these days.

Can he be recalled?

Yep, there's been some interesting results this year and hopefully a round of 32 next time throw up some surprises. Putting the politics etc to one side, it's been a decent world cup.

That's preferable to the 3 idea though, and some 3rd place teams having a chance of going through keeps them honest.

There's different options for sure. My thoughts on 4 to go through from groups of 6 is that more teams have more to play for, less prospect of collusion (ie the FIFA proposal - apologies for misunderstanding yours) and more minnows have a chance of making it through. Different perspectives I think.

No anger here mate, I just think you're a bit of a patronising twat and don't mind pointing it out these days. That's the only change in me.

He didn't say that. He said: "The health secretary has always been clear that his door is always open for talks - we want to be reasonable, we want to be constructive". Crystal clear. He also said that he felt the offer was fair. The governments position is more realistic than the union. I wouldn't negotiate with the union whilst they're mentioning 19% - it's not a credible or sensible starting point. They need to drop, then get around the table.

Of course there is, but they've approached it with a ridiculous starting position. In the government's shoes I'd be asking them to revise their position to something vaguely sensible, then sit down. Starting at 19% is madness.

If they came to the table with a more realistic position than 19%, that'd be a start, but anything the nurses get would likely be expected by other NHS employees, then other public service workers. It needs resolving, but conceding something big here will set the tone for other discussions. Ultimately, more money has to be found, and as Duckie says, nobody on all honesty wants to pay for it.

I think that's part of it for sure. There is a number shortage too, a brexit hangover. We need a solution for sure, but unbudgeted pay hikes will have consequences elsewhere. The biggest fear is a cut in staff numbers or elsewhere in the NHS to pay for it.

Where do your source your information that we have a budget surplus for £10bn pay hikes? Then the inevitable hikes that other public sector employees would expect after they see nurses get it? A seemingly self proclaimed clever cunt like you must surely understand the inflationary pressures that would follow that, and the vicious circle that would follow? Or are you actually just a thick cunt/irritating keyboard warrior with no actual understanding of basics?

Amen. This is a shit discussion cos people like Whelk say give them cash, then waffle on about Putin and newspapers when asked where the cash is supposed to come from. I'd have a more rational conversation with my granddaughter. And she's 5.

I don't read papers mate. Judgemental prick.

Yep, and we then have people saying give the nurses a big pay rise, without any clue where the cash will come from, but without any genuine willingness to pay for that through their taxes.

I'd go the other way and have 8 groups of 6, the top 4 going through, then a round of 32. Have a quick turnaround of games. Groups of 3 would be rubbish imo, and I don't like the idea of 2 of teams from those group playing each other twice at the group stage.

In reverse order, primarily borrowing. You know that. The level of our borrowing is through the roof, and costs us a fortune. You also know that. Where's the gap between our tax revenue and spending to fund Billions on pay rises? Or are you advocating yet more borrowing?

What a daft answer! "Give the nurses cash" is too easy to say, but don't waffle on about Putin when asked where the money is gonna come from!

Being realistic means accepting that our economy is in a mess and that there's no money sitting around for these pay rises. It's gotta come from cuts or tax rises - look what happened when Kwarteng tried to magic money. The NHS needs reform for sure, but that's a separate issue. Regardless - how do we pay for reform, and big pay rises without slashing from elsewhere and/or raising taxes? Nobody has used the word greed apart from you - I've simply said the nurses should get more money, but that they need to be paid for somehow. If you're supporting big pay rises, how do you say they're paid for?

Doesn't surprise me. Then it'll be police, firemen, etc. People have got to be realistic.