Weez bang zippz
‘Does not compute’
‘Does not compute’…zeem zoom.
Sorry thats my lot now, I’m done with it…
No more, enough already…as they say
Have you checked the source for validity btw.
Did the presenter get caught shagging his secretary in 1998…or have a drink during covid?..best check.
What was I thinking before btw…
Labour unpopular?
The present Labour Party and it’s members are icons with the Brit public and it’s voters…
Give yersel a shek Rob man…
Hey these blinker things actually DO work ya know
@Franglais.
Best do some dirt digging on the new Tory leader for the future, … and especially for when they get back in to power again next time (gawd help us )
Look her up, but I’m sure you were up all night monitoring the results on your ‘swingometer’
Her name is Kemi Badenhoch seems a decent sort of lass on the face of it, capable, assertive,.seems to know her stuff.
Oh but hang on,.she’s a black girl…
Nothing at all wrong with that before you start your usual antics at me , good on the lass I say, beating all the mainly white middle class Eton/Harrow stuffy Tory up their own arse tosser types.
But a clever move ftom the Tories I reck, I aint saying she’s a victim of tokenism by any means, …but it is definitely going to compromise any type of criticism from the leftie contingent in Parliament, not to mention you and the likes of you on the outer fringes, …risking the label of racism…
You know how ridiculolousy shallow you lot are, looking for every opportunity to shout ‘Far Right’ and ‘Racist’ at the drop of a hat to stifle any debate or argument, when you know the other party are actually right, so you csn never win on conventional terms of argument…Jeez guys are actually in jail for it …except for the poor guy who shouted and waved a placard, but topped himself inside cos he could not hack it, being a normal family man as opposed to an actual criminal…eternal shame on Starmer gir that one btw.
Anyhoo I’ m sure your hatred of anybody right of Lenin (Vlad not John btw ) will help you to navigate your way through the metaphoric minefield of perceived racism , when the time comes, …When you retrieve the baton from me of TN Unofficial Govt critic…
The Crown should always be yours anyway , it is what you do best…and NOT in a complimentary way btw.
So my earlier post on The Office For Budget Responsibility (OBR) and their findings and concerns of potentially more cooking of the books ahead by this shower in government would have been a thorough and unbiased view. In this case it was reported by This Is Money, owned by… Mail Online…so as the messenger is The Mail, I guess one or two on here will totally disregard / rubbish it.
So has the OBR said that Reeves is using “smoke and mirrors”?
No, it hasn’t.
Did it say that Hunt had not given full disclosure earlier?
Yes, it did.
What did it make of Truss/Kwarteng budget when they submitted it before the announcements?
Nothing, they were not told of it.
No need for any spin at all in reporting phraseology such as “black holes” nor “smoke and mirrors”.
No need for editors deciding which bits to report on and which to ignore.
I think the clue is in the headline, “warns”, also my use of the word concerns is appropriate. So what does “minimise the potential illusion” mean exactly?
Yes it did! Yet Labour referred to it as a £9.5 billion “black hole” to add to Labour’s already massaged “black hole” figure yet it was “pressures on spending”, hardly the same.
And?
“Black hole” was Labour’s number 1 spin. “Minimise the potential illusion”???
Yes. The headline is from the article, not the OBR.
And yes, “black hole” was Labour spin, just as “smoke and mirrors” is spin from the other side.
Except that the Hunt undisclosed spending was/is a reality, and the “warning” is something that has has not happened.
Some might say “not happened yet” but again…spin.
Has Reeves hidden anything? No.
But we have articles loaded to suggest she will.
Editors do save us from a lot of heavy reading, true.
But never forget that most have their own agenda.
The OBR might well be independent and unbiased, as much as possible.
But reports of the OBR report are rarely so.
Yes “black hole” was/is a Labour term.
And “minimise the potential illusion”?
There were two things.
Hunt had covered up a gap between spending and income.
And
The Tories had committed to more spending but had allowed no funds to cover such.
The two combined to make the £20bn gap.
That some of the extra was predictable, such as promising to pay Sub-Post Masters etc, does not mean that Hunt was hiding the rest of it.
There was a bigger hole than could have reasonably be seen.
So franglais you seem to refer to the “other side” and “spin”, these worries, concerns, doubts, call them what you like are outlined by the OBR, not the “other side” be it The Mail or the Tories, though I’m fairly sure they both will agree with them.
“Pressures on departmental budgets” is exactly as it says, ie “pressures”. Strange the OBR did not criticise Hunt or other Tory ministers over this, no doubt because they were only ever seen as “pressures”.
Strange today that Reeves now admits that the raise in employer ni will directly impact on working people, (whoever they might be). So I would say she did hide something.
Yes there was “a bigger hole” because Labour massaged the figures, the This Is Money article spells out that the OBR will be scrutinising Reeves going forwards.
The use of words in the article implies words spoken by the (OBR), words such as “fiscal illusion”, “exploit”, “minimise the potential illusion” amongst others, this from an independent fiscal watchdog.
@Franglais…
I know we’ve moved on a bit (and I know incidentally whenever I have got under your skin, you make it obvious when you totally ignore further posts addressed to you )…
But in your rush to characteristically rubbish the news source about Labours lack of popularity by it’s subsequent voters,…you failed to notice that a couple of those news excerpts were taken from your OWN self professed favourite news source, Reuters…, ‘sub contracted’ if you will.
So is it still total untrue b/s or what?
Or are you still seething and ignoring me?
(Disclaimer before you start the inevitable btw …no aint leaving left out, or weeping at not being ‘centre of attention’…nor clutching my pearls.)
I’m beginning to like this lass already.
She’s basically saying kick these pathetic hand wringing lefty types out of the job, it aint a charity organisation, …and get people in who are not afraid to do it…preferably no nonsence, no mamby pamby no b/s hard liners.
When do I start?
Did the OBR say “smoke and mirrors” ?
No, it did not.
Therefore it is interpretation.
The article could have chosen to say that “Reeves was making things clearer” (Highly unlikely agreed )
They chose not to.
“Smoke and mirrors” suggests illusions and trickery.
It is loaded language…it is spin.
Oh my oh my, so as pointed out in an earlier post, (which you chose to ignore!) the article used the EXACT words which the OBR used, amongst others, “minimise the potential illusion” and “fiscal illusion”, The Mail chose “smoke and mirrors”, what’s your problem? So the words by the OBR meant what exactly?
So in franglais’s world and in the context of what was said by the OBR, how can you pretend that “smoke and mirrors” is interpretation and spin given what the OBR voiced? You state that those words suggest “illusions”, strange that given that is the exact word the OBR uses.
And having searched the OBR site I can see no mention of “illusion” nor “illusions” recently.
I cannot see those words in the Oct 2024 report.
I could easily be wrong, and will accept correction, if you show me where it is mentioned.
You must know where it is, after all you have assured me that is a FACT.
)
) will help you to navigate your way through the metaphoric minefield of perceived racism , when the time comes, …When you retrieve the baton from me of TN Unofficial Govt critic…
)