The EU debate - Part III

The whole world is in debt; governments, businesses, individuals. That's fine while the debt is cheap and serviceable and there are proper credit checks in place. Which it probably isn't, and there certainly aren't. So we're screwed, again. Heard of Ninja loans? (No Income No Job). They're back. Well, they never really went away.

 

I am firmly of the belief that we're dealing with entirely different levels of culpability and criminality here.

In my view, they simply cannot attract the same tariff. It makes zero sense to not differentiate between these vastly differing levels of criminality.

 

They have to add the caveat as the government won't/can't tell anyone what the plan is.

The OBR and other similar bodies are there to try and unpick what the future holds. It's the government that is misleading people.

What would you prefer? The Chancellor announces a budget and when asked what it will mean for the country and the people he just taps his nose and smiles?

 

Isn't that pretty much what Osbourne used to do?

 

Equally, I feel that deliberate murder is deliberate murder. The ultimate crime. Giving someone a slap for sleeping with your missus is one thing. Beating them to death with a baseball bat is quite another, in my opinion.

 

****ing lol, where have you shot my 'bullshit' to bits on this issue?

You deluded clown

 

Stan, the OBR haven't just got it wrong now, they have been consistently bad over the years (especially since Chote has been at the helm). This is quite surprising as Chote was handpicked for the role by Osbourne and it was always alleged that he only reported what Osbourne told him too.

 

I doubt Osborne or Hammond told him to report a £122bn black hole. Unless they're watering down the truth.

 

Blimey, hark at her getting all demanding.

It was in response to a quote from some other spud not long before my reply.

They said:

"If you were to ask the population whether Sarah's Law should be extended to the public as a whole, then it would probably pass.
That doesn't necessarily make it a good idea."

 

I was in a union years ago, I had no option on the union (GPMU) about giving Labour money.

 

In your quest to be a smart arse, I see you have completely missed the point about forecasting.

 

Not really.

 

Yes really !!!
If you read what I said, The OBR have been consistently bad at forecasting, which doesn't help any chancellor, whether it's optimistic or pessimistic forecasting.

 

I read it.

I don't think they'll be wrong by over £122billion. Not in a positive direction anyway.

 

Erm you did say "and it was always alleged that he only reported what Osbourne told him too" which isn't forecasting is it?

 

That's your opinion and I respect that. I will wait to see when and how Article 50 is triggered, which will then give us a clearer indication. As I think Archer said, it's all a bit of a phoney war at the moment.
I'm not sure how you can even forecast on a complete set of unknown's, let alone be in the same ballpark.

 

Erm...which was always denied, so it must of been forecasting?

 

It is in reply to custard, not PNP

I think this adequately shows that you are avoiding the answer. Have another go and answer the question "Why not in Tottenham

 

I agree to a point, they're pissing in the wind to a certain extent. However, they are commissioned by the Govt, so you'd have thought that there'd have been an indication from them as to what form of Brexit to base their numbers on.

As I said earlier a 1.4% increase in GDP at the worst level, is a bullish prediction in my view. If £122BN or to give it context - over 15 years worth of net contributions to the EU - is as bad as it actually gets, then we'll have got off lightly.

 

Best of luck getting an answer mate, many have tried and failed.

Prepare yourself for pages of tedious swerving and deflection, followed by him claiming victory. Enjoy!