To absolutely hate this government, and what they are doing to our country? PART 2

And it's hard to evade!

The trouble is that what is causing the “bloating” in the “state” is private companies absolutely robbing the public purse blind to provide worse services than in-house public services ever did, from private landlords to transport to the mail service and riddling education and the NHS. And that is not the sort of “bloating” that is ever targeted, somehow. Somehow all that ever happens is that frontline staff actually providing the services are cut, even as demand grows.

Ed - and of course the same is true in water and in the energy dear Jim is complaining about.

No mention of the high court on this thread. It’s been clear it’s a tribunal case.

How Information Rights Appeals Work
When a government department like the MoJ appeals an ICO decision, the tribunal follows a strict legal review process: 1, 2]

• Independent Panel: The case is overseen by a legally qualified Tribunal Judge, often accompanied by two independent, non-legal tribunal panel members who specialize in data protection and information law. 1, 2]

As a matter of interest, is this actually a court case ? Because you keep saying it is, or suggesting it, without any links.

What I can find is this

"However, rather than accept this ruling, on 17th July, the Labour government launched an appeal at the First-tier Tribunal hoping to overturn this ruling and to prevent the publication of the data.
The government has requested a 28-day extension for it to produce a case against the ICO’s ruling. At this point, the decision will then go to the General Regulatory Council."

No mention of any court there. Is this not just taking it up a rung in the ICO system ?

Source.

Labour government launches legal bid to block publication of migrant crime statistics (migrationcentral.co.uk)

This by the way, is why I think claims should have some sort of evidence to back them up.

If I am wrong, then please do correct me. You know, if it is going to the High court or whatever and the guv has engaged an expensive law firm and all that.

I think if the ICO do win then the privacy and cost reasons are as they have said. Not an issue.

It’ll be very low cost and data masked.

Fair enough - I guess we'll see what the tribunal decides. Personally though, I do have sympathy with both the privacy and the cost arguments - I'm not quite sure how we benefit from these statistics being in the public domain, when a pretty wide range of statistics regarding foreign national offenders are already published. And I do have a real fear of misguided vigilante behaviour, when this debate is already so toxic and heated.

(Although I guess, having said that, I can see how transparency might at least quell some of the more dangerous rumors, and conspiracy theories, so, maybe I'm a fence-sitter on this one).

Not as clear cut as that though. Because I would argue that for defense etc, those with most to lose should pay more of the share to defend it.

Ratcliffe for example. The UK must spend a fair bit defending, or being ready to defend his assets. Worldwide. I can't see Monaco sending warships to defend his pipelines.

Then consider the shop chain owners on the rich list. Their business depends on roads. Should they not pay more towards them?

And even benefits. Because in many ways, that is also a corporate welfare. Because when a company will not pay a living wage, or offer enough hours, it is the social safety net that picks up the tab.

And if we go back a bit to the post war time, when the massive council estates were going up, part of that was to house workers for industry. And is that really different to social housing builds today ? Because it is government subsidizing industry. By helping to house the workers.

If welfare is cut, then what is effectively subsidies for private enterprise, is gone. The companies will need to fill the gap. And that will effect how competitive many are in the world market.

No it’s not a party who said Labour’s objections weren’t enough it was the ICO.

Have a read on the process, it’s now at tribunal.

You’ve missed the stages of what’s happened.

Btw you might be following what Reform have said, but I mean the ICO.

I do think we have to be a bit careful of reading conspiracies and cover-ups into everything. I understand why Reform are pushing that line, but given the escalating violence at some of these small boats 'protests' I think being mindful of not fuelling vigilantism is fair enough - and the MoJs argument that cross-referencing detailed crime types, years, and specific nationalities creates a high risk of identifying (and mis-identifting individuals) seems sound to me. Also, from what I understand, the MoJ fairly routinely appeals Freedom of Information requests if the costs of pulling data exceeds £600.

I think it’s about seeing what has been asked for, and wondering why Labour would need to squash it.

Maybe not but they're still "taking" a lot less than the shirkers if they're working, compared to those who aren't working, and it's not just tax revenue, it's actually doing work that needs doing to make the country a better place for everyone, keeping the economy moving etc.

I remember Restore published their rules for citizenship. And The King did not make the cut. Foreigner dad. Or was it Reform that said that ?

"Rupert Lowe, the leader of Restore Britain, has cited a report by Reform candidate Matt Goodwin, that to be a “white Briton”, both of your parents must be UK-born.
Nick Robinson on the BBC said to Mr Lowe: “Are you aware that, by the definitions used in that particular report, King Charles is not a white Briton?"
Restore has not clarified any further over whether the definition is the one that it holds as a party."

Source -

What is Restore's definition of a white Briton? Rupert Lowe does not say if King Charles meets standard | LBC

Not as many people are 'net contributors' as they think. Do correct me if this is not the exact figure (I'm sure someone will), but is it not the case that a family of 4, with 2 kids in state schools, needs to be earning £85,000 before they even begin to be a net contributor? And a single person, no kids, would need to be on at least £45,000 or thereabouts? I find a lot of people shouting loudest about migrants and those on benefits don't realise they aren't even net contributors themselves!

It's not just this government though, is it? The country has been in decline since WW2 and it has accelerated since the 2008 financial crisis.
No government has reversed the direction of travel due to short term ism. Any periods of growth were built on shaky foundations.

But I don't think that analogy is quite right either, because it's such an over-simplification of what welfare spending actually encompasses. I guess for me, it's more like: two kids are both asked to clean their rooms but only one of them does it. One of the kids finds it much, much harder to clean their room than the other: maybe they have a chronic illness that makes it impossible for them to do it. The kid who did clean their room gets £7. The one that didn't gets £1, to buy some posters and paper over the cracks. The other £2 gets invested into cleaning products that can get used by either of them next time (that represents the savings to the tax payer by investing in a safety net for people who need it, rather than having to spend more on the NHS/ social care etc in the long run). One kid might still be vexed at only getting £7 - but in my opinion, they'd be wrong to be.

I dint think OP is going to answer the question in relation to the stats she is desperate for - ie.who would be classed as a citizen (for the purposes of the control group) and who would be classed as 'immigrant?'

Fair point - and I think a lack of enthusiasm for any single political party, and a lack of engagement in politics more generally is one of the big challenges our country is facing. But I don't think the low turnout changes the fact that, of those who did come out to vote, their preference was for parties who promised to protect and invest in public services, over parties who stood on small state - low-spend platforms.

The majority of the electorate didn't vote in the last election.

I don't think that was meant to be taken literally! Another analogy is two kids - both asked to clean their rooms but only one of them does it. The one that did it gets £7. The one that didn't gets £3. Kid that did what was asked is vexed as they don't see why they don't get to keep all of the money when the other kid did nothing.

I think you can add the SNP to that too. Very pro public services. No idea about Wales and NI sorry. Me being Scottish.

I mean, no single UK party has won an absolute majority of the popular vote since the 1930s. By the rules of our democracy, Labour and Keir Starmer did win the election. But, you’re right - as landslides go, it was a loveless one - and so I guess it’s also fair to say that the Conservatives lost it.

Whichever way you look at it, all I’m saying is I don’t think the 2024 election results demonstrate an enormous appetite for cutting CGT at the expense of funding public services. Especially as when you look at the election results as a whole, left-of-centre public-service-focused parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Greens) collectively commanded a pretty clear majority of the popular vote over parties pushing for low-tax, low-spend mandates.

The "majority" didn't vote for Starmer/Labour. His party got the highest number of MPs, but with a very similar vote share to 2019 when Corbyn lost to a Boris landslide. Starmer didn't "win" the GE, the Tories lost it due to the unpopularity of Sunak and the rise of Reform.

But it's still a case where it was a lot lower decades ago to offset when people complain about how high income tax was at the same time. The point being that there's been a shift over the decades from direct taxes like income tax over to indirect taxes like VAT. Over the same period, the tax burden has gone up. Yet we still get people on here arguing that taxes were higher "back in the day". Some were higher, yes, but some were lower or didn't even exist.

I personally don't believe in cuts to frontline public services in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy, but if Kemi Badenboch wants to make the case for a smaller state and cuts to CGT, and is able to win an election on that premise, then fair play to her: that's democracy. That is not what the majority of the electorate voted for in the last election though.

It’s a good way of raising tax. If you have more money you spend it on things that include VAT. Basic foodstuffs are VAT free, luxury cars and handbags have VAT added. It’s a tax on non-essential spending.