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

[CoventryCity]

A continuation of Thread 1.

Strong words but is is how I feel at this point in time. All of them make me feel physically sick. Why? Well many reasons.. Here are just two.

Eg. They won't release sex crime statistics of immigrants / asylum seekers. Why? Other European countries have done, and it is not pretty. Our gvt gives out a leaflet asking them not to rape the locals. Why? Our gvt has said they won't house asylum seekers next to schools and nurseries, why?

Eg. UK now spends more on benefits than it earns in income tax. Labour have increased this - not reduced it. Astonishing. As they say - "Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?" That's Labour's Welfare Secretary. He's describing the priorities of Labour MPs.

In the last financial year, the UK government brought in £331 billion in income tax — and spent even more, £333 billion, on welfare, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility's latest economic and fiscal outlook (obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2026/#chapter-6).

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5580786-to-absolutely-hate-this-government-and-what-they-are-doing-to-our-country?page=40&reply=154902611&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Yes I wonder where the process is up to. It's been quiet for a while now. I suppose Labour have been working out which parts of the data they can redact, if they are forced to 'release' it.

In all this you’ve missed that the ICO rejected the objections and it can be masked as data and it’s not expensive.

Instead of accepting their decision Labour are appealing.

Really yes.

Did you see the person who burgled your house ? No, but I bet it was them asylum seekers from the next road.

And have you not heard of innocent till proven guilty ?

Best not to cloud the issue with facts, Eastern.

Read it again.

Let me quote myself. Quote " That was rejected by the ICO. But the ICO did see a potential issue with identifying people, so they said only larger data sets should be published."

Did you miss that bit ?

Ahh, but I see what is happening. I take the time to research and compose a post, I post links to where the data is, that another poster could not find.... and the reply is basically... you missed a bit out so that whole post is invalidated.

Yeah my fault. I should have done an even longer post to include EVERYTHING. And what then ? Would the reply have been " Can't trust any guv figures "?

The appeal stuff was in the news article I linked by the way. That is one of the reasons I linked it. For information.

Facts are good you know. That is why any claims I make, I try to post a link to show them to be true. As I done in my post above. If I do not have any data to back up any claims I might make, I tend not to post that claim.

But that's just me (and others of course). Ethics and all that.

Idk why but what you’re reading is missing what the ICO is proposing.

1. Data Masking and Suppression (Small Number Restrictions)

The primary method proposed in the migrant data dispute is cell suppression. 1]

• When data is highly granular (e.g., breaking down a specific rare crime by a specific rare nationality in a small local area), the resulting number in that table cell might be very low (e.g., 1 or 2).
• To prevent "singling out" an individual, the ICO mandates suppressing numbers below a specific threshold (often <5) and replacing them with an asterisk (*) or a generic indicator

I suspect you used AI for that but no matter. That info was in one of the links I posted, and I did mention it in my post.

Quote :"That was rejected by the ICO. But the ICO did see a potential issue with identifying people, so they said only larger data sets should be published"

That is one of the things I said in my post. Apologies I did not go into detail on that.

Obviously my posting skill falls short on so many levels.

Your posts are typical but you’ve missed what’s going on. The ICO rejected Labour’s claims.

The watchdog said any residual privacy risk could be handled by suppressing categories containing fewer than five convictions.

We’ll see if Labour lose and have to publish.

The pp is just trying the obfuscate your posts / the issue with verging on illiterate babble. Best ignored.

Radcliffe is the definition of biting the hand that feeds you. Every opportunity he got was thanks to the largesse of the UK, now he’s fucked off with his money to avoid repaying the country that gave him success.

😀

Genuinely not sure how relevant Sir Jim Ratcliffe is to a discussion about Labour, TBH. Weren’t Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak in charge of the economy when he went to Monaco as a so-called “tax exile”?

Whoever is in government, there will always be very wealthy individuals who choose to head to tax havens elsewhere and I don’t think any serious economists - on either the left or right - think we should be aiming for a tax system to rival that of those tax havens.

The problem is 4000 jobs are now at risk. It’s separate to where he lives, but it’s a big issue for the people who will lose jobs.

Of course he left. Again who wouldn't. If you're being taxed excessively who wouldn't.

His 2017-2018 tax bill was over £100million. He probably has repaid for all that it "costed multiple times over.

I'd go to Monaco if I could.

But from what I understand, there are no immediate redundancies planned. One way or another, as a society, we are going to have to transition away from a reliance on fossil fuels to domestic green energy. That will insulate UK manufacturing from volatile gas and oil markets in the long run. The government is already using taxpayer money to bridge the gap for these industries. Sir Jim Ratcliffe could choose to be part of the solution, rather than threatening closures. This feels like a politically motivated attack to me.

Fair enough, but that’s not about this government, or Labour - he left for Monaco under a Conservative government.

In general though, I do think our tax system is over reliant on a few very wealthy individuals. But that’s going to take structural reform to fix, and I don’t know which party has the political will to do it.

Do you mean you want to tax other people to make up the gap if they go? Who would be better taxed

The thing with tax is, you don't pay it on nothing.

He was the 5th highest taxpayer that year.

Full list of Britain’s 50 biggest taxpayers, including Sir James Dyson and the Beckhams – The i Paper (inews.co.uk)

Hi OP. Could you please clarify how the govt should go about acquiring the stats you crave? For instance -

1. Do you want data on sexual misconduct convictions by awaiting outcomes of asylum claims only?

2. Which specific countries would you like the govt to target for the purposes of this comparative data? Please list who you would like with who?

3. Or, if you mean immigrants more generally, please could you define what specifically is an 'immigrant?' Someone who has been here lining here 2 years, 10 years, 50 years? What about someone from one of your target ethnicities who was born here? Would they be classed as an immigrant or British citizen for the purposes of your statistics?

So many questions but let's just start with those 3.

For me, it’s less about who we tax - and more about how we tax. I think our tax system is messier than it needs to be - probably due to successive governments doing too much tinkering, without bigger, structural reforms. As a general principle, I believe in taxing wealth not work. I’d equalise CGT with income tax rates. I also do think council tax should be scrapped and replaced with a proportional property tax. And I do believe in a wealth tax, but on net wealth above around 10 million - rather than income tax - which, if done right, I think would mitigate the risk of wealth flight. How much - if any! - of this happens in the budget we’ll have to wait and see…

The data parameters will already be determined and outlined as part of the appeal.

What a nonsense scenario.

The "kid" earning £100 pw wouldn't pay a penny in income tax, because their annual earnings would be well below the £12,570 personal allowance. And even if they worked so many hours in the holidays that their earnings were above the threshold, they would only pay 20% on income above the threshold.

When I started work half a century ago, the basic tax rate was 38.75%, and that had fallen from 42.5% a few years earlier.

Those tax havens have chosen to have such a tax system because it is of benefit to them.

The Isle of Man isn't a major financial centre because of horse drawn trams. Tyson Fury hasn't moved there because he likes steam trains.

We're in a competitive global economy. If our economy continues going down the pan, and a potential "solution" is becoming a tax haven ourselves, we'd be insane to ignore the option.

Yes, income tax rates were high, but we had fewer indirect taxes and those we had were lower, i.e. VAT, alcohol, motoring, etc. NIC was also lower. People got income tax relief under MIRAS on their mortgage interest. There was a married man's tax allowance. You can't compare on one metric alone.