Good to see the FT continuing to absolutely destroy their credibility:
The response from the Treasury’s information rights unit said details would be published respecting agreed timelines “to allow the relevant officials time to complete the preparation of the information to ensure it is accurate and correct prior to publication”.
[…]
A spokesperson added the Treasury intends to provide more details of the overspending, either at the Budget or in separate spending releases.
Not exactly sure how this can be considered a refusal…hmmmmm.
A full itemised breakdown is a different level of rigor than a “to the closest billion, what’s going on?” request made civil servants as part of an incoming government. Given the statements made by the OBR themselves the idea that 22bn is inaccurate or false is pure cope.
Also, the FT not actually linking to their FOI request means you cannot see exactly what they requested, and a high level of detail could well lead to other disclosure problems (eg if overspend occurs in front line military).
Good to see the FT continuing to absolutely destroy their credibility:
Not exactly sure how this can be considered a refusal…hmmmmm.
They’ve been spouting out this ‘£22b black hole’ line for weeks, but now they suddenly need time to make sure the figures are accurate?
A full itemised breakdown is a different level of rigor than a “to the closest billion, what’s going on?” request made civil servants as part of an incoming government. Given the statements made by the OBR themselves the idea that 22bn is inaccurate or false is pure cope.
Also, the FT not actually linking to their FOI request means you cannot see exactly what they requested, and a high level of detail could well lead to other disclosure problems (eg if overspend occurs in front line military).