As I sat listening to the aspirational measures contained in the Queen’s Speech yesterday, the only measure that appeared to be missing was a Bill to abolish sin. Perhaps that will come later.
Was that before or after the (un-costed) bill to allow kittens as many free balls of thread to play with as they like?
Still I’m looking forward the fiscal responsibility bill. Will the ‘justices of the supreme flower collection’ (no Royal Arms for their court) be holding parliament in contempt of court if it fails to pass a budget the de-wigged ones deem sufficiently balanced
🙄
lordnorton
21/11/2009 at 11:13 am
Croft: Your second paragraph is very pertinent. The measure may create a nightmare in legal terms.
Carl Holbrough
19/11/2009 at 6:01 pm
Lord Norton, I ask you to represent me in not abolishing sin. Sinners are frequently disciminated against but bring much culture to our modern society. Without sin confessionals would be empty and we would see a sharp decline in Churches specifically the Roman Catholic Church.
This act would see unemployment soar as Priests, Vicars, Rabbi`s,Imman`s etc became redundant. We would also see a loss to the NHS as sleep disorder clinics closed and in the same vein our politicians would have difficulty staying awake with their new clean clear consciences.
Also take into account numerous Government branches for fraud, tax evasion and even our Police Force. Indeed Government itself may find itself in dire straits as legislation required would be far less.
No my Lord abolishing sin is no good to the economy, is discriminatory and against the indigineous British peoples way of life, I`m sure the – honourable – Nick Griffin would join me in this call.
😉
Why abolish sin? As Carl Holbrough suggests above, surely it would be far more lucrative to regulate and tax it properly, instead of all the ineffective and outdated sin taxes put in place by previous Governments. And it would certainly help the trade figures — just think of all the revenue that could be brought in and jobs in marginal constituencies that could be created through a consistent and dedicated drive to export good British sin!
*insert further rants against the Euro-sin and sin offshoring as appropriate*
Croft
20/11/2009 at 10:58 am
“*insert further rants against the Euro-sin and sin offshoring as appropriate*”
Just wait for the Harmonisation of Sin Directive. Surely we’ll need a sin subsidy and a sin mountain
Carl Holbrough
19/11/2009 at 9:06 pm
Dear Inland Revenue,
Please find enclosed accounts of my spelling, unfortunately a bad year again. I find I have misplaced my apostrophes, so am unable to supply as they`re all over the place.
My syn tax will be late as my gramma has gone into Labour but only Conservatively.
Please find enclosed my expenses this year which includes my new moat, duck house, gardener, cleaning bills, cable tv (including xxx channels) and a bottle of Shackletons Mackinlay and Co Whisky.
Talking of missing Bills where can I find them? The one I’m looking for in particular is Lord Mandleson’s Digital Economy bill (home of the “3 strikes” legislation). I want to give the actual bill a read before commenting.
Following Croft, I volunteer to Chair subcommittee B2 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of European Union, on The Sin Abolition Implementation Directive but only if I can go on Eurostar first class.
lordnorton
21/11/2009 at 11:16 am
baronessmurphy: but is travelling First Class going to fall foul of the directive?
Croft
23/11/2009 at 11:37 am
The trick is to look miserable – it’s only sin if you’re enjoying it!
😀
lordnorton
21/11/2009 at 11:16 am
Carl Holbrough, tobedwithatrollope, and Croft: You clearly demonstrate the need for detailed parliamentary scrutiny. What may seem like a good idea may not prove that attractive once subjected to incisive scrutiny. Indeed, Carl Holbrough may have identified a Catch 22 position: would it not be sinful to put so many people (priests etc) out of their jobs?
Gareth Howell
21/11/2009 at 1:21 pm
Emoticon with loud laughter!
Carl Holbrough
21/11/2009 at 5:04 pm
@Alex Benee
I too have keen interest in this bill. I do hope the politicians take sound technical advice on this one, there are so many ways innocents could be hurt by it. There is also the privacy side of it.
As a small IT company (self employed),I know the bill will result in disconnection of 90% of machine owners I see. This will be directly as a result of third party useage eg., childrens use of internet and parents not being technical enough to know what the machines are being used for. Hard line copyright infringers will never be caught due to use of proxies etc.
The technical ability of ISP`s to monitor IP`s (users) and what they are downloading is doubtful. It is also tantamount to someone listening to phone conversations to check for illegal content.
I will post more when it arises but I ask my Lords to do some homework on this beforehand if they would be so kind.
howridiculous
22/11/2009 at 12:47 am
And was it just Sod’s Law that the Gracious Speech did not also include the Abolition of Sod’s Law Bill?
Howridiculous.
lordnorton
22/11/2009 at 6:03 pm
howridiculous: I did say that the first Private Member’s Bill I would introduce would be a Bill to repeal Sod’s Law, but you have identified the reason why it would not get anywhere.
Ivor Hughes
22/11/2009 at 12:19 pm
Just been skimming through Tudor Constitutional Documents (J.R.Tanner)how nice to see some change and maybe a wee dram of hope for us all in an approaching State Nightmare.
England Expects and all that.
Senex
22/11/2009 at 3:33 pm
Its Sunday, is it time for a political sermon?
The prospect of a financial crisis looms and it hangs heavily upon everyone, depressing and baleful.
When I was a child, at a time of ‘famine’, I attended Sunday school were the lessons of Genesis and the ordeal under Pharaoh were indelibly imprinted. I was left secure in the knowledge that no one except deceivers could ever proclaim that they had ended boom and bust. These lessons if nothing else represented a timeless wisdom.
Our problems arise from an overly long period of ‘prosperity’ where such wisdom was doubted or rejected and from a time when politicians have only been good eggs. However, ‘all the King’s horses and all the King’s men could not put Humpty Dumpty together again’.
My view is that the HoL should once again be allowed to give scrutiny to Commons budgets because to be elected to the Commons, parties must bribe the public and somebody has to say no. Bribery has moved on from a couple of pence off a pint or a packet of packet of cigs to much more ambitious enticements and the public love it.
Failing this, we must look to the example set by the Scottish Parliament and how they manage Budgets. No Budget can be passed until all parties have agreed the budget. What right has a Commons government to assume that they know best when it comes to setting budgets. It is simply arrogance and lustful power, a sin.
As for sin itself the Treasury taxes it mercilessly. However, when you go to a supermarket and look at the shelf price you cannot determine whether it is sinful or not because sin attracts a VAT charge and it is not marked on the price tag.
Only when you get the till roll do you know just how sinful you have been. Of course the Treasury calls it a tax on luxuries. When you wipe your bum with that fluffy toilet paper the Treasury has already taxed it. Yes! You’re paying tax when you wipe your arse. So the government promotes sin and wants to hide the fact from you at the point of purchase.
Of course if your attitude is well I have to pay the tax anyway and what can I do about it? Then do nothing, just as you are doing now, it helps finance the bribery and just prolongs your disillusionment with the political process and your ability to change it.
Ivor Hughes
22/11/2009 at 6:39 pm
This missing Bill Thingy .. I must remind one and all that the Bill is never missing when it comes time to smashing the feckless peasantry around a little .. just so they remember their position in the order of things.
The Tudor Constitutional Documents were just another load of old piffle,coercion and bribery. I am dissapointed I was expecting to see some high Statecraft.
Where does all the whiffle come from? If we exclude the Industrialists bribing power with filthy lucre in exchange for coronets then that should narrow the field somewhat.
Perhaps the missing Bill may finally be solved by sending a few sections of the Armed Offenders Squad to clear the whiffle of piffle. Or perhaps I am being whimsical that there could possibly be any real change of heart in such an entrenched power structure.
So hows about getting the Bill off the Street and putting them where they could do some good instead of splashing blood and bodies all over the Kings Realm.
Carl Holbrough
23/11/2009 at 11:07 am
@ Senex you`re wrong on a number of points.
In supermarkets the prices on the shelves are what you pay, the VAT on the few items that are taxable, is already added. This is because tax laws on food is complex. Unless of course you are saying that the products that DO attract VAT is not shown then you are correct but the price shown is what you pay.
I agree with the bribery idea but it is our concept of democracy, and there has been no better way shown as yet.I do not believe there is an ideal in style of Government. A dictatorship is possibly the best concept provided of course you had the ideal dictator but that isn`t going to happen ever. Government is akin to parenting and those of us who are parents know that we`re not always the most popular people with our children….even if it is for their own good.
What we do not have at the moment is complete transparency of Government and taxation. We do not know until the media breaks a story where our money is being mispent. I also feel at times that some things are deliberately complex.
Scrutinising a budget by a third higher authority would be wrong. Someone has to make a decision, at present we let the Government take the fiscal decisions, unfortunately when they get it wrong, as Banks recently have, they are not sacked or having their bonuses removed. How strange this world of hypocrisy seems at times.
Great powers come and go as they have for millennia and will continue to do so.As fortunes of a Nation dwindle so power passes from the rich to the strong, it`s the law of the nature.
Look around you, at present we are living in a good time. You have more than at any other. The system is not ideal nor ever will be to all but it works, precariously balanced on a knife edge. I`m not saying the system is right, it`s wrong, very wrong imho but it`s all we`ve got. We do urgently need more clarity to know the Politicians are not there just for their own benefit.
Things are not fair even in the HoL, look at the “Cranbourne Money” does that seem fair or is bribery ? We know the Lords do not recieve a salary but do get daily allowances for being in the House of £86.50 which seems quite meagre but is that all ?
We also know politicians are tied, often too close, to businesses. That what they earn in politics can easily be outstripped by having an outside interest that may sway their political motives.
No the system is not fair and you and I pay for it. What we need is not a new system but complete transparency, freedom of information and a far less complex system. Let`s start by getting rid of hidden taxes and start taxing at source, which won`t happen. Why ? Because the rich have bigger bank balances and shout louder than the poor. The poor supply the cannon fodder, the rich get the oil and deals. Law of the jungle my friend.
Senex
29/11/2009 at 6:06 pm
Carl Holbrough: “Unless of course you are saying that the products that DO attract VAT is not shown then you are correct but the price shown is what you pay.”
Goods in a supermarket represent a dichotomy of taxation. Goods are zero rated when they are regarded as essential and attract VAT when they are regarded as a luxury. On the till printout there is no requirement to give a VAT total even if the Supermarkets VAT number is present. Items that attract VAT are marked.
My point is entirely political in that taxpayers have a right to know what tax they have paid as a total on any given receipt and a chance to avoid paying tax by looking at markings on a price tag, e.g. a simple ‘Z’ indicating zero rating, no ‘Z’ no purchase.
“but it is our concept of democracy, and there has been no better way shown as yet.”
Well not quite. Take the recent Glasgow bye-election. It returned an MP to the Commons on a 30% turnout. One can argue that all that voted were involved with the democratic process even if their candidate did not win. However, what of the 70% that did not participate in democracy, who represents them?
In a republic it would be nobody, they would be cut adrift but not in our Monarchical system. Before the Life Peerage Act 1958 the HoL was elected but not by popular vote. Its role as an independent second chamber was to protect everybody from the Monarchy or government when required. If this first line of defence ever failed then the defence of last resort would be the Monarchy itself on the basis that it was not oppressing at the time.
So under our system everybody whether they participate or not, in democracy, have representation in Parliament. In 1911 in a fit of political pique the Monarchy and the Commons acted in concert to disable many of the protections that the HoL once afforded, all the eggs being placed in one basket, democracy.
My view is that if democracy fails, its burden should be taken up in part by the HoL. The HoL would be an ‘equal’ partner to the Commons acting to strengthen democracy by resisting its principal failings, bribery and disinterest. On this basis, is there a case for strengthening the HoL in real terms?
Senex
30/11/2009 at 2:19 pm
Carl: By way of a postscript let me explain my motivation for ‘Z’ marking of price tags. Parents have very little quality time and certainly no time to be sluicing cotton nappies for young children. Instead they buy flocculent based nappies, which attract VAT. Mums would argue they are essential and should not be taxed.
However, the EC is divided on this. Flocculent nappies are a major source of landfill so they are not eco friendly. This in itself would be an argument for taxing them. However, things are changing and at least one international company is attempting to recycle them in the UK.
There is also anecdotal evidence that food-attracting VAT also causes obesity in children so again its important for mums to know when they are buying potentially ‘unhealthy’ food.
Gareth Howell
23/11/2009 at 12:47 pm
<>
Is sin being compared with butter here some how, or with agricultural subsidy in general?
Abolishing sin is surely not a new idea for enactment in such a place, indeed so reactionary, it was forgotten about 300 years ago?
Perhaps “sin” has been defined much more narrowly since the beginning of the 19thC, or Jonh Major’s ‘family values’ campaign.
lordnorton
30/11/2009 at 9:21 pm
Gareth Howell: Good point. There would clearly need to be a definition clause.
As I sat listening to the aspirational measures contained in the Queen’s Speech yesterday, the only measure that appeared to be missing was a Bill to abolish sin. Perhaps that will come later.
Was that before or after the (un-costed) bill to allow kittens as many free balls of thread to play with as they like?
Still I’m looking forward the fiscal responsibility bill. Will the ‘justices of the supreme flower collection’ (no Royal Arms for their court) be holding parliament in contempt of court if it fails to pass a budget the de-wigged ones deem sufficiently balanced
🙄
Croft: Your second paragraph is very pertinent. The measure may create a nightmare in legal terms.
Lord Norton, I ask you to represent me in not abolishing sin. Sinners are frequently disciminated against but bring much culture to our modern society. Without sin confessionals would be empty and we would see a sharp decline in Churches specifically the Roman Catholic Church.
This act would see unemployment soar as Priests, Vicars, Rabbi`s,Imman`s etc became redundant. We would also see a loss to the NHS as sleep disorder clinics closed and in the same vein our politicians would have difficulty staying awake with their new clean clear consciences.
Also take into account numerous Government branches for fraud, tax evasion and even our Police Force. Indeed Government itself may find itself in dire straits as legislation required would be far less.
No my Lord abolishing sin is no good to the economy, is discriminatory and against the indigineous British peoples way of life, I`m sure the – honourable – Nick Griffin would join me in this call.
😉
Why abolish sin? As Carl Holbrough suggests above, surely it would be far more lucrative to regulate and tax it properly, instead of all the ineffective and outdated sin taxes put in place by previous Governments. And it would certainly help the trade figures — just think of all the revenue that could be brought in and jobs in marginal constituencies that could be created through a consistent and dedicated drive to export good British sin!
*insert further rants against the Euro-sin and sin offshoring as appropriate*
“*insert further rants against the Euro-sin and sin offshoring as appropriate*”
Just wait for the Harmonisation of Sin Directive. Surely we’ll need a sin subsidy and a sin mountain
Dear Inland Revenue,
Please find enclosed accounts of my spelling, unfortunately a bad year again. I find I have misplaced my apostrophes, so am unable to supply as they`re all over the place.
My syn tax will be late as my gramma has gone into Labour but only Conservatively.
Please find enclosed my expenses this year which includes my new moat, duck house, gardener, cleaning bills, cable tv (including xxx channels) and a bottle of Shackletons Mackinlay and Co Whisky.
Yours
Lord Darcy
Talking of missing Bills where can I find them? The one I’m looking for in particular is Lord Mandleson’s Digital Economy bill (home of the “3 strikes” legislation). I want to give the actual bill a read before commenting.
Alex Bennee: The Bill had its formal First Reading in the Lords on Thursday, so its publication is imminent. See:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html
Following Croft, I volunteer to Chair subcommittee B2 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of European Union, on The Sin Abolition Implementation Directive but only if I can go on Eurostar first class.
baronessmurphy: but is travelling First Class going to fall foul of the directive?
The trick is to look miserable – it’s only sin if you’re enjoying it!
😀
Carl Holbrough, tobedwithatrollope, and Croft: You clearly demonstrate the need for detailed parliamentary scrutiny. What may seem like a good idea may not prove that attractive once subjected to incisive scrutiny. Indeed, Carl Holbrough may have identified a Catch 22 position: would it not be sinful to put so many people (priests etc) out of their jobs?
Emoticon with loud laughter!
@Alex Benee
I too have keen interest in this bill. I do hope the politicians take sound technical advice on this one, there are so many ways innocents could be hurt by it. There is also the privacy side of it.
As a small IT company (self employed),I know the bill will result in disconnection of 90% of machine owners I see. This will be directly as a result of third party useage eg., childrens use of internet and parents not being technical enough to know what the machines are being used for. Hard line copyright infringers will never be caught due to use of proxies etc.
The technical ability of ISP`s to monitor IP`s (users) and what they are downloading is doubtful. It is also tantamount to someone listening to phone conversations to check for illegal content.
I will post more when it arises but I ask my Lords to do some homework on this beforehand if they would be so kind.
And was it just Sod’s Law that the Gracious Speech did not also include the Abolition of Sod’s Law Bill?
Howridiculous.
howridiculous: I did say that the first Private Member’s Bill I would introduce would be a Bill to repeal Sod’s Law, but you have identified the reason why it would not get anywhere.
Just been skimming through Tudor Constitutional Documents (J.R.Tanner)how nice to see some change and maybe a wee dram of hope for us all in an approaching State Nightmare.
England Expects and all that.
Its Sunday, is it time for a political sermon?
The prospect of a financial crisis looms and it hangs heavily upon everyone, depressing and baleful.
When I was a child, at a time of ‘famine’, I attended Sunday school were the lessons of Genesis and the ordeal under Pharaoh were indelibly imprinted. I was left secure in the knowledge that no one except deceivers could ever proclaim that they had ended boom and bust. These lessons if nothing else represented a timeless wisdom.
Our problems arise from an overly long period of ‘prosperity’ where such wisdom was doubted or rejected and from a time when politicians have only been good eggs. However, ‘all the King’s horses and all the King’s men could not put Humpty Dumpty together again’.
My view is that the HoL should once again be allowed to give scrutiny to Commons budgets because to be elected to the Commons, parties must bribe the public and somebody has to say no. Bribery has moved on from a couple of pence off a pint or a packet of packet of cigs to much more ambitious enticements and the public love it.
Failing this, we must look to the example set by the Scottish Parliament and how they manage Budgets. No Budget can be passed until all parties have agreed the budget. What right has a Commons government to assume that they know best when it comes to setting budgets. It is simply arrogance and lustful power, a sin.
As for sin itself the Treasury taxes it mercilessly. However, when you go to a supermarket and look at the shelf price you cannot determine whether it is sinful or not because sin attracts a VAT charge and it is not marked on the price tag.
Only when you get the till roll do you know just how sinful you have been. Of course the Treasury calls it a tax on luxuries. When you wipe your bum with that fluffy toilet paper the Treasury has already taxed it. Yes! You’re paying tax when you wipe your arse. So the government promotes sin and wants to hide the fact from you at the point of purchase.
Of course if your attitude is well I have to pay the tax anyway and what can I do about it? Then do nothing, just as you are doing now, it helps finance the bribery and just prolongs your disillusionment with the political process and your ability to change it.
This missing Bill Thingy .. I must remind one and all that the Bill is never missing when it comes time to smashing the feckless peasantry around a little .. just so they remember their position in the order of things.
The Tudor Constitutional Documents were just another load of old piffle,coercion and bribery. I am dissapointed I was expecting to see some high Statecraft.
Where does all the whiffle come from? If we exclude the Industrialists bribing power with filthy lucre in exchange for coronets then that should narrow the field somewhat.
Perhaps the missing Bill may finally be solved by sending a few sections of the Armed Offenders Squad to clear the whiffle of piffle. Or perhaps I am being whimsical that there could possibly be any real change of heart in such an entrenched power structure.
So hows about getting the Bill off the Street and putting them where they could do some good instead of splashing blood and bodies all over the Kings Realm.
@ Senex you`re wrong on a number of points.
In supermarkets the prices on the shelves are what you pay, the VAT on the few items that are taxable, is already added. This is because tax laws on food is complex. Unless of course you are saying that the products that DO attract VAT is not shown then you are correct but the price shown is what you pay.
I agree with the bribery idea but it is our concept of democracy, and there has been no better way shown as yet.I do not believe there is an ideal in style of Government. A dictatorship is possibly the best concept provided of course you had the ideal dictator but that isn`t going to happen ever. Government is akin to parenting and those of us who are parents know that we`re not always the most popular people with our children….even if it is for their own good.
What we do not have at the moment is complete transparency of Government and taxation. We do not know until the media breaks a story where our money is being mispent. I also feel at times that some things are deliberately complex.
Scrutinising a budget by a third higher authority would be wrong. Someone has to make a decision, at present we let the Government take the fiscal decisions, unfortunately when they get it wrong, as Banks recently have, they are not sacked or having their bonuses removed. How strange this world of hypocrisy seems at times.
Great powers come and go as they have for millennia and will continue to do so.As fortunes of a Nation dwindle so power passes from the rich to the strong, it`s the law of the nature.
Look around you, at present we are living in a good time. You have more than at any other. The system is not ideal nor ever will be to all but it works, precariously balanced on a knife edge. I`m not saying the system is right, it`s wrong, very wrong imho but it`s all we`ve got. We do urgently need more clarity to know the Politicians are not there just for their own benefit.
Things are not fair even in the HoL, look at the “Cranbourne Money” does that seem fair or is bribery ? We know the Lords do not recieve a salary but do get daily allowances for being in the House of £86.50 which seems quite meagre but is that all ?
We also know politicians are tied, often too close, to businesses. That what they earn in politics can easily be outstripped by having an outside interest that may sway their political motives.
No the system is not fair and you and I pay for it. What we need is not a new system but complete transparency, freedom of information and a far less complex system. Let`s start by getting rid of hidden taxes and start taxing at source, which won`t happen. Why ? Because the rich have bigger bank balances and shout louder than the poor. The poor supply the cannon fodder, the rich get the oil and deals. Law of the jungle my friend.
Carl Holbrough: “Unless of course you are saying that the products that DO attract VAT is not shown then you are correct but the price shown is what you pay.”
Goods in a supermarket represent a dichotomy of taxation. Goods are zero rated when they are regarded as essential and attract VAT when they are regarded as a luxury. On the till printout there is no requirement to give a VAT total even if the Supermarkets VAT number is present. Items that attract VAT are marked.
My point is entirely political in that taxpayers have a right to know what tax they have paid as a total on any given receipt and a chance to avoid paying tax by looking at markings on a price tag, e.g. a simple ‘Z’ indicating zero rating, no ‘Z’ no purchase.
“but it is our concept of democracy, and there has been no better way shown as yet.”
Well not quite. Take the recent Glasgow bye-election. It returned an MP to the Commons on a 30% turnout. One can argue that all that voted were involved with the democratic process even if their candidate did not win. However, what of the 70% that did not participate in democracy, who represents them?
In a republic it would be nobody, they would be cut adrift but not in our Monarchical system. Before the Life Peerage Act 1958 the HoL was elected but not by popular vote. Its role as an independent second chamber was to protect everybody from the Monarchy or government when required. If this first line of defence ever failed then the defence of last resort would be the Monarchy itself on the basis that it was not oppressing at the time.
So under our system everybody whether they participate or not, in democracy, have representation in Parliament. In 1911 in a fit of political pique the Monarchy and the Commons acted in concert to disable many of the protections that the HoL once afforded, all the eggs being placed in one basket, democracy.
My view is that if democracy fails, its burden should be taken up in part by the HoL. The HoL would be an ‘equal’ partner to the Commons acting to strengthen democracy by resisting its principal failings, bribery and disinterest. On this basis, is there a case for strengthening the HoL in real terms?
Carl: By way of a postscript let me explain my motivation for ‘Z’ marking of price tags. Parents have very little quality time and certainly no time to be sluicing cotton nappies for young children. Instead they buy flocculent based nappies, which attract VAT. Mums would argue they are essential and should not be taxed.
http://www.thebabywebsite.com/article.303.Nappy_VAT_Dilemma…..htm
However, the EC is divided on this. Flocculent nappies are a major source of landfill so they are not eco friendly. This in itself would be an argument for taxing them. However, things are changing and at least one international company is attempting to recycle them in the UK.
http://www.knowaste.com/
There is also anecdotal evidence that food-attracting VAT also causes obesity in children so again its important for mums to know when they are buying potentially ‘unhealthy’ food.
<>
Is sin being compared with butter here some how, or with agricultural subsidy in general?
Abolishing sin is surely not a new idea for enactment in such a place, indeed so reactionary, it was forgotten about 300 years ago?
Perhaps “sin” has been defined much more narrowly since the beginning of the 19thC, or Jonh Major’s ‘family values’ campaign.
Gareth Howell: Good point. There would clearly need to be a definition clause.