3 ms·

>The TV license is a tax imposed by the government The requirement to hold a licence is a statutory one. Likewise, payment of the fee must, by law, be made to

by M2Ys4U 6y ago

>The TV license is a tax imposed by the government The requirement to hold a licence is a statutory one. Likewise, payment of the fee must, by law, be made to the BBC, and enforcement of the licensing regime must be done by (or on behalf of) the BBC. Thus, it is Parliament, not the government, that imposes the tax. (Yes, I know that all taxes must have a statutory basis, but this is one that is levied outside of the usual budgetary process using Finance Acts (the passage of which are traditionally considered confidence votes), and the TV Licence is not considered by government as part of its annual budget).

stjohnswarts 6y ago
Wait, hold up, the Parliament is not the government? That's a very confusing take.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  What's confusing about it? The government wields executive power, Parliament legislates and holds the government to account.
  - iso1631 6y ago
    The confusing part is that the government has to maintain the confidence of the house, and is comprised of members of parliament. Normally the government whips mean that parliament does whatever the government tell it to do, so "holds the government to account" is a laughable statement. Unlike the US system where the president can easily not have the confidence of the Senate or House (R president, D House, D Senate for example), and appoints his own secretaries from a pool of 300+m people, in the UK, the prime minister appoints ministers from parliament (usually the house of commons but can appoint from house of lords). Technically the PM could make a new lord (like Blair did with Sugar), but it's convoluted, and conventionally the main jobs must go to MPs Most people think "I like Boris, I vote for him as PM, he runs the country". In the last 5 years this has broken down and parliament has asserted itself more -- this independence was punished at the ballot box in December 2019.
    - M2Ys4U 6y ago
      > The confusing part is that the government has to maintain the confidence of the house, and is comprised of members of parliament. Confidence of the Commons, yes. The government doesn't have a majority in the Lords. >Normally the government whips mean that parliament does whatever the government tell it to do, so "holds the government to account" is a laughable statement. To an extent, that's true. The select committee system enables alternate power base within Parliament (especially the Commons) so that independently-minded backbench MPs to scrutinise ministers and other public officials with less interference from the whips. And over the past 2 parliaments we have seen the rise of the Tory "research groups" - especially the ERG - which have been very influential on the government. I'm not saying that everything is perfect here, until we ditch the first-past-the-post electoral system everything is still screwed up, but the government does have to listen to Parliament when the latter wants something.
      - iso1631 6y ago
        The Tory "Research groups" and the 1918 are influential inside the tory party, but tories always stick together. Nothing new, Redwood challenged Major in the 90s, and Thatcher lost support of the tory party before that, but various backbenchers might arrange for PMs to leave, but they would never dream of voting against the government in a vote of confidence. Parliament isn't important, internal politics of the conservative party are important. (And Labour, but less so as (apart from Blair), Labour don't win elections) The government in the last few years has broken the law time and time again, but nothing happens. They did lose support of parliament, some tory members actually rebelled - including grandees like Ken Clarke. The electorate put them where they belong. Democracy doesn't really exist in the UK, we have 40+ years of a dysfunctional opposition party that only won thanks to Blair, and the only times that parliament started to assert itself, it was massively punished. AV wasn't perfect, but it was still far better than FPTP, and the masively rejected it. We can have a government that kills hundreds of thousands of people, flushes billions into the back pockets of tory donors, and we reward them with ever higher approval ratings.
- monadgonad 6y ago
  > the Parliament is not the government? Correct. In the UK, "government" refers to the ministers currently in power, the "executive branch of the government" in US terms.
Turing_Machine 6y ago
> Thus, it is Parliament, not the government, that imposes the tax. I think we're encountering the "two countries separated by a common language" thing here. "Government" (in the UK sense) refers only to the current Prime Minister and assistants, yes? In the US sense, Congress is considered to be part of the "government".
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  >"Government" (in the UK sense) refers only to the current Prime Minister and assistants, yes? In the US sense, Congress is considered to be part of the "government". Broadly, yes; "The government" almost exclusively refers to the executive. So, The Crown, ministers, and perhaps the civil service depending on the context.
- fsckboy 6y ago
  but the license fee is not imposed by one government after another, it is imposed by law, a law passed by a government and enforced by a sequence of governments thereafter
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Parliament is a part of the government, at least under the en_us understanding of the word. Government n. 1. the governing body of a nation, state, or community.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  That's a very broad definition. It's definitely not one that is shared in en-GB nor, at least to my knowledge, amongst other English dialects. Are opposition legislators considered "members of the government", even if they don't actually, well, govern anything?
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    Yes, in the same way that I would consider a government employee who does not have carte blanche to be part of the government, even when not every decision they make is implemented. The government is the entire apparatus that governs a state, under the en_us definition. If you changed the funding of RT to be controlled by the Duma, but left all other details intact, would you then say that RT is not government sponsored? To me, that seems like an odd distinction to make. It doesn't capture what most people find salient when talking about government sponsorship of the media. To wit: where is the money -- and therefore power -- coming from? Is it primarily controlled by the people or is it controlled by the rulers?

by M2Ys4U 6y ago

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Wait, hold up, the Parliament is not the government? That's a very confusing take.

M2Ys4U 6y ago
What's confusing about it? The government wields executive power, Parliament legislates and holds the government to account.
- iso1631 6y ago
  The confusing part is that the government has to maintain the confidence of the house, and is comprised of members of parliament. Normally the government whips mean that parliament does whatever the government tell it to do, so "holds the government to account" is a laughable statement. Unlike the US system where the president can easily not have the confidence of the Senate or House (R president, D House, D Senate for example), and appoints his own secretaries from a pool of 300+m people, in the UK, the prime minister appoints ministers from parliament (usually the house of commons but can appoint from house of lords). Technically the PM could make a new lord (like Blair did with Sugar), but it's convoluted, and conventionally the main jobs must go to MPs Most people think "I like Boris, I vote for him as PM, he runs the country". In the last 5 years this has broken down and parliament has asserted itself more -- this independence was punished at the ballot box in December 2019.
  - M2Ys4U 6y ago
    > The confusing part is that the government has to maintain the confidence of the house, and is comprised of members of parliament. Confidence of the Commons, yes. The government doesn't have a majority in the Lords. >Normally the government whips mean that parliament does whatever the government tell it to do, so "holds the government to account" is a laughable statement. To an extent, that's true. The select committee system enables alternate power base within Parliament (especially the Commons) so that independently-minded backbench MPs to scrutinise ministers and other public officials with less interference from the whips. And over the past 2 parliaments we have seen the rise of the Tory "research groups" - especially the ERG - which have been very influential on the government. I'm not saying that everything is perfect here, until we ditch the first-past-the-post electoral system everything is still screwed up, but the government does have to listen to Parliament when the latter wants something.
    - iso1631 6y ago
      The Tory "Research groups" and the 1918 are influential inside the tory party, but tories always stick together. Nothing new, Redwood challenged Major in the 90s, and Thatcher lost support of the tory party before that, but various backbenchers might arrange for PMs to leave, but they would never dream of voting against the government in a vote of confidence. Parliament isn't important, internal politics of the conservative party are important. (And Labour, but less so as (apart from Blair), Labour don't win elections) The government in the last few years has broken the law time and time again, but nothing happens. They did lose support of parliament, some tory members actually rebelled - including grandees like Ken Clarke. The electorate put them where they belong. Democracy doesn't really exist in the UK, we have 40+ years of a dysfunctional opposition party that only won thanks to Blair, and the only times that parliament started to assert itself, it was massively punished. AV wasn't perfect, but it was still far better than FPTP, and the masively rejected it. We can have a government that kills hundreds of thousands of people, flushes billions into the back pockets of tory donors, and we reward them with ever higher approval ratings.
monadgonad 6y ago
> the Parliament is not the government? Correct. In the UK, "government" refers to the ministers currently in power, the "executive branch of the government" in US terms.

Turing_Machine 6y ago

> Thus, it is Parliament, not the government, that imposes the tax. I think we're encountering the "two countries separated by a common language" thing here. "Government" (in the UK sense) refers only to the current Prime Minister and assistants, yes? In the US sense, Congress is considered to be part of the "government".

M2Ys4U 6y ago
>"Government" (in the UK sense) refers only to the current Prime Minister and assistants, yes? In the US sense, Congress is considered to be part of the "government". Broadly, yes; "The government" almost exclusively refers to the executive. So, The Crown, ministers, and perhaps the civil service depending on the context.
fsckboy 6y ago
but the license fee is not imposed by one government after another, it is imposed by law, a law passed by a government and enforced by a sequence of governments thereafter

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

Parliament is a part of the government, at least under the en_us understanding of the word. Government n. 1. the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

M2Ys4U 6y ago
That's a very broad definition. It's definitely not one that is shared in en-GB nor, at least to my knowledge, amongst other English dialects. Are opposition legislators considered "members of the government", even if they don't actually, well, govern anything?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Yes, in the same way that I would consider a government employee who does not have carte blanche to be part of the government, even when not every decision they make is implemented. The government is the entire apparatus that governs a state, under the en_us definition. If you changed the funding of RT to be controlled by the Duma, but left all other details intact, would you then say that RT is not government sponsored? To me, that seems like an odd distinction to make. It doesn't capture what most people find salient when talking about government sponsorship of the media. To wit: where is the money -- and therefore power -- coming from? Is it primarily controlled by the people or is it controlled by the rulers?