The 70mph motorway speed limit has become "discredited" says Transport Secretary Philip Hammond. It has resulted in millions of motorists breaking the law, so he plans to consult on allowing it to rise to 80mph, in order to "restore the legitimacy" of the system and benefit the economy by "hundreds of millions of pounds".
This has provoked a response in the Yorkshire Evening Post suggesting that this is the same as arguing that the drink-driving limit should be lowered because a lot of people already exceed the current limit. What the writer ignores, however, is the balance of utility. Speed serves a useful purpose, so a line must be drawn between the risks involved in permitting higher (and lower) speeds and the benefits of so doing. Hammond is making a case for moving the line.
Similarly, a case can be made for changing the drink-drive limit, and there are economic arguments either way. But, for the moment, there is no particular imperative for change. The issue is not on the agenda.
That said, the YEP writer is clearly offended by the idea that a minister should respond to widespread lawbreaking. He is not alone. Again and again, we hear the mantra, "the law is the law and must be obeyed".
Those who get convicted of speeding are told, "stay within the speed limit and you won't get fined". Those who object to the rapacious local authority parking regimes – fighting a constant battle against councils which use them to make money rather than control traffic - are told that they should pay up when they get tickets. And those, as in the comments here, who join the battle against Council Tax, and then write of their experiences, are told to pay their bills – and worse.
Yet, in considering any law or tax, the degree of compliance, the cost of enforcement and the effect on the system as a whole, are all legitimate factors in considering their perpetuation. Hammond is entirely right, therefore, in taking compliance with the speed limit into account.
But this then points in the other direction – disobedience of the law is equally a legitimate tactic when seeking change. And, as the speed limit example would seem to indicate, it can be effective - to a certain extent. We need, therefore, to avoid the moralising, reserving that for those who break the Ten Commandments, or the equivalent code.
Otherwise, of laws made by men for men, we have no greater duty to obey than expediency. And where such laws are unjust, stupid or perverse, the greater duty can be disobedience. Our sin as a society, methinks, is that too many people are breaking the wrong laws. When it comes to our masters, it is no part of our duty to make their lives easy.
COMMENT THREAD
And the answer is in the penultimate paragraph.
Ian Cowie, personal finance editor of the Failygraph tells us that freezing council tax, "as Chancellor George Osborne proposes to do today", will not only save the average family £72 a year but help bring home a fundamental difference between the Coalition Government and its Labour predecessor.
But, actually, this is not the case. Even if we were to concede the propaganda point of this being a "saving", the announcement assumes a 2.5 percent increase in council tax. The average CT in 2010/11 is £1,439. Thus, the "savings" in 2012/13 for 5.7 million households in Band A – the largest of the bands - will be £23.98. Only the 130,000 households in the highest banded properties – H – will "save" £71.97 pence.
And that is why we buy the Failygraph (not) – a paper which truly lives up to its motto … "never knowingly misinformed". They simply do not realise how crap they are. Or perhaps Cowie really believes that the "average family" lives in a Band H house.
Sadly, though, he and his newspaper have missed the opportunity to indulge in a bit of dark humour. With taxation, one is used to the idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul, but this - on the face of it - is robbing Peter to pay Peter.
Then, when one recalls that "Peter" is not being paid anything, but merely "saved" having to pay something extra, this is more like a case of robbing Peter in order not to rob Peter (under a different head). For a government, that is quite creative.
COMMENT: "SAVING MASSA GEORGE" THREAD
But, actually, this is not the case. Even if we were to concede the propaganda point of this being a "saving", the announcement assumes a 2.5 percent increase in council tax. The average CT in 2010/11 is £1,439. Thus, the "savings" in 2012/13 for 5.7 million households in Band A – the largest of the bands - will be £23.98. Only the 130,000 households in the highest banded properties – H – will "save" £71.97 pence.
And that is why we buy the Failygraph (not) – a paper which truly lives up to its motto … "never knowingly misinformed". They simply do not realise how crap they are. Or perhaps Cowie really believes that the "average family" lives in a Band H house.
Sadly, though, he and his newspaper have missed the opportunity to indulge in a bit of dark humour. With taxation, one is used to the idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul, but this - on the face of it - is robbing Peter to pay Peter.
Then, when one recalls that "Peter" is not being paid anything, but merely "saved" having to pay something extra, this is more like a case of robbing Peter in order not to rob Peter (under a different head). For a government, that is quite creative.
COMMENT: "SAVING MASSA GEORGE" THREAD
Our political class exists in a bubble so remote from reality there is just no point taking their witterings seriously any more, says Dellers. In particular, he has a go at that stupid womanTheresa May, and her posturing on the Human Rights Act.
She would have us believe that she wants to "axe the Act", except – as Dellers points out – the UK cannot withdraw from the ECHR without also leaving the EU. And May's master-in-crime ain't going to allow that. The whole thing is conference fluff.
And illustrating exactly the point Dellers makes, we see the Taxpayers' Alliance on the conference fringe. They have assembled Matthew Elliott, "Chief Executive", Douglas Carswell, Patrick O'Flynn, "Chief Political Commentator" of the Daily Express, Tim Montgomerie and Priti Patel, all to tell us: "We need to talk about Europe".
No … really? I'd never have worked that one out.
COMMENT THREAD
She would have us believe that she wants to "axe the Act", except – as Dellers points out – the UK cannot withdraw from the ECHR without also leaving the EU. And May's master-in-crime ain't going to allow that. The whole thing is conference fluff.
And illustrating exactly the point Dellers makes, we see the Taxpayers' Alliance on the conference fringe. They have assembled Matthew Elliott, "Chief Executive", Douglas Carswell, Patrick O'Flynn, "Chief Political Commentator" of the Daily Express, Tim Montgomerie and Priti Patel, all to tell us: "We need to talk about Europe".
No … really? I'd never have worked that one out.
COMMENT THREAD
Posts
