Parliament live - IR35

[simes]

HoL can do sweet FA.
The parliament act of 1911 prevents HoL from blocking a finance bill. Only the commons can do that.

Which begs the question, why did they convene at all then?

Their personal interests in, and potential educations to IR35 aside, to what end was their meeting?

If I could not bring about change due to my not having the powers and breadth of shoulder, I would see there being no reason to attend and perhaps get on with some dusting...

Anyway, I loved all the questions about CEST being fit for purpose. Has it not sunk in yet that this is now currently missing the point and that the question is redundant?

Because - No One Uses It. PSCs are being banned across the estate.

[GhostofTarbera]

Which begs the question, why did they convene at all then?

.

To get several hundred quid in payments and a jolly nice hotel and dinner and drinks I presume



Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[Lance]

Which begs the question, why did they convene at all then?

That wasn't the HoL. That was a finance bill sub-comittee. The fact it had lots of Lords is immaterial to the process.

Their personal interests in, and potential educations to IR35 aside, to what end was their meeting?

parliamentary scrutiny. This is what sovereignty looks like.

<snip boring>

Anyway, I loved all the questions about CEST being fit for purpose. Has it not sunk in yet that this is now currently missing the point and that the question is redundant?

Because - No One Uses It. PSCs are being banned across the estate.

The question is not redundant. Lots use it. And PSCs are not being banned.
Anecdotal evidence from some of the larger players is not evidence of the entire private sector.

[simes]

That wasn't the HoL. That was a finance bill sub-comittee. The fact it had lots of Lords is immaterial to the process.

Ah, apologies for not understanding this. And indeed for boring you. Your time must be valuable.

Seemingly a couple of us mistook the meeting to be an HoL lead thing. Would you happen to know what the powers of a Finance Sub Committee have then? Would they have the power to bring about a halt to all this?

I have mentioned elsewhere a complete lack of knowledge as to 'tail and dog' in respect of Government and HMRC. Who directs whom, push to shove?

[Lance]

Ah, apologies for not understanding this. And indeed for boring you. Your time must be valuable.

Seemingly a couple of us mistook the meeting to be an HoL lead thing. Would you happen to know what the powers of a Finance Sub Committee have then? Would they have the power to bring about a halt to all this?

I have mentioned elsewhere a complete lack of knowledge as to 'tail and dog' in respect of Government and HMRC. Who directs whom, push to shove?

They don't have powers. They are there for scrutiny.

as for what HMRC are... Google is your friend. It's far too complex to go into on this forum. About us - HM Revenue & Customs - GOV.UK

[simes]

They don't have powers. They are there for scrutiny.

...Which thus again, 'begs the question'.

I feel myself going round in circles. I will stop now.

[Lance]

...Which thus again, 'begs the question'.

I feel myself going round in circles. I will stop now.

it doesn't really beg the question. The question is answered.

What bit of "parliamentary scrutiny" evades you? When they come to actually vote on these things they use evidence gathered at committees to inform the debate and the vote itself.

Scrutiny begats evidence, which begats knowledge, which begats informed decision making (or not but that's a different matter as we elected these cretins).

[Snooky]

Scrutiny begats evidence, which begats knowledge, which begats informed decision making

One might have thought someone so apparently intelligent and erudite would understand the difference between the past and present tenses.

[Lance]

One might have thought someone so apparently intelligent and erudite would understand the difference between the past and present tenses.

not sure I get you. That quote is all past tense.
"begats" is the plural past tense of beget.

but 10/10 for being picky whether you're right or wrong.

[Snooky]

"begats" is the plural past tense of beget.

No it isn't. "begat" is the past tense, singular or plural.

"Jacob begat Joseph"
"The parents begat five children"

The only valid use of "begats" is the plural of the noun form, "begat", which is a genealogical list.

but 10/10 for being picky whether you're right or wrong.

Ta, I'm bored stiff so I just thought I'd join in by being a pedantic @rse, to fit in with others on the forum. Please feel free to ignore me entirely