UK Reviewing Copyright Laws 179
Uebergeek writes "It looks like the UK is going to be reviewing its copyright laws. Prime Minister David Cameron specifically cites the US's Fair Use doctrine as something they wish to incorporate into their own laws... apparently they wish to 'encourage the sort of creative innovation that occurs in America.' One can only assume that they've been missing the continual assault on the Fair Use doctrine here in the States."
Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I guess that they might see the value in the law as written, even if that doesn't tend to be how the law plays out.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, they might even enshrine fair use as a right.. rather than merely as a "defense" to a civil lawsuit as it is in the US.
Only in Israel, maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
After a little research, it seems to me that Israel is the first (and only) nation in the world where "fair use" is possibly a "right" [ericgoldman.org] (see the section titled ' New User "Rights" ').
This is since Sept. 2009. My impression is that the decision has been appealed but hasn't been heard yet. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's administration wouldn't have a few (unofficial) things to say to the Israeli government when the appeal comes up in the Israeli courts.
that's not necessary (Score:3, Insightful)
Enshrining it as a right kind of suggests that the copyright holder has more of a right to the content than they actually have. In fact, the copyright holder is granted a temporary monopoly, not because of any intrinsic "rights" (he doesn't have any to the content), but to benefit society. So, you don't need fair use as a "right", you already have all the rights anyway. Fair use is an exemption to a temporary monopoly.
Re:that's not necessary (Score:4, Informative)
Fair use follows from free press (Score:3, Interesting)
they might even enshrine fair use as a right.. rather than merely as a "defense"
When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld serial extension of the copyright term in Eldred v. Ashcroft, the opinion of the Court included a section strongly implying that were it not for the fair use defense, copyright would violate the First Amendment. This suggests at least that freedom of the press implies fair use.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4, Funny)
That will qualify as at least one fair use of the 'Fair use' laws.
Better idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Copy Canadian laws instead of American ones.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd second that. Though aspects of Canada's laws are 'slightly' outdated. For example the tariff on cd's - i seldom use cd's for much other than burning a copy of a linux distro.
Canada's on the right track though.
Now, if they put the tariff on ipods/mp3 players/media enabled phones it might work better with the times. People wont appreciate the cost though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No perhaps they won't like it, but at least the extra cost might offset the additional expenses associated with police investigations of auto accidents caused by drivers using such devices while they are behind the wheel.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually we look sideways at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Deferred optimism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Stay ahead of the curve.
Push back hard against the lawmakers and monopolists. Show them, again and again, the futility and folly of trying to steal from the public. The lawmakers must be constantly reminded that the law has limited reach. Push too hard, and it breaks down. Pass enough stupid, unenforceable laws, and except for the "rules is rules", "law and order" moralizing "goody two shoes" sorts, people will ignore them. Even they will see the light if the laws are bad enough. The lawmakers could
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps (Score:3, Funny)
As an avid fan of David's shows on conservations, perhaps instead we can deport Glen Beck to insure that citizens of the UK really are brain dead and thus unable to challenge our technological superiority.
Re:Perhaps (Score:5, Funny)
...we can deport Glen Beck...
I don't believe they'll accept our toxic waste..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just start a donation drive to dispose of him in space. I'm in! :P
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"we can deport Glen Beck"
More likely he'll come voluntarily.. Your master (Murdoch) is just about to be allowed to takeover our biggest almost independent satellite channel and turn it into the UK's version of Faux News.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe FoxNews can franchise in the UK. Then the Brits would get to hear their news commentators introduce stories with lines like, "Whoa, get a look at this!"
I just puked in my own mouth.
Can you imagine Walter Cronkite beginning a news item with, "Get a look at this!" He was a good journalist and, I hate to say this, but it is actually a merciful thing that he passed away somewhat recently.
Re:yes! (Score:5, Informative)
You realize that Murdoch, who owns News Corporation and Fox News, controls most of Britain's media, including Sky Television, The Times [of London], The Sun, and News of the World. If you want to vomit, look at some of Murdoch's holdings outside the US.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe tabloids, so wildly popular in the UK, could franchise in the US. National Enquirer quality journalism combined with bad puns in every single headline = win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nah, the Americans will never accept the idea of the Page 3 girl. Hell, I wouldn't be too surprised if at least one state attempted to outlaw breast feeding because it involved showing breasts to very young children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We already have Sky News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Re: (Score:2)
However, Sky news and Fox news, are completely different. At least Sky News aims to be better than the BBC, and has good reporting, though they tend to focus on "Breaking News"
Re:yes! (Score:5, Informative)
I think you might be overestimating the quality of TV in the UK. The most popular shows are of the same brain-dead kind like in the US, reality shows, soaps, cooking shows and sports. The most watched shows these days are roughly in order: BBC: Eastenders (dumb soap), Strictly Come Dancing (celebrities dancing), The Aprentice, Master Chef, Match of the Day (Soccer). ITV: X Factor and Coronation Street (dumb soap), with X Factor far and away the leader with about 13 mil. viewers. How's that for people who know things? Yes there are some quality shows, mostly on BBC (which doesn't have to worry about paying bills), but not many people watch them.
Re: (Score:2)
The most popular shows are of the same brain-dead kind like in the US, reality shows, soaps, cooking shows and sports.
Culture is our number one export. Not saying it's a good thing, but it is our biggest export.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously didn't watch Newsnight on BBC 2 when Jeremy Paxman is on. Though he is pretty tame compared to most American presenters.
Re: (Score:2)
move towards more proper explosion-based documentaries like we have in the US.
What, you mean like this [bbc.co.uk]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Starts good end bad. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather similar Fair Dealing doctrine already there (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Rather similar Fair Dealing doctrine already th (Score:4, Insightful)
Fair dealing isn't really similar. It's limited to a very specific set of situations that mean that most people are not able to take advantage of it. As an example, parody is not considered fair dealing.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
'It's limited to a very specific set of situations that mean that most people are not able to take advantage of it.'
Indeed. Simply ripping a CD you own won't generally be for 'research and private study, criticism, review, and news reporting' so it's actually not legal, though a majority of the UK population think it is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7176538.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8000876.stm [bbc.co.uk]
ACTA Sweetner Anyone (Score:5, Interesting)
ACTA Sweetner(TM) guaranteed no calories and no teeth.
Cameron says, "So I can announce today that we are reviewing our IP laws, to see if we can make them fit for the internet age." However, he fails to mention that they are already "reviewing" the UK copyright laws under the veil of ACTA and in secret. This is just a bit of fluff to remove some heat from what is already a done deal.
Re:ACTA Sweetner Anyone (Score:5, Informative)
However, he fails to mention that they are already "reviewing" the UK copyright laws under the veil of ACTA and in secret.
As far as I can tell from all the available information, the UK government has not actively participated in the ACTA negotiations to date. Also, note ACTA is an enforcement agreement, and doesn't really touch basic definitions of what constitutes an IP infringement, which is what they're talking about here.
Re: (Score:2)
"ACTA is an enforcement agreement, and doesn't really touch basic definitions of what constitutes an IP infringement,"
Indeed; ACTA is a worldwide censorship mechanism; the rich and powerful will later on decide what to censor.
When you abbreviate as "IP", God kills a kitten (Score:2)
Also, note ACTA is an enforcement agreement, and doesn't really touch basic definitions of what constitutes an IP infringement
Of course it isn't an agreement on infringement of rights in IPv4 addresses. Managing address space on the Internet is not the job of countries' copyright offices. Please don't say "IP" when you mean copyright [pineight.com].
Copyright cuts both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
While we desperately need some sanity injected into the system after the Digital Britain Bill, I suspect this is going to really favour big-media's use of our copyrighted work.
"He said the law could be relaxed to allow greater use of copyright material without the owner's permission."
There must be plenty of companies drooling at the idea of smash and grab raids on flickr accounts and GPL'd software.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Interesting)
While we're here thinking how good this is that we will be able to post reviews of films,games and music on our blogs and not get takedown notices. But what this really means is that shitty british TV that does no original thinking (the news channels just report what they read on twitter) will just compile youtube videos and such without having to pay or ackowledge anyone. Which in a nice rounded world of share-alike licenses may seem all groovy, until you realize they're surrounded by adverts and on subscr
this is just Google doing evil (Score:2)
Google have been lobbying Cameron for certain legal rights to help their business model, and Cameron will incorporate their request in a new draconian copyright proposal which will hinder other business models (and freedom in general).
Cameron? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would Cameron, a deeply conservative aristocrat, care one bit about what the riff-raff can do with his supporter's "intellectual property"? The British have caught the plague that began on my side of the Atlantic: kleptocrats compose a huge part of government, and they've been on a crusade against egalitarianism since the 1980s. Everything done by conservatives in power is aimed at enriching the already rich and reducing everyone else to desperate peasants. They yearn for a return to the Gilded Age or worse [nytimes.com]. If a conservative creates policy that benefits the people at large, he's done it by accident. Academic rationales and appeals to the public, however erudite or reasonable they might appear, are just meaningless words put together by consultants who specialize in creating talking points that promote a particular narrative among a particular audience. These statements are tools with a particular purpose, not sincere attempts to explain the genesis of an action and demonstrate its worth.
Knowing this, you must consider every action taken by a conservative through the lens of their ultimate goal. If Cameron says he wants to revise copyright law to foster creativity, don't take him at his word. Ask yourself, "In what way will these modifications enrich powerful backers? What loopholes exist? What narrative is the government trying to push? What does it prepare the population to accept? How can the change under consideration be used to hurt the opposition? Where are the lies? Where is the selective truth?"
Finally, consider the most important question of all: "Will the net effect of this action be to enrich the wealthy?" The answer will invariably be "yes".
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you say is true, but remember to put the blame where lies the control: with the voter who does not abstain, and with the worker who does not strike. To kill the beast, you must stop feeding it.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I can see the mechanism for striking workers starving the beast. Voters not voting just seems to be throwing away what little input and control they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering we have a government elected by back-room dealings rather than by majority vote,
I haven't checked any figures, but don't we have a more representative government than we've had for a long time?
With the FPTP system Labour had a majority in Parliament with only a small proportion of votes (~30%, IIRC).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm undoing mod points to reply to you, but I'm sorry, you are utterly and completely wrong.
For one, getting 100% of the populace to refuse to vote is a practical impossibility. Aside from those individuals who see it as their civic duty to vote, you will always have at least the candidates themselves voting, along with their backers. If people give up on voting, the problem will become *worse*, not better, because there's fewer people to vote for the person who would actually do the job with the people in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, people who want to protest, now vote the BNP....... who apart from their racist agendas, also have "insightful" policies like 50% VAT, Compulsory Military/Cadet Service(*) and tax hikes.
Wonder how many of those who vote BNP because of Johnny Foreigner, realise the other policies of the BNP which WOULD hurt them a lot more in real terms.
(*) I myself HAVE done Cadet training, and have done my bit for the country, despite being an ethnic minority, it REALLY annoys me when I see BNP supports talk
Re: (Score:2)
How do you distinguish a voter who abstains in protest from a voter who is happy with the status quo?
Personally I think this is a problem that is solved as much as is possible by compulsory voting, which is why I'm a strong supporter of it.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you distinguish a voter who abstains in protest from a voter who is happy with the status quo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoilt_vote#In_the_UK [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Canada we used to have the rhino party, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_party [wikipedia.org] who's main promise was not to keep any of their promises.
In '84 they came in fourth in a 3 party system and have occasionally came in second in individual ridings.
Unluckily the only change they caused was a change to the election laws where candidates had to put up $1000 to run. Since they couldn't afford that, they are no more though there leader, who changed his name to Sa Tan is suing over the electoral change. The c
Re: (Score:2)
> Why would Cameron, a deeply conservative aristocrat, care one bit about what the riff-raff can do with his supporter's "intellectual property"?
I guess the obvious answer is that even "riff-raff" get a vote !
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when does policy affect voting?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Bear in mind that Cameron's party (Conservatives) didn't form the government. They are in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and EVERY Lib-Dem MP voted against the Digital Economy Bill which strengthened copyright enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe for a minute that the music industry is much of a concern to Mr C, I would think his friends are the city types, not the music moguls.
Not to say they don't have some influence, but I don't believe the media lobby has anywhere near the power in the Uk that it does in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe for a minute that the music industry is much of a concern to Mr C, I would think his friends are the city types, not the music moguls.
There's a difference?
The ownership of EMI happens to be in the news at the moment - I suspect that most people would describe Terra Firma's management as "city types". I've no idea which way Guy Hands is politically inclined, however, and I suspect he's got bigger issues on his plate at the moment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/04/citigroup-wins-emi-case-nils-pratley [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/damianreece/8111628/EMI-is-the-real-loser-of-Guy-Hands-court-fight.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your comment is just a concatenation of conservative talking points. Wages and jobs have not declined in major western powers such as France and Germany which still retain functional governments based on real social contracts. Shame on you for believing the free trade propaganda.
Mod me down, I don't care (Score:4, Insightful)
But based on everything I've read online, including here on slashdot, US copyright law is the most absurd in the world. As far as I can see there is basically no fair use if you live within the United States of America. Even if US law allows it I would hazard to guess that many people are unwilling and reluctant to apply "fair use". The litigious nature of your corporations and government almost ensure that most sane persons will err on the side of caution, and maybe not publish anything at all in fear of being sued. How the fuck does fear encourage innovation?
Re:Mod me down, I don't care (Score:4, Insightful)
It's very much one-sided.
Fair use does come from the US Constitution (Score:4, Informative)
Fair Use is, in fact, a product of the US Constitution. There are two separate and somewhat conflicting constitutional provisions in play here:
Fair Use is a doctrine developed by judges in the 19th century to help resolve the conflict between these two provisions. It was later codified in the 20th century, but with the intent of preserving the existing judge-made law.
Rights enshrined in the Constitution do not enforce themselves. Some constitutional rights are so well-established that they seem to enforce themselves, but in marginal cases these rights must be asserted in court. In a noted recent case, a group called Citizens United was prohibited from speaking about a presidential candidate during the election, because of the source of some of its funding. Political speech is at the very core of the First Amendment, but the question was a close one, and could only be established by asserting it in court.
The fact that Fair Use must often be defended in court comes from the fact-intensive nature of the doctrine, making it difficult to decide a priori whether Fair Use applies or not. This uncertainty, combined with the American Rule for paying legal fees (each party pays his own lawyers), skews the playing field in favor of the big copyright holders. This is true even though Fair Use is, at bottom, a Constituional right.
It's a start. (Score:2, Offtopic)
How about also fixing the insane libel laws as well?
Up to their usual form (Score:2)
Remember, these are the same conservatives (read idiots) who thought public health care would be better if modeled on the American system and if only the railroads were privately owned like in the US the same excellent results might be achieved.
There is just one tiny problem. The UK is not the US. It takes a certain type of person to be an American and the average brit doesn't have what it takes.
Take for instance the love for the BBC. State funded TV? No American would be able to stand even the thought of
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
kudos to the first country to adapt a voluntary collective licensing system as a tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Collective_Licensing [wikipedia.org]
20 bucks a year per capita = no more damn bs
Anything over 7 years ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't hold your breath. He's a Conservative. Note that everything he said was to make things better for business. It's unlikely to end up a positive thing for the people.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Being better for business isn't necessarily the opposite of being better for the people.
Being better for an outmoded and artificially supported business model certainly is bad for the people, mind you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Name one "business model" that isn't artificially supported by laws?
Drugs?
You'll note that even the biggest busts, e.g. the seizure of 30 tons of cannabis last week in San Diego, seem to have no effect whatsoever on either supply or pricing.
You'll also note that organized crime and violence go hand-in-hand because criminal groups have no other means other than loose, mafia-style collusion to resolve disputes.
The fact is that we want laws to protect property and business models. If you disagree, I suggest moving your business operations to Mogadishu.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You'll note that even the biggest busts, e.g. the seizure of 30 tons of cannabis last week in San Diego, seem to have no effect whatsoever on either supply or pricing.
I don't think you can claim it has no effect on pricing. Cannabis does not cost anywhere near $60 per 1/8 oz to produce and transport but that seems to be the going rate around these parts. The cost of hiding from law enforcement and dealing with police raids/theft/etc is included in the current street price. If cannabis was legalized tomorrow prices would drop by a non-zero amount. At least until the Government got it's dirty paws in the game and started taxing it :)
The fact is that we want laws to protect property and business models.
Agreed that we need laws to protect
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of hiding from law enforcement and dealing with police raids/theft/etc is included in the current street price.
Economically speaking, that is risk, and as you note, it's already factored into the cost.
If cannabis was legalized tomorrow prices would drop by a non-zero amount.
Probably. After all, if the risk is reduced, you'd expect to pay a lower premium for it. Like how an older driver with a clean record and sensible car pays less for insurance than a 20 year-old with a new Corvette.
On the other hand, while living in Europe, I didn't notice a significant difference in cannabis prices in places where there was less risk (e.g. Netherlands) vs significantly more (e.g. UK, Austria).
It's part
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs?
You'll note that even the biggest busts, e.g. the seizure of 30 tons of cannabis last week in San Diego, seem to have no effect whatsoever on either supply or pricing.
That's because 30 tones of cannabis is nothing. I really mean that, the majority of US pot is grown in Canada and brought directly across the border by runners using the middle-of-nowhere approach. Sure they sometimes get caught, but not as often as people think. Canadian pot growers ship more than that across the US/Cdn border every 2 days.
BC's largest export product is pot. I've heard several times that the largest export product of Canada to the US is now pot. You guys should be figuring out when an
Re: (Score:2)
That's because 30 tones [sic] of cannabis is nothing.
By my calculations, that's a year's supply for over 120,000 heavy dope smokers, or a month's supply for 1.5 million.
There may be plenty more coming in, but it's hardly a trivial amount.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't hold your breath. He's a Conservative. Note that everything he said was to make things better for business. It's unlikely to end up a positive thing for the people.
Um, unless you want to live as a hunter-gatherer, you kinda need business. Now, BIG BUSINESS, ie the multi-national corporations, need curtailing. Those guys are unscrupulous.
In Victorian England it was the mill-owners that opened the schools and hospitals and provided cheap housing for their workers, because it was ultimately beneficial to the business. Similarly, loosening the noose on copyright isn't so much to help the man in the street, it's to help the entrepreneur in the street make money, any benefi
Re: (Score:2)
"In Victorian England it was the mill-owners that opened the schools and hospitals and provided cheap housing for their workers"
You do realise they -charged- for this...? and made a profit on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep I'm sure..
The few examples of highly social and moral individuals with a good heart you can cherrypick will not suffice.
The rich are generally greedy, this is even more true now than it was back in the glory days you harken to; greedy people do not help those poorer without taking more back than they put in. Fact of life I'm afraid..
Re: (Score:2)
> greedy people ... taking more back than they put in
This is a classical misunderstanding of economics : the idea that there's a fixed amount of wealth to go around.
Suppose I could use my time to build either : a bicycle or an intranet site. Each one taking (hypothetically) the same amount of time, but each would creating very different amounts of value for someone who bought them. Suppose, now, a wise uncle of mine advised me to do the intranet site, and I paid him $1 for that (very valuable to me) ad
Re: (Score:2)
PS: Just a reminder; you gave three examples:
2 Quakers and a Liberal.
I strongly suspect the demographic of the owners of modern business (mostly bankers and hedge fund managers) really matches this anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reasons you can name them off the top of your head, and I also know them off the top of mine, is that they were the exceptions. Considering the vast numbers of mills and factories in Victorian England, those exceptions are few indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a massive range of setups, plans and living environments. Obviously there was some extremely greedy and extremely generous mill owners (and a variety in between). But even that over-simplifies the situation as out of the need to support their workforce (e.g. providing schools, hospitals etc) many (e.g. http://www.robert-owen.com/ [robert-owen.com]Robert Owen) encouraged community involvement and personal self-improvement, for the purpose of creating a vibrant, content and sustainable workforce rather than direct pr
Re: (Score:2)
Damn those hobgoblins and robots and the businesses they run! Always taking things away from people!
I believe in the elimination of the lie of an artist's right to control their work. I believe that once an artist has been compensated, his work should be free for anyone wishing to derive from it. I believe that "anyone" should not be dependent on why the derivation is desired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
It's unlikely to end up a positive thing for the people.
Indeed. If you read down this [guardian.co.uk] a bit you'll notice that they also want US style software patents. Idiots.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Indeed. If you read down this [guardian.co.uk] a bit you'll notice that they also want US style software patents. Idiots."
On the contrary. As someone else stated above, the goal of the Tories is to enrich the already wealthy, in particular the upper class wealthy. Supporting a US style patent system is a great way of achieving this as it shuts out small businesses and gives huge amounts of money to lawyers (typically upper class). A US style software patent system would be terrible for society, but lucrati
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the main problem though is big corporations vs small startups rather than business vs the people. We need the small startups to create the jobs that will get us out of the recession and I hope he realises that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are Liberal Democrats before the election, and there are Liberal Democrats now. In opposition, they were a noble party, standing up for peoples rights. Now, not only are they going along with Tory policy, their ministers are implementing Tory policy. There is virtually nothing left of the noble ideals of before.
The instant change is a wonderful demonstration of how power (and the hunger for it) corrupts.
Re: (Score:2)
It mystifies me why anyone who voted for a party that has proportional representation more or less as its #1 priority -- which would essentially guarantee coalition government forever after -- would then be outraged that, in a coalition, that party has had to make compromises and doesn't get to do everything it promised.
Their failure is in not ramming this point home every time someone brings it up. Don't forget that they got a pretty tiny proportion of seats =10%ish? If Nick Clegg just said, "Look, we don'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
On the subject of copyright some time ago, opposing extension of copyright, and was not impressed by the response.
Whilst he didn't reply personally, his office trotted out the tired old BSA/FAST/RIAA line of breach of copyright being theft, sponsoring terrorism etc,
So for this reason I will be highly surprised if he has had some sort of "road to Damascus" type conversion
I suspect this is one of the policies that the Lib/Dems wanted as a condition for taking part in the coalition. It's important enough that the people who care about it will be glad of it (assuming it does improve the situation, which is always a big 'if' in politics), and yet a vague enough issue for the general public that it won't cost the Conservatives a thing in the next election.
I could be dead wrong about this; I don't follow British politics very closely. But I've been waiting to see some typically L
Re: (Score:2)
I've been waiting to see some typically Lib/Dem policies come down the pipe for a while now
Keep waiting. The only thing LibDems got out of this government is the referendum on Alternative Vote, which they'll lose anyway (if we assume that it will actually be held at all, which is far from certain). Everything else is (and forever will be) hardcore Tory policy.
My bet is on LibDems losing hard at the next round of general elections, at least in all those (southern) areas where they present themselves as the only opposition to the Tories. Should the government survive that, I bet they'll get less th
Re: (Score:2)
I very much doubt anyone is silly enough to confuse Canada and America over here, it would be quite an embarrassing gaffe for a UK prime minister to do so, even for something quite minor. However, the UK is pushing for a "Silicon Valley" in London (the Docklands area is already highly connected and there are lots of datacentres there) and to do so is trying to pull in American talent and companies. I think he almost certainly means America and that it's actually an ill-advised statement that was said on t
Re: (Score:2)
However, the UK is pushing for a "Silicon Valley"
I thought they already had one [wikipedia.org]