Theresa May Reshuffles Cabinet, Warns Amazon and Google of Power Shift (arstechnica.co.uk) 227
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Ars Technica: British Prime Minister Theresa May has given a stern warning to big business, telling the public to "think not of the powerful, but you." Specifically, she singled out Google and Amazon for dodging taxes and creating a lot of parliamentary scrutiny. Ars Technica reports: "May has been quick to stamp her brand of conservatism on her party by letting go of key members of Cameron's cabinet. She has so far sacked big hitters such as chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne, justice secretary Michael Gove, and culture secretary John Whittingdale. Philip Hammond now has the keys to Number 11, but we're still waiting to hear who will replace Whittingdale, whose remit included the rollout of super fast broadband in the UK. He's also the man behind the White Paper on the future of the BBC, which sought radical changes at the public service broadcaster. So far, 10 cabinet positions have been announced by May. They include Justine Greening as secretary of state for education, and Liz Truss becomes justice secretary, while former London mayor and key Brexit campaigner Boris Johnson -- to the surprise of many -- now heads up the foreign office. May has handed her home secretary job to Amber Rudd -- who will now be responsible for the government's push for greater online surveillance laws. Rudd was previously the minister for energy and climate change." David Davis is now in charge of withdrawing the UK from the European Union. David has for many years "opposed the government's attempts to bring in a so-called Snoopers' Charter." Ars Technica writes, "He's also currently suing the UK government over DRIPA -- legislation that was rushed through by the Tories after the European Court of Justice had ruled that the Data Retention Directive was invalid for failing to have adequate privacy safeguards in place."
The British government looks like Duck Soup (Score:4, Funny)
Top Gear (Score:2)
Re:The British government looks like Duck Soup (Score:5, Interesting)
There is sound logic behind the putting of the chief surviving Brexiteers in senior positions. First of all, May, as a Remainer, is giving them the responsibility to implement that which they convinced a majority of voters to vote for. The intent behind is to heal the deep rifts in the Conservative Party. Everyone knows some form of free movement, like the so-called Norway model, is going to have to be a feature of Britain maintaining open access to the EU (this is particularly true of the City, where the inability to work within the EU financial system freely would likely see a great deal of the City migrate over to the Continent). It will be David Davis, one of the main Brexiters, who will have to negotiate these matters, and forcing him to largely repudiate pretty much every significant Leave stance will be just deserts, not to mention to some extent protecting May from being seen as imposing a Remain agenda. The same goes for Leadsom, who is now responsible for having to either maintain subsidy levels to all this UK farmers who relied on EU subsidies, or explain to all and asunder how Brexit was perhaps not the best idea ever.
Boris Johnson is the best bit, however. He's managed to insult just about every important leader in the Western world, as well as Turkey's Recip Erdogan. His appointment as Foreign Minister means his first few weeks in the position will see his belly get fairly raw by having to crawl up to all those Germans, French, Belgians and others that his band of merry fools compared to Nazis. The intent here is twofold; first of all, she cannot trust Boris on the backbenches, where he's bound to stir up trouble, but she also needs to give him the opportunity to destroy himself, thus making a potential (maybe even inevitable) sacking far easier, and forever rendering him an impotent figure. And, despite his clown's attitude, he is known to have some ability, so maybe, once he's finished kissing ever one of Britain's Western allies' asses, he might even not do a bad job. And, in reality, over the years the Foreign Office's importance has dwindled to some extent, with Prime Minister's tending to manage the more important files, like relations with close allies, off their own desk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The British government looks like Duck Soup (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why Davis will have to negotiate free movement. It's the only way to save the City, one of Britain's major economic engines. May has a rather black sense of humor, not to mention that she intends to make the chief Tory Eurosceptics abandon every position they ever held. She is going to make them not only pay for Brexit, but make them justify all the steps that need to be taken to repair as much damage as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
The City doesn't sell cars. It sells financial products, and right now it has unfettered access to do so in the EU. If it cannot negotiate that, then many banks and other financial institutions will get up and leave London, or at least heavily downgrade their presence.
Re: (Score:2)
And HSBC
Well, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporarion does have a habit of moving it's HQ.
I always thought it was High Street Bank of China, dunno where I got that from though, it's not like I ever looked them up on wiki or whatever.
Re:The British government looks like Duck Soup (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, what European ministers is said is that Britain cannot expect open access to Europe without free movement, which, of course was one of the chief objects of the Leave camp's ire. Now it will have to be the chief Tory leaders of Leave who will have to negotiate access to European markets, and likely have to accept free movement with only nominal concessions from the EU. In other words, as everyone expected, Britain will now, like Norway, have to accept the most important facets of the Common Market, but has given up any role in shaping the underlying policies, and it will be Brexiters who will have to inform the Eurosceptics.
No wonder Nigel Farage left UKIP. Once the UKIPers find out he sold them all an absolute load of bollocks, they'll want his head.
Re: (Score:3)
No wonder Nigel Farage left UKIP. Once the UKIPers find out he sold them all an absolute load of bollocks, they'll want his head.
I fear it's more likely that when things get difficult, Farage will appear again to blame europeans for the new crisis. It is highly unlikely that brexiters will decide they were misled. It might be logical but it's not human nature. And brexit is all about human nature.
Re: (Score:3)
Britain will now, like Norway, have to accept the most important facets of the Common Market, but has given up any role in shaping the underlying policies.
Which is why Norway is desperately trying to join the EU?
Re: (Score:3)
No wonder Nigel Farage left UKIP. Once the UKIPers find out he sold them all an absolute load of bollocks, they'll want his head.
UKIP is now pointless, farage just wanted out of EU, now it's happened he's shown he doesn't give a fuck what happens next, we're out, he's won and has fucked off to let everyone else deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The British government looks like Duck Soup (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I think this is a brilliant idea by May. She's assigned Boris a position alright, and it's "useful idiot" - someone who is going to be drawing all the media attention, while the real work goes on elsewhere (it's actually Phil Hammond, Liam Fox and David Davis that will be mostly responsible for BrExit). As you note though, despite his reputation as a buffoon, Boris is also generally regarded as someone is also fairly astute, so while this could easily be seen as giving him a rope by which to hang himself, he's also been given an opportunity to actually make it all work. Only time will tell whether this makes or breaks Boris' political career, but I don't think there's much room for middle ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't even have enough trade negotiators - the few we have are working in Europe - because EU did most of of the work. The UK government is looking at getting people in from private companies, but some don't seem that keen - they'll be tearing down the agreements many of them put a lot of work into creating.
Re:The British government looks like Duck Soup (Score:4, Interesting)
May is indeed quite devious. I think these threats against big tech companies are just to soften them up for the Snooper's Charter, so they hand over data willingly rather than trying to resist. She has seen how they have been increasing the use of encryption and ensuring that they themselves can't unlock devices, and realizes that prying may be thwarted if she can't make them cooperate.
Re:The British government looks like Duck Soup (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that is probably right. I would be scared if I was those companies though. My observations from having to deal with the UK immigration system during her tenure as home secretary, is that she is a populist who will blindly acquiesce to public opinion in order to score points. I don't think she is someone who will try to shape public opinion around her own vision. In a way, this is probably why she is the perfect Brexit prime minister for the conservatives, but it is not really leadership, and shaping Britain according to the braying of the tabloid press might keep her in power, but isn't going to lead the country to a good place.
Will be interesting to see how this pans out.
First tried in New Zealand (Score:5, Interesting)
Boris Johnson is the best bit
In New Zealand, the former prime minister Helen Clark did a similar thing to the leader of a fringe coalition partner (NZ uses MMP, so small parties frequently hold the balance of power). The guy, Winston Peters, was a known charismatic trouble maker (sound familiar?) and rose to power mostly by blaming immigrants for stealing jobs. So she made him foreign minister. It completely shut him down, as he was out of the country most of the time, had to put on a serious face so he didn't become the laughing stock of the world, and was hobbled in his ability to portray people from other countries as troublesome. It was an incredibly successful strategy, and he ended up doing an okay job of it.
However I wouldn't read so much into it being an attempt to destroy Boris. The foreign minister is largely a PR role, which Boris will be quite good at once he has apologized to everyone, and I think he has enough political nous to ensure nothing serious around Brexit can be pinned on him.
Leadsom and Davis on the other hand, have found themselves holding the poison chalice.
Re: (Score:2)
Boris Johnson is the best bit, however
I wonder if May is being even more Machiavellian than usual here. There's some talk from MPs now about pushing for a referendum on whatever post-EU deal that the UK will end up with (i.e. a rerun of the referendum, but this time with the Leave campaign having to pick something concrete to campaign about). If you send Boris to piss off all of the world leaders, then you can guarantee that we'll end up with something that's pretty horrendous in comparison to the status quo.
Translation: (Score:4, Interesting)
Google and Amazon are being rebuked for pushing the corruption of society a little too far into the limelight and are to be whipped back into the shadows.
The Establishment is upset at the show they have to put on to make it seem like they are actually changing anything.
All the newest dirtiest business of the international total surveillance state recedes into the shadows of deeper levels of military intelligence.
Nothing really changes and everything continues in the same direction.
Almost all of us continue to be disposable workers that in the advent of the automation of the economy will be targeted by malicious social doctrine to eventually be driven to economic/moral/spiritual poverty and/or sterility and/or suicide.
We aren't meant to last in this society.
Maybe it's just my opinion, but the opportunity turn things around is almost gone, and will certainly be gone at the end of the millenial generation.
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Interesting)
This post sums up exactly what is so bad about cynicism.
Let's start with some political basics. People who have things want to keep those things. People who don't have things, think that they should. Keep those two simple points in mind at all times. It doesn't matter whether for "things", you read "fast cars", or "money", or "power", or "sexual opportunities" - these rules are always valid.
What does "change" mean? It means the transfer of Things from someone to someone else. (It does not mean "creating more Things", that's called "production" and it's the normal, i.e. unchanging, business of any economy.)
In any state of change, there are lots of ways you can divide up the people. You can divide them into "winners/losers", or "leaders/led", or "aristocracy/bourgeoisie", or "establishment/insurgents", or even just "haves/have-nots". All of these divisions are valid up to a point - which is to say, they can all be used to make true and sometimes important observations - but all of them also obscure a very important part of the story. For that part, I'm going to ask you to consider the division between "prepared" vs "unprepared", or "adaptable" vs "rigid".
It should be pretty obvious, then, that the people who benefit from a change are, to a large extent, those who are sufficiently prepared/adaptable for it. Everyone else will either lose, or at best tread water.
What kinds of people do you think are prepared for Brexit? Clue: it's the people who've had the most leisure, resource and opportunity to make those preparations/contingency plans, i.e. the people with most resources and connections. I.e. to a large extent, "the Establishment". By definition - "the Establishment" is those people who are good at positioning themselves on top.
Where you go wrong is in assuming this must be the result of some great eternal conspiracy to do down the underdogs. It's not. "The Establishment" isn't a conspiracy, it's just lots of greedy people looking out for number one. And when you complain that "nothing really changes", what you're saying is that the people you identify with, were not equipped to exploit the changes that happened.
And whose fault is that, exactly?
If you just sit around and moan that "everything continues in the same direction", then you're screwing yourself over. You're waiting for someone to come and give you a hand up. Well, this post right here? - this is the closest you're going to get. I'm telling you that what you need to change is not society, or the economy, or the system, or the establishment - it's you. So get on with it.
Re: Translation: (Score:2)
Translation: "Have you tried being part of the Establishment? Maybe then you wouldn't be such a loser."
Re: Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the translation is "Have you actually tried doing anything at all, rather than impotently whining on the Internet about how the Establishment is screwing you over, and concocting conspiracy theories whose only real purpose is to convince yourself that your apathy is a rational choice.
Have you ever written a letter to your elected representative? Have you ever got like-minded citizens in your area together to petition other citizens in the area for letter writing campaigns or petitions, or to seek meetings with elected representatives at whatever level of government you're having issues with?
It's so much easier to go on the Internet, mask your laziness and apathy in the form of grand conspiracies about the Man keeping you down.
Re: (Score:2)
20 years ago, your post would have been modded "-10 Conspiracy Theory". Now it's basically fact so, it's kinda hard to know what to do. The majority of the public can't understand the manner in which their rights are being destroyed so, they can't really vote to protect them. I love to blame the government for our unfortunate and deteriorating situation but, really, it's ignorance that has caused it. In democratic societies, we've *always* had the ability to mold our government to do our bidding. We've
Re: (Score:2)
While pushing back on bad-business that has taken advantage of "the people" is a good thing. Lately the UK seems to be taking a "we'll go this alone" tact with Brexit. There are concerns that the auto manufacturers won't have (easy) access to the EU. I heard a podcast episode on Marketplace were some of the "cheap" airlines are considering moving their headquarters outside of the UK due to fear over new policies. So will Amazon/Google exit too?
If this is the new /. (Score:5, Interesting)
After many years of reading Slashdot it is time to move on.
I am a very political person but for the most part I came here for non-political news. Just the straight up NASA did this... nVidia did that... Silicon Graphics is bought by Rackable Systems etc etc.
The comments on Slashdot are so much more inflamatory than before. A sign that Slashdot has run its course.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're right, jmd.
I'm hoping this is an aberration of sorts or a reflection of the angry political dialogue that has been going on for sometime now. Nobody can be objective anymore. They're caught up in the "somebody is wrong on the internet" thing and just can't let it go until they call that "somebody" out.
Let's get back to tech, science, etc. You know "News for Nerds."
Anyway...
You could say I've lost my belief in our politicians.
They all seem like game show hosts to me.
Sting -- If I ever lose my
Re: (Score:2)
Let's get back to tech, science, etc. You know "News for Nerds."
You just try and come up with a rigid definition of what is news for nerds. Go on.
For example, I think the election of a new British PM allegedly in favour of increased electronic surveillance is of much more nerd-interest than a story about some stupid Japanese mobile game for eight year olds or the latest PR-piece in favour of Uber or Elon Musk. But each to their own.
It would be impossible to exclude all mention of politics, religion, cars, ponies or anything else from slashdot without having some w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, somewhat more in the presentation flavor of slashdot: news.ycombinator.com and lobste.rs. Ars and engadget and Tech Crunch are so gaudy and flowery and ... visually HEAVY.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a sign that technology, government and society have collided in such an incompatible way that a technology site has become political. I'm actually kind of shocked that you can claim to be "a very political person" and not be able to understand this. Technology *IS* politics. And vice-a-versa. Putting your head in the sand doesn't change that fact.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that technology has a very political side to it. My point is not to avoid political issues. My point is that /. is going down a road I wish not to drive on.
And yes I am a very political person. And what makes you think I don't understand the political ramifications of technological developments. Have I put my head in the sand .. or did you just assume that?
The responses to my post tell me that responders make a lot of assumptions about posters. And they are not always accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
The oversimplification of the left-right dichotomy. For 99% of people, everything has to fit that false narrative. The world is full of people hammering square pegs into round holes. It's a trap I struggle to avoid, myself.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, you don't /have/ to read every story. If you don't like it, scroll down. If there isn't enough stuff to your liking, submit it yourself. That's what I do if I see something interesting to talk about.
If all you want is a basic news feed then there are any number of tech news sites, or maybe Hacker News. You won't find the same quality of debate there, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot has always been going down hill. The Internet has been going downhill, since at least the time when AOL users began flooding USENET. What passes for "editing" is as unsophisticated as reading random Facebook shares, and always has been. You never read it here first because there's almost no original content, unless Bennett Hasselton was given the floor. It's links about links from other sites, a hall of mirrors.
I think the purely political content without any substantive technology base has gon
Re: (Score:2)
After many years of reading Slashdot it is time to move on.
All these years, and you still haven't learned how to skip stories you don't like, and have to crap the thread up by complaining instead? We won't miss you. Bye!
Re: (Score:2)
Well no. Not new on /. My member number is 14060 and I had been a regular reader before I signed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume I am closing my eyes? You have no ideas of my political activities. /. used to be less political and more tech news reporting. I prefer to get my political news elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
It strikes me that politics has not been emphasized on the new slashdot so much as tech has been DE-emphasized in the world at large. The halcyon glory days of tech are gone. Those huge thick issues of Byte magazine stuffed with informative articles on a rich variety of subjects. Dr. Dobb's Journal. The telephone-book-thick Computer Shoppers that let you pore over what was out there for hours. The crazy clever PC Connection advertisements. Slashdot used to report highly interesting tech happenings because t
Re: (Score:3)
This, and she is not the PM yet. Hillary will be the first woman to break the glass ceiling.
Thatcher?
Re: (Score:2)
Although give it 15 years and they'll be conservatives too. It's funny what the real world does to people's political views.
If you're a conservative when you're thirty or fifty, you were a conservative when you were fifteen. The idea that all young people are radical intellectuals passionate about changing the world is pure fantasy encouraged by youth-obsessed media.
Young or old, most people are self-centred, intellectually lazy and uninterested or afraid of change, i.e. inherently conservative.
UK thinks it's economy matters, so cute (Score:2, Interesting)
2.6 trillion economy isn't worth jumping through hoops for. UK has no resources the world needs other than a few pieces of intellectual property which they have much less control over now that they EU is not there to back them up.
Really, the only long term value in the UK is intellectual property and touism. There is no world industry there that the world would miss if the UK dropped into the sea. No offence, rather it's just entirely true. They would miss the 2.6 trillion dollars, but not that much.
For a c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about single malt Scotch? That is made in the UK and there are plenty of people on this planet who will argue that a good single malt qualifies as up there with the best in the world when it comes to alcoholic beverages...
Re: (Score:2)
Though it is clear it wants to be part of europe.
Re: UK thinks it's economy matters, so cute (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, Rolls Royce aircraft engines are very good.
Re: (Score:2)
I submit the Raspberry Pi. Many have tried to copy it, and none have come close to catching up to its price/performance point and its universal acceptance defining its niche. And I say this as a devotee of the BeagleBone.
Re: (Score:2)
Rolls Royce is owned by BMW, which is not entirely british.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think what modern manufactured product the UK makes that's the best of something in the world.
The UK makes precious few consumer goods. There's still a manufacturing base, but it's not huge and it's mostly for specialised, high tech kit that you probably won't have heard of unless you work in the industry.
Now I know how the rest of the world feels... (Score:3)
...when there's a Slashdot article about the U.S. :)
This political story is nice and all, but none of these names even ring a bell, let alone mean anything
Re: (Score:2)
I have the opposite feeling. The article and discussion are greatly informative to me, and I welcome it.
Bad move (Score:2)
Way to go.
Wait until Google pumps a few billions in the Scotland and Northern Ireland Independence campaigns.
1984 (Score:2)
With the way things are going I feel we are getting closer to the description of 1984, than ever. Brexit just allowed the government to be uncountable and the country a non-team player. Who knew George Orwell's vision would start with a nannie state?
Irony... (Score:2)
while former London mayor and key Brexit campaigner Boris Johnson -- to the surprise of many -- now heads up the foreign office
A wonderfully ironic thing to do. Take the person pushing for something and say "here, now you can deal with any consequences". Might make the next person think twice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because it is competitive, and Ireland's gamble at lower rates for more volume is failing and simply depriving the public of funding for zero gains. Conservative doesn't mean wacko like in the US, her job isn't to do amateur plastic surgery to kill the state like the US Republican strategy has been.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Conservative doesn't mean wacko like in the US
And it's high time conservatives reclaim the title from the wackos
Re: (Score:2)
Conservative doesn't mean wacko like in the US
And it's high time conservatives reclaim the title from the wackos
That might happen if Trump wins the election in November.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservative doesn't mean wacko like in the US
And it's high time conservatives reclaim the title from the wackos
That might happen if Trump wins the election in November.
+1 Funny
Re:She seem like a commie... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Tax is the amount society pays it's people in Government services and infrastructure.
The less corporations pay in tax deprives the society that supports it.
Re:She seem like a commie... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Tax is the amount society pays it's people in Government services and infrastructure.
The less corporations pay in tax deprives the society that supports it.
Sigh.
Corporations. Don't. Pay. Taxes.
Look, this is basic economics. Capital seeks a certain rate of return in given economic conditions and a given economic context. When you raise taxes on corporations, you don't change that sought rate of return, which means that corporate governance adapts to shift the cost of the taxes elsewhere, so they don't come out of profits and returns meet expectations. Corporations that fail to do this lose, and their capital moves to others that do it well.
This means that any taxes you nominally assess to corporations actually land on suppliers, employees or customers. In many cases suppliers and customers are other corporations subject to the same demands of capital, so they just shuffle the costs off further. At the end, it always lands on employees and customers. In the short term profits may take a hit, which drops the cost onto investors, but that's a temporary situation.
The bottom line, then, is that corporate taxes are all ultimately paid by individuals. Actually, this should be utterly obvious even without looking at the detailed mechanisms: corporations aren't real, they're just a mechanism for pooling individual wealth to accomplish larger goals than any individual could... but the products are all ultimately consumed by people, the owners are all ultimately people, and so the taxes all ultimately land on individuals -- voters.
That means that corporate taxation is just a way to impose hidden taxes on voters. Taxes that they pay but don't know they pay, and taxes that are allocated fairly randomly, and likely rather regressively. Corporate taxes are a bad idea and we should abolish them, instead raising capital gains taxes and the top marginal income tax rates.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong! With less corporate tax, more money get spent on productive uses, and in a more efficient way than if government were to spend it, i.e. without the huge dead-weight loss of government, which has been estimated up to 30-40 cents per dollar, depending on the activity. So more jobs, higher standards of living, less deprivation, etc.
I disagree with what you said because it is too strong statement -- money from less corporate taxes would be spent in more productive/efficient way than government. It can go either way and is depended on how far you want to look at in the future. I agree that government spending is likely to be in a wrong direction, but that does not mean private/corporate spending is likely to go to the right direction. What have we been seeing how corporates spend their money so far? What is their business model? And wha
Re: (Score:2)
Conservative doesn't mean wacko like in the US, her job isn't to do amateur plastic surgery to kill the state like the US Republican strategy has been.
That little bubble you occupy doesn't seem to have enough oxygen in it, you're (becoming?) delusional.
Sounds like you are talking about yourself..
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Look closer, she's a fucking terrifying neocon.
Regarding taxation, "extortion/slavery/theft/rape that is tax" is a bit much, made me laugh. Yeah, taxes suck to pay, but they keep the world running. We all want them as low as possible. If you haven't been paying attention: The average citizen pays way more tax than some of these big companies. Sure you keep your tax bill as low as possible, but you pay your fair share or it all collapses.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com... [theyworkforyou.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But remember that May has been a member of the government since the coalition came to power in 2010. That means she was bound by the principle of collective responsibility among the Cabinet, so she will have voted in line with official government policy on just about everything. Her voting record in recent years is more an indictment of the overall government policy than a useful indication of her own views on most of those issues.
Re:She seem like a commie... (Score:5, Informative)
I think Americans at least get a little confused at how a Parliamentary system works (so, to, do a lot of Canadians, Brits, Australians and so forth, mind you). If a vote isn't a free vote, then MPs for each party are bound to vote in line with the party. If it is a crucial vote, like a confidence motion, then a three line whip will be used, and if an MP defies even that, well they can be expelled from their party. For a cabinet minister, however, it is even more severe. A cabinet minister must, on all government bills, whether they are free votes for all other MPs, support the government bill. This is a longstanding Westminster tradition, and if a cabinet minister cannot back a government bill or motion, then the cabinet minister must resign.
in addition cabinet ministers are bound not to reveal cabinet debates or the results of those debates. The Government in a Westminster Parliament must remain united, and if a cabinet minister simply cannot abide the decisions of Cabinet, again, they're only choice is to resign. This is not such a different arrangement from how the US cabinet works, and that was modeled on how the British government still at least partially functioned by the time of the American Revolution (although Westminster was well on its way to its modern form even then).
The reason for this dates far back in Westminster constitutional history. Up until the 18th century the King would name his cabinet, which would serve in His name. And so it still is. Why the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet are chosen from sitting MPs and Peers, they are sworn into the Privy Council (an older governing body of which the Cabinet is a part), and the deliberations of the Privy Council, be in effect advice to the Sovereign, are generally kept secret.
So the intent of this long-winded explanation is to state that you cannot judge Theresa May entirely by the votes she cast over the last six years. She was bound by practice and convention to side with her fellow Cabinet Ministers, and generally has not enjoyed the right to public criticize those Ministers (though during the 2010-2015 Coalition, that practice was often ignored in subtle and not so subtle ways). In fact, little enough is known of May's views, and a lot of British political observers are quoting a Rumsfeldism, she is a "known unknown".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Good post, informative, correct. Thanks.
Just to point out - the time for a cabinet minister to disagree with a policy is "in the cabinet meetings". So cabinet ministers have enormous influence at that point.... but after that, they must put up or get out. And thus, as you say, the voting record is not a good guide.
Re: (Score:2)
So the intent of this long-winded explanation is to state that you cannot judge Theresa May entirely by the votes she cast over the last six years. She was bound by practice and convention
That's a great excuse, but a garbage explanation. Tradition is never sufficient justification for anything.
Re: (Score:2)
So the intent of this long-winded explanation is to state that you cannot judge Theresa May entirely by the votes she cast over the last six years. She was bound by practice and convention
That's a great excuse, but a garbage explanation. Tradition is never sufficient justification for anything.
If she had not gone along with that tradition, she would have lost her job. Anyway, it seems like an entirely reasonable tradition to me: if you are a member of the government, you should be 100% behind government policy, and if you're not then you should resign.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, it seems like an entirely reasonable tradition to me: if you are a member of the government, you should be 100% behind government policy, and if you're not then you should resign.
My country, right or wrong! Hint: that's not a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's a democracy. The people vote for their MP, usually based on party, the MP gets a say in caucus about how to run things, the party governs. If the party can't govern, eg lets say that they fail to pass a budget, the people get to vote again. It's actually possible to have multiple elections in a year rather then being stuck with a government without the support of the peoples representatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Cabinet ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister, and can be dismissed just as easily. The principle of collective responsibility among the Cabinet is considered very important in our politics, and anyone breaking it almost certainly would be out of the Cabinet soon afterwards.
The now-ex minister would still be an MP -- the PM has no power to fire someone elected by their constituents from Parliament -- and they could still freely criticise whatever they wanted from the back benches. But the honourable
Re: (Score:2)
There is a punishment. If a cabinet minister were to openly revolt against the Government, and did not resign, then the Prime Minister would advise the Queen (or Governor General in Commonwealth Realms, or President in parliamentary republics) to have the cabinet minister dismissed.
And it should be noted that even after someone is left Cabinet, they are still bound by their oaths, and cannot reveal the matters that were discussed while they were members of cabinet.
Re:She seem like a commie... (Score:5, Insightful)
This idea that taxes, or indeed any law, require every individual's consent is utterly absurd. First of all, it would make government completely unworkable.
But more to the point, what was meant by the Revolutionaries when they said "No taxation without representation", or in the Westminster tradition of "responsible government" wasn't that you didn't have to pay taxes, it was that no tax could be imposed without the consent of the GOVERNED. That doesn't mean that you, I and every other taxpayer get a veto on the taxes we'll pay, it means we elect representatives who will then create the taxes, and if we don't like the taxes being levied, then our right as citizens is to try to get people elected who will more closely align with our views on taxation matters.
Citizenship confers not only rights, but inherently it confers obligations. You have the right to vote for your representatives, but you have the obligation to abide by their lawful and constitutional powers to pass laws, including tax laws. If you feel you have been unjustly treated, you have the right to petition the government or to seek redress through the courts.
So there is no theft. You are taxed by people who a conferred the right to enact and collect taxes by the consent of the governed, which is you and all your fellow citizens collectively.
Re: (Score:2)
And when these taxes are introduced as a temporary measure, to pay for Napoleonic wars and the like as income tax is, but remain enacted for perpetuity, that right is abused and should be rescinded. It has turned into a tithe, which was considered A Bad Thing centuries ago when it was conducted by the Church.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect he isn't talking about the US, given that their involvement in the Napoleonic wars is generally considered to be somewhere between none and not very much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So there is no theft. You are taxed by people who a conferred the right to enact and collect taxes by the consent of the governed, which is you and all your fellow citizens collectively.
This.
You also, in a democracy, have the right to run on a "abolish taxes" platform. You will get a few votes from people who have no clue but for the most part people wont vote for you because they know taxes pay for all the things they cant live without like police, fire brigades, armies, rail, roads, sanitation, water and other infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah the religion of Libertarianism. As fantastical and absurd as Communism and Anarchism.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
With the difference that is even easier to see how it would fail.
They tend to forget that if everything is by market then the richest will become dictators.. and therefore a form of government.
Re: She seem like a commie... (Score:2)
You are being inconsistent. The notion that the government has to protect property rights is completely arbitrary. Why not leave it to the market as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice simple talking point. Just remember that in the USA the Southern states regarded ownership of slaves as a 'property right'. Is that where you think the government should draw the line (it's fine to own people)? If not, then what about putting them in the kind of indentured servitude where they're nominally not slaves but can't ever afford to leave or they'll starve to death?
Libertarians are the most boring of the political factions. At least the others want to make new mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything else, including you precious roads can be better provided by markets.
I think that's the wrong way around. I'd say no for profit service can be as good as a public service can be.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than whining at firms that add so much value to your society ... the extortion/slavery/theft/rape that is tax.
Yeah, having to pay your fair share of the upkeep of society, from whose infrastructure and other facilities you benefit, is just so unfair. Why can't those bloody commies see that it is much more reasonable to let the poor and the middle class pay for it? As for whining - you sound exactly like some sort of teenager whining about how unfair it is that you have to clean up the mess in your room, wash your own clothes and contribute a bit to the household in general.
If the companies don't like it, they can j
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting how the leftist supporting large businesses are now being attacked by the leftist-socialists they support.
Reminds me of a quote "Watching someone shoot themselves in the boot is less amusing when said boot is on your neck."
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you don't buy anything from corporations. Because you're basically asking to have your taxes raised.
Re: She seem like a commie... (Score:3)
The customers are already paying whatever the market can bear. Raising the prices would result in fewer sales, hence corporations have to pay taxes out of their profits.
Re: (Score:3)
You have that backwards. Think about it. Drop corporate taxes to zero and raise the workers taxes to 90%-99.9%. Now the corporation has to pay the janitor $200,000 so he can take home $20,000 and pay the CEO one billion so he can take home a million. This is whether the corporation is profitable or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Dividends is what should be taxed. But that is taxing the owners of the corporation and not the corporation.
Corporations, as well as any properly run business is already considering their tax obligations when budgeting. It only takes from their income when the rate unexpectedly changes before year end. Make no mistake, they already have accounted for their tax obligations before reporting income.
Re:collectivism = death (Score:5, Insightful)
When people start throwing around terms like "collectivism is dead" and "income tax is immoral", you know you're dealing with an ignorant Libertarian blowhard.
Pay your fucking taxes, asshole, and quit trying to get society to underwrite your greed. That's right, society. We're social animals, not a bunch of solo hunting predators. Unless, of course you're a sociopath, then Libertarianism is very attractive, because fucking morons buy into it, and fucking morons make the best prey.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't necessarily agree with your argument but, I do *very* much appreciate the manner in which you have presented it. The tactical use of "fuck" and "shit" is commendable. Just the right amount of grammatical correctness with a healthy dose of genuine anger. We need more... oh, shit... you're a Martian. Nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
... Libertarianism requires knowledge to appreciate .... Communism requires none...
You're trying to imply the poster is a communist when all you know is he's not a Libertarian. It's not an either/or: most political positions are neither Libertarian nor Communism. Both Libertarian and Communism are politically extreme. In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, both lead to bad outcomes.
Re: (Score:3)
I have news for you. Karl Marx invented the best scientific method of its time, which was only superseded by the method of Karl Popper. He also developed the first actually scientific theory of money circulation. USSR had the largest anti-illiteracy campaign in the world which resulted in Russia's literacy raising from less than 30% to 99.6%.
In comparison, libertarianism is not scientific at all, it is more like a cult.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Libertarians are either greedy sociopaths or retards. Societies much beyond hunter gatherer require government and taxation to function, and anyone who thinks differently is just a plan fucking moron.
Re:Virtue signaling kleptomaniac much? (Score:4, Interesting)
Civilization costs money.
That describes capitalism and unearned wealth, not taxation.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really a troll. While updating laws for taxes is fine, blowing the horn to charge! against business is an age old BS play by politicians.
I haven't heard anything this idiotic from a politician since the 1990s and Hillary Clinton was running around raging at "the unconscionable profits" of drug companies who have saved billions of lives.
What a piece of work are these power-hungry politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
No, economics does not show that. Economics shows that cooperation coupled with some promise of profit can enhance enterprises, but both economics and psychology show where greed becomes the primary motivator, people begin to behave in fundamentally immoral ways.
Re: (Score:2)
"We're also very busy moving what assets we have in the UK to the EU."
If you move them by truck, pay close attention to who is driving that truck.
Re: (Score:3)
Pull out, full stop. Show the world what happens to a country that cannibalizes itself through jingoist nationalism. Please, before it spreads across the pond.
The value provided by the Amazons and Googles of the world to the UK is... what, exactly? A few thousand (or less) jobs, maybe. That's it. The value they get is far in excess of that due to not paying their share of taxes.