Slashdot Mirror


Theresa May Reshuffles Cabinet, Warns Amazon and Google of Power Shift (arstechnica.co.uk)

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."

12 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Re:She seem like a commie... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  2. Translation: by axewolf · · 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.

    1. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. If this is the new /. by jmd · · 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.

  4. UK thinks it's economy matters, so cute by Anonymous Coward · · 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 country that has no leverage, that's pretty tough talk and it a foolish tone to set when you have no chips to bargain.

    Now the UK has opened itself to being bashed by the EU and independently by the US for Google and Amazon resistance. Good move.. what's next, maybe a trade agreement with Somalia and North Korea?

    Brexit won't be the worst thing ever, but it will be a net loss with almost zero chance of any useful gains. It's a move to gain political control, not improve the UK via policy. UK leaders have to be insane if they think they can really influence Google or Amazon. The only leverage they had was the EU, not corporations like Google can walk all over the UK. They won't, but there is no longer anything stopping them. The UK has about the same size economy as Brazil.

    When did you say to yourself.. wow Brazil.. they certainly have a lot of global influence. I like Brazil, but no, they just don't have the money or infrastructure to matter. UK is even worse because they don't have the resources to ever be likely to be a large economy again. Brazil at least has developing nation potential. The UK is more or less topped out for big gain, most likely. Unless they start piling up intellectual property perhaps.

     

  5. Re:The British government looks like Duck Soup by MightyMartian · · 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.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. Re:The British government looks like Duck Soup by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  7. Re:The British government looks like Duck Soup by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. First tried in New Zealand by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, 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.

  9. Re:The British government looks like Duck Soup by monkeyxpress · · Score: 3, 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.

  10. Re:She seem like a commie... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  11. Re:Virtue signaling kleptomaniac much? by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Taxation is immoral

    Civilization costs money.

    it's the extortion of money through threat of force of arms.

    That describes capitalism and unearned wealth, not taxation.