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."

Comments

Re:collectivism = death

[MightyMartian]

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.

If this is the new /.

[jmd]

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:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

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:She seem like a commie...

[MightyMartian]

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:She seem like a commie...

[MightyMartian]

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:The British government looks like Duck Soup

[MightyMartian]

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.