Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
UK prime minister Keir Starmer promised to make the nation's competition regulator more inclined toward economic growth the day after a Microsoft executive was appointed chair of the government's Industrial Strategy Advisory Council.
At the UK's International Investment Summit, attended by Google owner Alphabet, insurance group Aviva, and pharma giant GSK, Starmer said it was time to "upgrade the regulatory regime" and make it "fit for the modern age."
"We will rip out the bureaucracy that blocks investment," he said. "We will march through the institutions and we will make sure that every regulator in this country – especially our economic and competition regulators – takes growth as seriously as this room does."
Competitors to Microsoft and Google might point out that UK regulators can also promote growth by curbing monopolies.
The Redmond tech giant is one of the companies under the scrutiny of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) as it continues to investigate the health of the local cloud market.
But that was not the theme of this week's event, which was preceded by the appointment of Clare Barclay, CEO of Microsoft UK, as chair of the government's new Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, which is said to offer the government expert advice in partnership with business, unions, and other groups from across the UK.
[...] A legal professional in the UK voiced concerns about potential conflict of interest in hiring a Microsoft exec to work in a public sector role.
"Leaving aside the crass stupidity of appointing the UK head of a US HQ'ed global supplier under ongoing active investigation by the CMA for alleged manipulation of their market share, the gov[ernment] have arguably both sent a clear message of their faith and dependency on Microsoft AND dealt the CMA's investigation a crashing blow," he told The Reg.
"If CMA don't chastise Microsoft then the role now played by Barclay will of course be leveraged to suggest political interference, whereas if they do, her position becomes immediately untenable, and affects the gov[ernment]'s flagship plan.
"Maybe this is a precursor to a significantly less harsh outcome all round for all the hyperscalers under CMA examination - only that outcome would conveniently spare the gov[ernment]'s blushes and let their normal cloud service purchases resume unabated."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2024, @05:51PM (1 child)
We have X number of people, and we have X work to do -- and the execs want "Growth!!!"
So... that's more work for you and me? Never just, "Finish what we start," or "The right people for the job," but always make more, and more, and ever more?
Sigh. Running as fast as you can just to stay right where you are. For the execs, too, I'm sure. So I mean.. what?
--
Not to do away with the corporate side of "run as fast as you can to stay right where you are": "A corporation can either grow or die. The choice is yours."
(Score: 4, Touché) by acid andy on Saturday October 19 2024, @07:20PM
And do the work in a more dangerous and more environmentally destructive way, because cheaper and faster.
"rancid randy has a dialogue with herself[...] Somebody help him!" -- Anonymous Coward.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2024, @05:59PM (1 child)
"A corporation can either grow or die"
And that is the problem. There is no such thing as infinite growth.
Also, why is it the responsibility of a government to make sure companies have shareholder value?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 20 2024, @02:34AM
Poorly regulated growth reminds me of cancer.
FWIW sustainable growth in a finite planet can only mean growth in "virtual" stuff. You can't keep having growth in the "real" stuff.
So if you are a ruler trying to avoid pitchforks with Bread and Circuses, you should keep in mind while the Bread has to be real, the Circuses don't have to be.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2024, @06:02PM (11 children)
Don't rock the boat, and they'll stay in power forevah!
The UK shares the same political corruption as the US. This "opposition" theater they play on the TV has everybody blinded...
(Score: 4, Funny) by janrinok on Saturday October 19 2024, @06:04PM
No, No, No! The UK had an election and the 'other' party got in. This is different corruption. You obviously don't understand. The other party's corruption wasn't the same at all.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday October 19 2024, @06:48PM (9 children)
That's probably why there were historically good results for the LibDems in the last election, as lots of Britons voted for the third option.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2024, @07:13PM (1 child)
Yeah, but they don't have a chance against the Labour/Tory coalition
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2024, @07:23PM
That's why the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories into government in 2010. All three parties are much the same now.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by turgid on Saturday October 19 2024, @08:10PM (6 children)
Scotland needs to take the lead and to become independent. Northern Ireland needs to free itself from the sinking ship Britannia too. Gibraltar has been messed around. Wales is waking up. Australia has a rather low-key Royal visit. The old order is well past its sell-by date. This will shake England from its slumber. Faragism is the last tantrum of an old and spiteful guard, the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Sunday October 20 2024, @08:46AM (5 children)
> Scotland needs to take the lead and to become independent
How will that help Scotland?
(i) They are dependent on English (well, London) money, increasingly so now the North Sea has been drained of its oil
(ii) The Scots nationalist party are as corrupt as anyone else.
> This will shake England from its slumber.
And do what exactly? What is this magic awakening that you are speaking of? Return of King Arthur at the head of a fae army? Donald Trump coming on a chariot (union jack on the side) to save us? Labour movement bringing amount some magic Socialist revolution that will fix everything?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by turgid on Sunday October 20 2024, @10:35AM (2 children)
Regarding the first two points, we are now nearly 100% self-sufficient in energy, from renewables. We are not "dependent" on London money. We get back less than we pay in tax. We're also not stupid. We have some high-quality universities and some world class technology companies, real technology, not social media.
The Scottish National Party has done a very good job in bad circumstances. Westminster has treated Scotland very badly, especially when Scotland elected SNP governments. Ultimately, Westminster holds the purse strings. Westminster has also unilaterally vetoed some Scottish democratic decisions. That's really not a good look.
Again, regarding the Scottish National Party, Scotland is not a single party state. We have many different political parties to choose from, including Conservative and Reform UK if you're that far to the right. However, our system of Proportional Representation at Holyrood ensures a better mix of parties in the parliament. For example, the Greens have a large presence. They are also pro-independence.
My final point regarding Scotland is that if and when it becomes independent, it will still be a multi-party democracy. The SNP are not guaranteed to hold power ever.
Regarding England, and therefore the UK as a whole, it's incredibly conservative. We still have a House of Lords with hereditary and appointed Peers, including representatives of the Church of England. As far as I know, Iran is the only other country in the world which appoints politicians from its official religion. The hereditary Peers go back to the Battle of Hastings in 1066. It's an absurd situation.
I could also go on about the large amounts of money from shady increasingly right-wing sources in the British press and media in general. The interests of billionaires and the right are completely over represented. We even have a loss-making TV channel, GB News, devoted to spreading right-wing regressive propaganda.
England does very little proactively. It tends only to react to big changes. That is why I think it will take fundamental changes by external pressures (Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, Scotland) for anything to get modernised.
I speak from experience. I am Scottish by birth, and was brought up and educated mainly in Scotland. I lived and worked for over 25 years in England, right down south in the Conservative Home Counties. I've seen it from several angles. In southern England, the Conservative types live in a weird bubble detached from the modern world. They believe their Daily Mails and Telegraphs. They never look outside their bubbles. They won't change unless the world changes under them. That's how I see it.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday October 20 2024, @11:08AM
Lots of good valid points there.
However, before you can join the Euro, you have to demonstrate that you have a stable currency (as well as quite a few other conditions, but we will ignore them for the moment). If you link the value of the Scottish £ to the UK £ then you will have a currency which is entirely dependant upon another country's government and in which you will have absolutely no say whatsoever. If you don't link it you do not have a currency that is even recognised in most parts of the world. Additionally, you cannot expect to have representatives in both governments if you are independent. You shouldn't expect to have a vote in any decision making in the London Parliament if you are independent either.
Nobody as far as I can find has actually stated how they would resolve this issue in any detail, they simply hand-wave it away. It would be in Scotland's interests to be trying to urge the UK to rejoin the EU, but even that does not guarantee that the UK will accept the Euro as a currency. They haven't done so far.
Next, with regard to defence. Scotland has expressed the desire to be nuclear free, particularly with regard to weapons. So will you expect Faslane dockyard to remain open as it is now, or will you insist that the submarines and all of their support moves 'down south'? That would lose a lot of Scottish jobs and come at a cost. Who would you expect to bear that cost? Do you still expect to have a mutual defence agreement if you will not support the UK's naval, air and land forces? Will you be prepared to pay taxes towards the cost of defence? I suspect that the sensible answer will be to keep the status quo but that does mean that you are not entirely independent.
I lived in Gibraltar for 5 years, only leaving there in 2006. I can assure you that the Gibraltarians do NOT want to be under Spanish control. They do not want the UK to remove its investment in the Rock or in the defence facilities that it provides. And if you think that Northern Ireland can be resolved simply by breaking away then you haven't been paying attention to the last 50 years or so.
Having your devolved assembly is child's play compared with the problems that have to be resolved for full independence. What politicians say and promise is not what they can provide easily. But until you can define what 'independence' will actually mean for Scotland then no changes can even begin.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Monday October 21 2024, @05:14PM
> We are not "dependent" on London money. We get back less than we pay in tax.
I was trying to find some neutral information on this. Every site I found looked highly partial (it seemed to me either left-ish and pro Scots or right-ish and pro England). So I don't know.
> We're also not stupid. We have some high-quality universities and some world class technology companies, real technology, not social media.
Actually, if one looks back at the 18th/19th century enlightenment Scotland drove a lot of the British industrial revolution. I don't doubt this.
On the other stuff: I used to be against PR, but actually seeing the not-disastrous coalition government of the 2000s I tend to be more pro-PR now than I used to be. Germany seems to work pretty well.
I agree hereditary peerages are a nonsense; they are gradually being phased out but such things are, correctly, the work of generations. I can see advantages to the "nominated" peerages system; its basically how the EU works as far as I can tell.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Sunday October 20 2024, @06:55PM (1 child)
They could rejoin the European Union.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday October 21 2024, @05:00PM
> They could rejoin the European Union.
Fair enough. That would probably help with trade outside the British Isles. I question whether breaking with their main trade partner (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) would really help Scotland. Probably the political stuff is more important anyway.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Saturday October 19 2024, @08:17PM (2 children)
We're Microsoft and we shit all over everything!
--brought to you by a monopolist with enough money to buy everyone and everything.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday October 19 2024, @08:26PM (1 child)
Microsoft, the new IBM. Google, the new Microsoft.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Funny) by Samantha Wright on Saturday October 19 2024, @09:31PM
Altman, his arms wide [fandom.com]!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by turgid on Saturday October 19 2024, @08:25PM (4 children)
The problem with the UK political system is that effectively we have a binary choice between Conservative (who rule over 60% of the time) and Labour. Our media (including the "independent" BBC) are set up in such a way, combined with our electoral system, that this is the only effective choice the UK as a whole has, despite many other parties being available.
There is an organisation called Open Britain campaigning to have this modernised. We are also one of the last countries in the world to have an unelected second chamber (the House of Lords). The TL;DR regarding the House of Lords is that, if your family is descended from knights who were on the winning side at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, you have a permanent hereditary seat. Also, if you are a bishop on the Church of England. I believe that Iran is the only other country in the world where religious leaders get appointed (not elected) to government.
It's a long time since the Labour Party was last in government, and they were fans of Microsoft back then too. They are obviously trying to look hip and "in" with business again. I remember a certain Scott McNealy going to talk to the government last time around about databases and servers and such and the Blair government smugly saying, "We've got all this Microsoft stuff for free for three years." His reply was, "The first hit of heroin's always free."
That didn't go down well.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday October 19 2024, @09:25PM (3 children)
What do you see as the difficulties if you go independent? Currency? Defence? Commercial links?
I'm not arguing against it but so far nobody has actually addressed the detail - it always seems to be 'become independent' and everything will happen overnight.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday October 20 2024, @10:54AM (2 children)
Currency is a difficult one, and I wonder whether we'd be best just adopting the Euro? I need to read up more about it.
Defence is complicated. I wonder what the implications would be? I know that there's a very strong anti-nuclear weapons sentiment in Scotland and a lot of anger about the UK deterrent being based in Faslane, not far from Glasgow.
Personally, I'm not a fan of nuclear weapons. However, realistically, as long as other places have them, and as long as there's the possibility of lunatics getting in charge of those other places and threatening us and everyone else with nukes, I think the nukes are a necessary evil. I know that's not a popular opinion, but I think it's dangerously naive to call for unilateral disarmament. Having said that, Scotland on its own probably couldn't afford to have its own nukes, so I think a deal with France, or maybe England might be wise.
As for conventional forces, I think that we need an Army, Navy and Airforce appropriate for the size of the country. There may be (there are, I know it) people serving who consider themselves English or British who may not want to serve an independent Scotland, therefore they would need to be relocated to England/Wales. Having said that there are many English people here who would be pleased to live in an independent and more progressive Scotland.
Obviously, regarding trade, we'd be wanting to align with the huge Single Market of 400 million people across the North Sea on the continent. Norway and Denmark have done well out of it. If England remains bloody minded about Brexit, staying away from all things EU, then I'm afraid there would have to be some kind of hard border with customs checks etc. with England. It looks, however, like public opinion in England is finally changing, and there might be a majority for aligning with the EU Single Market, if not for rejoining the Single Market.
What I think is, if Scotland did this, and made a success of it, Faragism would wither and die in England. England would then rejoin the modern world, and realign with or even rejoin the EU and consign the far-right politics to the dustbin of history where it belongs. That hard border between England and Scotland could be dismantled. Once again, trade could flow freely across the English channel between Dover and Calais, and all those lorry parks and customs warehouses could be repurposed for something useful.
I know England quite well. It doesn't really do proactive change. It will need some sort of external pressure to move forward. There has very recently been an issue in Gibraltar. I think Northern Ireland will be next. The Good Friday Agreement and the fact that Northern Ireland voted Remain, and the fact that everyone in Northern Ireland is entitled to an Irish (EU) passport means that progress is guaranteed. The Troubles must not come back. No one will put up with it. They know where the future is. It's not in "British Nationalism." It's in the wider world.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday October 20 2024, @11:55AM
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=62398&commentsort=0&mode=threadtng&threshold=-1&page=1&cid=1377785#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
I seem to have become out-of-step with some of your responses. Please check the link above.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday October 20 2024, @02:20PM
'Adopting' the Euro is fairly easy to do. But the question would then be how would you purchase the Euro? Without a recognised and stable currency you cannot pay for them, and I don't imagine that the EU will just keep pouring Euros into Scotland's coffer forever, although it might be willing to make some initial assistance. But a simple adoption of the Euro is theoretically possible.
One of the problems with renewal energy is that it is hard to move it around. Oil and gas are, of course, already transportable and are easy ways to export energy. But renewables are much harder and, at the moment, are really aimed at usage relatively close to generation. Although they meet your needs they are not a great money spinner.
Scotland has a lot of things that are exportable however, but none of them in the sort of quantities that would provide a significant source of income sufficient to support the entire nation. And that supposes that you can discover additional markets above and beyond what you already have.
Going back to Defence (as that was my profession for 37 years. I can recall several paper exercises in addressing similar but fictitious situations). Defence is very expensive but often something that if it is only done half-heartedly it is very much something of a money pit but provides very little actual 'defence'. The UK forces have, over the last few decades, rationalised to reduce costs wherever it could. For example, there are fewer regiments, few airfields, and few dockyards. Concentrating assets does make for a significant reduction in running costs but also makes them attractive targets. Trying to have a balanced force in a country the size of Scotland (e.g. Ireland) is more expensive than you might expect. Ireland has some world class forces but not the same wide capability as more wealthy nations have. For example, look at the Irish Air Corps [wikipedia.org]. It does not have anywhere near the range of aircraft that the UK has, and it has a total manpower of 711 people as of April 2023. The Scottish regiments are a vital part of the UK's land defence forces and they are paid for out of the Defence budget. I note that you mentioned that Scotland does not receive anywhere near as much as it contributes to the Whitehall coffers - but have you included the costs of running and equipping the various airfields, dockyards and regiments? That is often missed when people are comparing how much better off they might be after independence. Those costs of course include the salaries of every soldier, sailor and airman based in Scotland too.
If you imagine that the UK will still agree to continue to pay those costs then you cannot seriously expect those servicemen and women to pay tax on their salaries to the government of Scotland. That would just be London giving money away. This is not an unusual situation. I receive a UK military pension which is taxed by the UK government. However, I live in France. The French government recognises that I have already paid tax on my pension and although I must make a French tax declaration annually it does not expect to tax me again on that income. My French tax committent is for money earned from working in France - which is zero. It does mean that I have to pay towards healthcare etc as I cannot expect the French government to do that for me. Even so, it is a reasonable annual sum and entirely within my financial capabilities despite being on a pension. I imagine that a similar agreement for UK citizens based in Scotland would have to be found. Scottish military personnel could be covered under the same agreement or Scotland could pay their salaries. The would be Scotland's decision to make.
Now, let me be clear. I think that all of these problems can be addressed and overcome. But in doing so I think that the wealth and benefits that people imagine will be gained by independence have been wildly exaggerated by politicians in much the same way as the argument for Brexit was exaggerated. It is what politicians do. Until a party can explain in terms that the whole population of Scotland can understand while being entirely honest at the same time then I remain sceptical that it is a good idea. It is maybe a desirable dream for an independent Alba, but not one that can be achieved as simply as politicians would have everyone believe. Just don't think it is a simple matter without lots of compromises that are not being mentioned at the moment.
If you do go down that path then I wish you and all other Scots every success and the best of luck for what could be a glorious future.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Sunday October 20 2024, @04:55AM (1 child)
But even they have to know this is a huge conflict of interest. Better to have tapped a university professor or independent professional than an M$ toady.
Open source is such a natural fit for government, but somehow the politicians can't ever do that.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by driverless on Sunday October 20 2024, @08:09AM
And in this case instructing regulators to remove regulations that came about in the first place in reaction to corporate misbehaviour is a bit like telling car makers to remove brakes, because everything will run a lot smoother without those impediments there.