back to article Who runs UK? 'Tories, Lib Dems and Google' says Labour

Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman has slammed Google's extraordinary influence over the UK's ruling Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government. The Shadow Deputy Prime Minister said "there are three parties in the Coalition: the Tories, the Lib Dems, and Google". It's the strongest attack yet on the Google-Tory …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Tom 15

    Hmm

    The UK economy needs to be more creative and less like Google...

    Whatever your view on Google they're one of the more creative corporations of the last decade.

    1. David Neil

      Re: Hmm

      Then again this does smell iffy in light of the orphan works landgrab the Govy. seems so keen to fast track into law.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmm

      Nothing they do hasn't been done before. They're more like Microsoft, they copy and reduce the cost of technology for the masses, but reduce the quality of it at the same time.

    3. Ru

      Re: Hmm

      Creative how?

      They've been technologically savvy and have build a very impressive distributed infrastructure on top of which they've built a rather good search engine. And then they've made a massive ad-pushing empire. The rest though? They've had a small handful of interesting acquisitions which they've exploited well (giving us Google Maps and GMail) and a few more 'me too' products that have done very well (Android) but were not novel in any particular way.

      Their technical acumen and financial creativity is to be commended, but they prosper when the fruits of other people's creativity, in the form of things that people actually want to see, read or listen to, are available to Google for free and without restriction. This does not benefit the creators of those works nearly as much, hence the accusations of parasitism.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Devil

      Re: Hmm

      Whatever your view on Google they're one of the more creative corporations of the last decade

      What's your definition of creative? It looks to me like they just bought shitloads of existing companies and ideas.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmm

      Successful undoubtedly but creative ? Not so sure? Seems pretty much everything they do lately is a 'me too'

    6. 1Rafayal

      Re: Hmm

      By the same definition, this also makes Microsoft one of the most creative companies in the history of computer tech.

      They have the same business model as Google, buy what ever you need to and slap the corporate logo on it.

      Christ, even Ebay has been as 'creative' as that in recent years.

    7. AndrueC Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: Hmm

      Creative? When? Their search engine was creative but since then it's mostly been buying other companies or reworking other people's work. Even the core of their business - advertising - is the exact opposite of creative.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hmm

        I beleive you will find that the original Google search engine was just a copy/clone of DECs search engine called Altavista.

        The big difference was they spent more time on the automatic filters than DEC did, but AltaVista was better at using words AND, OR, NOT and the realy good NEAR (ie: words must be within same sentence) keywords for searches.

        1. veti Silver badge
          Headmaster

          Re: Hmm

          I remember Altavista, and Altavista, sir, was no Google.

          The big difference is in ranking results by counting backlinks. Altavista returned a huge number of results, and was very good at interpreting AND, OR and NOT, but there was simply no quality ranking by backlinks.

  2. g e
    Holmes

    OK, Labour, fair point

    But it's still a shitload more preferable to what we're left with after your banking policies.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: OK, Labour, fair point

      That banking policies that the Tories thought were too restrictive?

  3. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Better than the alternative

    I always assumed the country was run by a handful of tax-exiles, the popular press, some civil service mandarins and Simon Cowell.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Unlike the past

    I suppose Harman preferred it when UK Plc was run by Labour, Microsoft and News International?

  5. Flabbergarstedbastard
    Trollface

    Can't we just have Google and no Conservatives?

    I would have Page and Brin as Prime Minister over any of the dithering shlongs in Labour and the Tories any day.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Boo Hoo Labour

    Labour were quite happy arse kissing the Murdoch empire when they were in power and are no doubt trying to kiss it again.

    PS Don't forget folks it was Nu-labour's Handy Pandy Mandy who rammed the DEA through in their last session of parliament.

    All Politicians kiss big media's ass so they get favourable press and this is why we at the bottom of the shit pile get shafted with protectionist cartel laws that ends up making us pay through the nose.

    1. Ru

      Re: Boo Hoo Labour

      So Labour were corrupt. So they will jump at the opportunity to do again if they regain power. So they were incompetent. That won't change either.

      That doesn't actually make Harman's point invalid, does it?

      Stop getting hung up on the hypocrisy. The content is still relevant.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Boo Hoo Labour

        @RU

        Harman's point just makes me shrug my shoulders and say so what it's just tired old political point scoring that we have cycling around parliament day in day out that supposed to give us some sort of moral outrage. How can I get hung up on hypocritical wind bagging from politicians ? I expect them to be amoral so whoever takes this stance I'm going to shout crap and throw rotten vegetables at them.

        1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: Re: Boo Hoo Labour

          By setting the ethical standards you accept so low - won't you get the politicians you deserve?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Boo Hoo Labour

            @AO

            Sir,

            I do not stock the green grocers however I do unfortunately have to shop at them.

    2. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Boo Hoo Labour

      Most Labour people would agree with you.

      But can you imagine Gordon Brown writing a joint-bylined editorial in the FT with James Murdoch? Or the fuss that would have resulted if he had?

      There's close and there's close.

      1. sabroni Silver badge
        Unhappy

        I feel so dirty...

        upvoting Orlowski....

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Boo Hoo Labour

        That is an interesting definition of close and close mr Orlovski. Very interesting.

        How close is "influence a go to war under a false pretext" in your book? In my book it is "closer" than joint technow*nking with some minor collateral abuse of copyright.

        1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: Re: Boo Hoo Labour

          Fucking up successful UK industrial sectors - with real harm to UK exports and revenue and growth - is not "minor collateral damage".

  7. Crisp

    Google's huge lobbying influence over UK policy makers

    In other words, bribery.

    1. Tom 35

      Re: Google's huge lobbying influence over UK policy makers

      And Labour is upset that they are not getting their share.

  8. Si 1

    If they're so close, how come David Cameron has an iPad?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It was a present.

  9. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Ah, Harriet "mad" Harman

    luckily, yesterdays politician.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Feeble

    Oh dear, a feeble attempt to divert attention from Brown and Vadera's manipulation of Libor for political ends.

    http://order-order.com/2012/07/04/labours-awkward-libor-chart/

  11. auburnman

    It would be nice if

    Companies could be banned from lobbying, and/or it was illegal to be paid to lobby; you shouldn't get better access to politicians simply by way of having more money. Unfortunately not something I believe would be reasonably enforceable.

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: It would be nice if

      If you can't ban it, tax it. 95% tax on all income from lobbying. At least that way we have some chance of an overall benefit, and we know the Inland Revenue have the teeth to enforce it.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Labour needs to look at its online presence

    The Labour Party site uses googleapis, Google+ and Google Analytics. Maybe Harman should get her own house in order before gobbing off.

    1. Kristian Walsh Silver badge

      Re: Labour needs to look at its online presence

      "to use" isn't the same as "to be used by".

      1. Dave the Cat
        FAIL

        Re: Labour needs to look at its online presence

        Like anyone in liebour would know the difference....

  13. adam payne

    I don't agree with any big business being involved with the government and certainly not influencing policy.

    However can Labour really try to take the moral high ground with some of their past disastrous policies?

    1. Tom Wood

      The past is the past

      If all politicians adopted "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" then they'd all be sat around silently and not doing anything at all.

      Actually.....

    2. John H Woods Silver badge

      No, but...

      Labour may not be able to take the moral high ground, but possession of that notional landmass is largely irrelevant: if my fat GP tells me I need to exercise more, it is a bit of a cheek, but it doesn't really invalidate his argument.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Harman's just upset that Google is opposed to Labour's official policy of censoring web searches in the UK.

  15. Jeebus

    Evil corporation pretending they're in the struggle for net freedom together and evil government who proclaims we're all in this together.

    Perfect fit, their two faced way of conducting business also fits the lib dems.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Really?

      The Lib dems, two faced? For doing exactly what they said they would before the election, I suppose. That is that they formed a coalition with the party who had the most votes.

      Of course people like you seem to think that, everything that's happened after the election which is bad is down to the Lib Dems and everything which is good, hasn't happened at all. The Lib dems in no way tempered some of the more extreme policies of the Tories and they've done nothing except bad things, since they were in power.

      I'd also have a pretty healthy stab at you not having bothered to vote at all, because you sound exactly like a few people I know from down the pub, who whinge about politicians, throw around words like "evil", but never actually vote "coz it's not worth it."

  16. Tom 7

    I knew Harriet was out of touch

    but I didn't realise it was that bad, but then it has been said the whole point of parliament is to prevent these prats getting involved.

    I think Pete 2 is closest.

  17. D Moss Esq

    Google – a latter-day Pied Piper of Hamelin

    Google have been approached by the Government Digital Service (GDS, part of the Cabinet Office) to help with our government's attempts to provide identity assurance so that public services can be delivered online/become digital by default.

    Google have been approached to help with the Dept of Business Innovation and Skills so-called "midata" project.

    And, as cloud computing service providers, they have been linked to the plans for G-Cloud.

    If Google succeed in getting contracts for all or some of these initiatives they will effectively become part of the Constitution. On that, Ms Harman is right.

    In the end, the decisions will be made or strongly influenced by Sir Bob Kerslake, head of the home civil service, and Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister. Are they qualified to make those decisions?

    They are advised by people like Andy Nelson, government and Ministry of Justice CIO, and ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken at GDS. The latter, at least, seems to be under the misapprehension that governing the UK is a bit like running Amazon or eBay.

    http://www.dmossesq.com/2012/04/amazon-google-facebook-et-al-latter-day.html

  18. Triggerfish

    They missed out the fourth party

    the financiers/banks, akthough they probably didnt want to bring them up to much since they have quite happily been fellating them as well.

  19. Bernard

    I've always thought

    That while lobbying would be hard and probably counterproductive to actually make illegal there should be some minimum requirement that the lobbying organisation pays a sensible amount of UK tax (perhaps directly in proportion to the amount of influence it can pay for).

    Seeing companies which actively avoid uk tax funnelling relatively small amounts of money to our absurd political class in order to skew the policy agenda is distasteful even by normal political standards.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well said, Harriet!

    Now if you can come up with a believable explanation for why Labour behaved in the same way when in power, and promise that they certainly won't ever again allow unelected people to wield undue influence over policy, I would be minded to applaud you as well.

  21. Dave the Cat
    FAIL

    After 13 years in power and having managed to FUBAR pretty much everything they touched, the opinion of any labour "shadow" minister is completely, totally and utterly worthless.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      After 13 years in power...

      Yes, but then they were very proud of their Tory policies.

  22. vic 4
    Joke

    tax breaks for creative industries

    That's hardly going to help Google, presumably you have to pay tax to get a break, or are they proposing the tax man pays them?

  23. Keep Refrigerated
    Holmes

    Punch and Judy show...

    Every 4 or 5 years, the puppeteer swaps hand puppets and the show starts again.

    It's time to put an end to politics as a career.

    1. chr0m4t1c

      Re: Punch and Judy show...

      Oddly enough, the ancient Greeks already solved the problem of career politicians.

      Their representatives were chosen randomly from the population by lot and then used meetings to get the majority opinion on issues in order to move things along.

      I'm not sure quite how we would make something similar work in our society (we are talking about substantially more people to represent), but it would prevent career politicians and probably put a significant dent in the influence of those businesses and individuals who lobby our current mob.

      It would also get shot of the useless suits like my local "representative" who has only ever voted with his party and never so much as even asked an awkward question.

      1. Euchrid

        Re: Punch and Judy show...

        "Oddly enough, the ancient Greeks already solved the problem of career politicians.

        Their representatives were chosen randomly from the population by lot and then used meetings to get the majority opinion on issues in order to move things along."

        Not quite - in Athens, for example (which is the model normally referred to), although the majority were selected that way, a certain amount were elected (often to the plum posts). Also, different city-states used different forms of government.

        Very importantly, the entire population wasn’t included for the lots under the Athenian– male citizens only. When women (Athens abhorred Sparta for letting women have more rights), slaves (which Athens was renowned for) and men who didn’t qualify as being a citizen (born in another city-state but lived there for 50 years? Tough.), are taken account, the pool of people that could be selected for office, was a minority of the population.

        At the time, the Athenian model had plenty of critics… whatever the system, people will find fault!

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pointless

    We're all fucked!

    The system is so corrupt it's irrelevant, which party is in power, their all a bunch of lying, hypocritical, self serving idiots.

    1. Dave the Cat
      Pint

      Re: Pointless

      Can't argue with that.

  25. John Styles

    The meejah

    I thought that the alleged creative industries are actually pretty small, they are only perceived as being important because they, er, big themselves up (as the yoof say, I believe) relentlessly.

    The same goes for football clubs, it is not big business, it is medium business at best.

    Or am I out of date (genuine question - I don't work somewhere with big books of SIC codes and this sort of data any more).

    Are we a net exporter of TV these days, anyway?

    1. Arcadian

      Re: The meejah

      At a conservative estimate, the creative industries account for roughly 6 or 7 per cent of GDP. (Some put the figure as high as 8 or 9 per cent.) Within the creative industries, the largest export sector is publishing, an entirely copyright dependent industry.

      Television exports are booming, I believe. (See for instance http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/02/life-on-mars-russian-remake.)

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Wow, not THAT's blatant..

    The Tory government was on course to implement a full, open standards based platform government wide when New Labour came in - who promptly hobnobbed with Microsoft and went as quick as they could get away with to the proprietary route (remember the "Open Standards" gateway - which needed IE to work?).

    Don't tell me it isn't so - I was actually there.

    I assume the friendships are still in place, and Microsoft really needs a leg up on Bing. Don't get me wrong, I'm positively no fan of Google, but the sudden enthusiasm and bleating about anti-competitiveness is IMHO *extremely* suspect, especially from that corner.

    Anon, because I've already said more than I should.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Old world, new world

    In the old world of copyright, rockstars were hugely entertaining, got rich and spent their money on groupies, drugs, and shooting up televisions with guns.

    In the new world, online entrepreneurs are hugely boring, get rich and spend their money on sensible cars and new hoodies.

    So, there is something to be said for copyright after all.

  28. FunkyEric
    Mushroom

    That's a bit rich....

    Coming from the party who were so far up Murdochs ass they could clean his teeth for him.

  29. piemonte pete
    Holmes

    Google bashing Harman talking at BPI AGM- explains a lot.

    "said Harman, who was speaking at the BPI's AGM in London." Last words of last sentence in AO piece. Of course she's going to say that to them. Just as she would say if she was talking to the Open Rights Group - "we need reform" . A politician pitching to an audience -wow that's new. Talking about pitching, if you dig into the programme notes for the AGM [1] you'll find 3 speakers from You Tube setting out what You Tube can do for BPI members. You Tube - that's owned by Google isn't it?

    [1] http://www.bpi.co.uk/press-area/news-amp3b-press-release/article/bpi-agm-2012-tuesday-3rd-july-full-details-announced.aspx

  30. Bub

    She was speaking at the BPI. Of *course* she was going to slam Google.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like