It bothers me that the options for office are untrustworthy career politicians who lie and corrupt their position or naive single issue ideologues who understand too little and expect too much. I kind of wish politics was boring. Just vote for the boring candidates who know how to do their job and are happy with an average salary. Bureaucrats, but competent ones.
> Pirate Party is a label adopted by political parties in different countries. Pirate parties support civil rights, direct democracy and participation in government, reform of copyright and patent law, free sharing of knowledge (open content), information privacy, transparency, freedom of information, anti-corruption and network neutrality.
Politicians are mainly meddling chumps. Like new managers constantly ordering sweeping changes but hardly aware of how things are implemented on the ground.
Inventing feel good stats which are juked.
The old BBC series Yes, Minister is the most realistic depiction of politics.
Blind trust of authority is all too commonplace; the default should be mistrust of those who wield power.
They actually don't, as very few MPs have the necessary legal qualifications. So staff, writes it. It isn't uncommon for legislators to be unable to grasp details of the things they propose.
Unfortunately lobbyists write much of the legislation these days.
Otherwise legal and permanent secretaries ( civil servants ) draft laws and parliaments ( congress ) debate and amend them.
I conceed the executive branch does propose the policy and ideas on which they are based.
I am all for legislatures ( parliaments ) and elected representatives but the executive ( govt. ) seems to increasingly be at odds with the citizenry and serve those who fund their election or pad their retirements with directorships.
Sure have govt. just much less of it - there are far too many laws and far too many bad laws.
Fewer better, well considered laws, informed by public debate.
Really watch a couple of episodes of Yes Minister, that shows how it works not how they say it works.
I think AI politicians or complex algorithms just risk being a more complicated form of legalese that even less people can understand (legalese in code/math form). With law in code form like that, you need to demand much more of the education system (scary!) to allow people to vote on PRs, if you even do that democratically. Otherwise, even more faith is put in the hands of the designers/core-maintainers as representatives, much like we already have. More ways to obfuscate direct effects and hide side-effects.
I truly think there is something there though, something from the open-source process that can make government more efficient and productive, but it's probably not in the way we are thinking. It probably looks less like software maintenance and more like science, dare I say political science. Crowd-source solutions and organize experiments across counties and states in a way that's data driven, not politics and need-for-reelection driven.
Iceland became independent in 1945[0]; in 1918 Iceland became a sovereign state under the rulership of the Danish king[1].
The Independence Party is center-right (very conservative for Iceland) and was formed in 1929 advocating for full independence of Iceland. They haven't changed their name since. It's been one of the four major political parties of Iceland since inception and more often then not the largest; every head of the party has been prime minister at some point (except the current one; that might change in the next week as they are in coalition with the just-resigned prime ministers party and there is a void to fill). In short you could say that they are pro-business and for smaller government. The overview here [2] is a good start, but you can go straight to the source here (english below) [3].
Political party names can be fun. In both Norway and Denmark there are liberalist right-wing parties called "Venstre", which literally means "left" (as in left-wing). Because they were, relatively speaking, left-wing 130 years ago.
What's the distinction between "resign" and "merely stepped aside for an unspecified amount of time and will continue to serve as the Chairman of the Progressive Party."
The last time an executive at my company took a "sabbatical" they never came back. It honestly sounds like your PM is trying to resign without using the word.
the main one: right before new disclosure, regulation, and taxation laws came into effect, he sold 50% ownership stake in his holdings of the shell corp to his wife for $1, so that he would not be subject to the new laws.
in general: one does not have to literally break the law to be asked to resign by your citizens. that is not, and should not be, the standards to which we hold our leaders.
> Seems like so far the articles have gone after fairly easy targets.
They're being careful. There are legitimate reasons for running these shell corps and (accidental) libel will throw all their accusations in to question.
> When asked about the lack of Americans in the original release, the German newspaper’s editor responded mysteriously: "Just wait for what is coming next."
> When asked about the lack of Americans in the original release, the German newspaper’s editor responded mysteriously: "Just wait for what is coming next."
We may see something eventually. But it has also been pointed out that U.S. laws give wealthy individuals fewer reasons to form companies in Panama. It is possible to form entities with secret owners under U.S. law, with a little effort. So the primary reason for Americans to go offshore may be tax-related, for which Panama would not normally be the jurisdiction of choice.
I don't think it was luck. I was just listening to All Things Considered and apparently there was considerable collaboration among journalists. The Planet Money podcasts were rebroadcasts from a few years ago. I bet they knew the story would be dropping soon, and they decided to give their listeners a primer.
Yes, this is discussed in the article I linked to as well. It may be that, although Americans generally have less need to set up shell corporations in Panama, Panama may be relatively more attractive for criminals, since not only can they be anonymous (no different from the U.S.), but also less easily reached through U.S. judicial processes.
This may mean that, though there are fewer Americans named in these files than one might expect, their dealings might be shadier, on average, than other nationalities'.
> I am patiently waiting with a bucket of popcorn.
Why would that be of worthy entertainment value? Shouldn't you be hoping the exact opposite, that very few or no Americans are involved (and insert any replacement country, as the same should go for all nations)?
That would be true in a country in which the public believed their governments to be functioning bodies directed at improving their country. I'd challenge you to find a lot of people who feel that way. When you believe the game is already rigged, every cheater hauled away is good news.
Actually, you can probably find people who feel that way in Singapore. (And probably in very brainwashed countries, too, but they'd be less justified.)
Everyone knows there are corrupt Americans. It's a fact. We're well past the fantasy land of universally ethical citizens. The debate isn't whether there are corrupt Americans, the question is who.
Mob bosses? Trust-fund baby tax evaders? Wall Street hedge funds? Big-Oil CEOs? Ex-military defense contractors? Politicians? I don't know, but some of them better get jailed to discourage others from gaming the system.
And it's entertaining when a big criminal gets caught and punished, especially when the public strongly suspected them but lacked the concrete evidence (like Al Capone).
In the meantime, the Chinese government censors every piece of news about Panama Papers and unelected officials keep corrupting, manipulating and abusing human rights.
The current great helmsman^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpresident of China, "Uncle Xi", as the locals like to call him, has a very draconian reputation. His family have been implicated in the files. Last night at dinner I floated the idea of spray painting his image with the Chinese word for Panama about town. Everyone choked on their dinner.
ON top of that, the originator and/or the media involved, have completely censored out ALL US based individuals from the data leaks (of 11.5 million documents, 215,000 companies).
One might suggest that this "leak" is being used to target foreign leaders that the US does not like - while gaining blackmail material against domestic individuals.
Technically he hasn't been publicly accused of doing anything illegal.
Someone would have to make the case that his holdings in this offshore company actually did influence the decisions made regarding the banks during the crisis, and nobody is doing that just yet.
He is accused of not disclosing his 50% stake in Wintris when he is elected to parliament in April 2009, in violation of a law requiring all members of parliament to report companies of which they own more than 25%.
Sort of. He signed his 50% share over to his wife the day before that law went into effect, so 'technically' he didn't violate it.
Luckily the public doesn't care much for these sort of technicalities as everyone can see the obvious conflict of interest that was trying to be hidden.
I'm not sure he even violated the spirit of that law. The offshore company in question was set up by his independently wealthy wife in order to invest her family fortune, and if the authors of that law didn't think politicians' partners' investments needed disclosing, well...
The problem is when people in power seizes people's banks account like it was done in Iceland because "the country needs sacrifices" and they themselves don't do the sacrifice.
He held a company with his wife that owned stock in the collapsed banks (making him a creditor to the banks). He then essentialy gave his wife his share of the company so he could hide this from the public and not report it, and was then put in a position of power where this holding becomes a conflict of interest because he is in a position to determine how much these creditors (he and his wife) would get paid for their stock.
1) 2006 Father of wife sells Toyota dealership at a very favourable price to a consortium of business men who use a bank loan to pay for it.
2) Wife inherits/is given money by father.
3) Wife uses some of the money to invest in Icelandic Banks using an offshore company Wintris. Note, Icelandic Banks are desperately raising capital during this period ... in order to allow them to make more loans. At the same time, Banks are also borrowing heavily from abroad, and re-lending that money to a small circle of businessmen (see 1).
4) Banks go under because during 2008 they are unable to rollover the loans that they have borrowed on the international credit market (see 3), and also are starting to experience massive defaults on the loans they have made to a small circle of Icelandic businessmen (see 1 & 3).
5) Wintris is listed as one of many creditors to the Icelandic Banks, and and consequently stands to benefit (or not) from the resolution talks that are ongoing to this day.
TL;DR: He and his wife have an enormous stake in how assets of the (now nationalized) banks are handled, a policy controlled by his government.
He chose to hide this ridiculous conflict of interest, not only by holding secret off-shore companies, but also by promoting legislation on what government officials are required to disclose.
Well, the stock was owned before the banks collapsed, so no matter what it's a loss. The only "benefit" you could get is trying to get back as much of your investment as you can.. in which case this begs the question, would these holdings have influenced decisions in things like deciding whether the failed banks should repay the debt owed to the UK / Netherlands, etc.
weak Vikings - crying quit the moment somebody noticed a probably undeclared krona of theirs. Real men with nerves of steel - like Putin - never quit even when billions dollars of stolen money surface in the clear!
Evasion is illegal. You don't need to be a lawyer for that: you must be transparent to the tax authorities, completely, on which basis they can tax you. Panama is interesting because it allows you to hold wealth in a country that discloses very little to any tax authorities, thereby illegally evading taxes.
Tax avoidance is different, and it's legal.
Finally, I'm not intimately aware of his tax mistakes. Primarily I keep seeing reporting on how his wife has bonds from an Icelandic bank and he, as PM, sought to have this bank pay its debtholders (including his wife) during the financial crisis (which was a financial meltdown in Iceland), an obvious conflict of interest. That's what I hear was mainly the issue.
As I understand it, it's only especially wrong in Iceland, where the ruling party is (a) running on a platform of hostility towards large banks; (b) currently negotiating with those banks to decide how much public money they should get; and (c) we now find that the primary negotiator is invested in the banks he's negotiating against (through bonds held offshore), which he is supposed to be philosophically opposed to the success of on some basic level.
I agree with the above, but I think there's also a more general Scandinavian/Swiss/German ethic that strongly values playing by the rules. Many citizens in these countries have a very different view of government than most do in the US: if collective adherence to rules results in better collective outcomes, and you if you value collective outcomes (perhaps because they are relatively culturally, ethnically, and socioeconomically homogenous populations), then regulation isn't a thing to find a way around for personal benefit.
I think the above sentiment gets further reified as it becomes pare of the national identity: corruption scandals are for tropical dictators, not well-off postindustrial democracies.
this varies by region in the US, obviously. I suspect that the frequency of Pittsburgh lefts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_left) is a pretty decent proxy for valuing system-optimal outcomes
It's fascinating to me that you mention Pittsburgh lefts as a sign of altruism / global-outcome-optimization. I currently live in Pittsburgh and... let's just say that I would not hold the average driver up as a model of selflessness. I think it's more that we've reached a local equilibrium:
new drivers learn quickly to wait when a light turns green, as a matter of avoiding accidents, and also to take advantage of that pause when turning left, as a matter of not angering everyone behind them. It's difficult to change the equilibrium as long as you interact with others following the current system.
(It's entirely possible that one could view this as emergent-behavior-converging-on-altruism without anyone consciously being altruistic. I'm just saying that anecdotally, it doesn't seem to derive directly from conscious altruistic values.)
At least in North Jersey, the persistent problem of making left turns does lead to more altruistic behavior. Many people will yield unnecessarily to drivers and bicyclists who are stuck waiting to turn. It is still aggravating when a signalized intersection lacks a left turn phase, "just because".
In Iceland they bailed out Main Street, not Wall Street.
They let their bad banks collapse, not save them. That caused severe sort term pain to bank customers.
They also forced all mortgages to be rewritten to cancel any underwater portion. That is easier do when you three banks instead of 8000 and not the securitization of mortgages.
Blood feuds were never the preferred method. The Sagas go on and on about people who were good lawyers and on how important it was to know the law (while being able to chop a head off with a single swing of your axe). Iceland's parliament is the oldest in the world in continuous operation.
Iceland's parliament, the Althing, has not been in continuous operation since its founding; it was discontinued in 1799 for 45 years. It was restored in 1844.
Icelanders are not savages! They moved on from blood feuds quite a while ago. Nowadays (if the history I learned in school is still accurate) they resolve their disputes like civilized people with hólmganga: http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/holmgang.shtml
To be honest, I don't see any other country doing anything remotely similar to Iceland. After all, Iceland is small, western, and very progressive country. 20 thousand people in the protest yesterday represents ~10% of registered voters, which is a huge percentage of people that came to protest.
For an interesting contrast, in Canada the CBC (state broadcaster) the names of over 350 Canadians implicated but has decided not to release any of the names. They've turned the list over to the tax agency, but that's it.
His party and also their coalition party are trying to keep the parliament together because if it gets dissolved then it's likely the pirate party will win in an election, so they're trying to avoid that.
First of all, if the parliament gets dissolved, the parties have really short time to actually prepare a campaign, which means that bigger parties will probably be more in a bit of an advantage, because they have a lot of experience. Pirate Party is not really big in Iceland neither, but according to the polls, it currently does have huge support (~40%).
Second of all, prime minister did try to dissolve the parliament by asking the president to do so before he resigned, but president rejected this proposal. This means that the parliament will probably be functional until the elections (set for autumn), just with a different Prime Minister. This gives the Pirate Party much more time to actually prepare for the elections, and, in my opinion, gives them enough time to actually crush the competition.
This is, by far, the best possible outcome for the Pirate Party.
Earlier today the prime minister actually first tried to get the president to dissolve the parliament (as some kind of retaliation?), but apparently the president refused. As I understand it, this is the first time in Icelandic history that the president refuses to dissolve the parliament when asked to by the prime minister. Maybe someone here from Iceland knows...
Yes, he was trying to retaliate against his own party for not supporting him. The president wasn't ready to approve the request without at least first talking to the leader of the other coalition party to see if they were in agreement.
I'm pretty sure what happened is that he wanted the approval to dissolve the parliament, and then would then wave this authorization in the face of the other coalition party as a way to blackmail them for support.
Yes, this is unprecedented but allowed for by the constitution. What you need to understand about the Icelandic Constitution is that it's mostly a translation from the Danish one from 1944 with patchwork reforms here and there, substituting Monarch for President. The Danish Monarchy is a figurehead not intended for much besides being a symbol of national unity. Much of the powers that the Constitution seems to grant has been interpreted to be in a similar vein to the Danish arrangements, in name only. Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson has been an activist president, interpreting his role more participatory than his predecessors.
The "activist" president description is quite biased, you could just as well say that he's the first president who's been using powers legally and unambiguously granted to him by the constitution.
I for one much prefer the rule of law to the vague rule of convention by "nobody did that before so he shouldn't".
Now if people don't agree with his use of his presidential powers the right thing to do is change the constitution, not complain about ÓRG following the law and his constitutional mandate.
I understand "activist" in this context to be something closer to "interpreting the law in some unusual way nobody could have thought of when they wrote it", as opposed to "using a clause to the letter of the law in an unambiguous way and any reasonable person would agree that that was the intent of the law to begin with" which is the case with ÓLG.
I think his detractors just don't like that he shit on their parade, so instead of addressing that issue they're making this absurd argument that he used a clause of law that had never been used before and ubsetting that status quo is somehow bad, while conveniently forgetting that that unprecedented clause was invoked in the midddle of an unprecedented financial crisis.
Really? The best description? By that definition pretty much anyone in politics is an activist.
I think it's much more accurate to describe ÓLG as a literal constitutionalist.
He read the letter of the law and followed its mandate.
He's undoubtedly upset the established older. I'm just objecting to how that gets framed, which you can just as easily frame his actions as "nobody serving as president before him had actually read the constitution" as "he's using unprecedented powers as president".
It's often the case in parliamentary systems that the Prime Minster / Premier's mandate is derived from the support of the parliament. In this case, that could justify the President not acting on the Prime Minister's advice until it was clear that he did still have the support of the parliament.
I'm always curious who plays the role, or the messenger for that role, who tells someone in this kind of situation that "no, you actually will resign. Today."
I hope that it is not the most honest, but I do agree that it is the best.
If you like The Thick Of It, you may also like the film 'In The Loop' and 'Veep' (both also 'created' by Armando Iannucci) as well as the Australian 'The Hollowmen'. 'Utopia', the sort-of follow on to The Hollowmen (which is excellent), is quite good too. There is also the 'Armando Iannucci show', which is very good, but also very different.
There is also supposed to be the Afghan version of the 'Thick Of It' too, although I have not found a source for that with translation.
For me, I hope the someone who is supposed to resign is smart enough to already see the writing on the wall and one of the closer advisors or aides quietly says "it is time".
For these kind of executive positions, I don't see how it could not be the case. For example, Nixon. There is no one who could have told Nixon "You will resign today". On the other hand, I imagine he did have advisers telling him, "It's time." I figure it's the same for the Icelandic Prime Minister.
I've always thought that Nixon was old fashioned enough to believe, despite his flaws, that it was the proprietary thing to do, and that it would have been shameful to have to go through a certain trial in the Senate.
Somewhat agreed - but I also think a lot of it was Nixon knew he was checkmated, and it was less propriety, and more just plain ol' shame and knowing he had no recourse. I imagine he was not alone in his deliberations, though, and that his advisers - particularly his legal advisers - agreed.
You were most likely looking for the word propriety, which is also the word I was looking for. I noticed you made a typo, thought about it, then made the same typo! But there is a difference, I think, between propriety and shame. One does something "for propriety" because they value their actions' impact on others. Rather, I think he was more embarrassed and ashamed, and he left office because it was best for himself. It's a subtle distinction, one which we can never know who is right because we're trying to infer the motivations of another person.
According to his son's biography of him, George H W Bush played a pivotal role in the Nixon resignation, in that Nixon resigned the day after receiving a letter from Bush, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, urging him to do so. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...
This is never the case. I was working in congress when the Anthony Weiner scandal hit. Behind the scenes it was absolute chaos and he almost had to be frog marched out of the capitol by the Democratic leadership. True, there was no legal requirement he resign. He could've easily said screw you, impeach me like Trafficant, but the pressure to go is immense. Mark Foley locked himself in his office sobbing, and was so inconsolable that his Chief of Staff had to hold his hand (literally) while he singed the resignation letter.
A primary qualification of being an 10x politician is to be able to look citizen voters in the eye and sincerely lie right to their faces without any compunction.
I don't think is like that at all. The primary qualification is to be able to look citizen voters in the eye and know exactly what they want to hear said, and then say it sincerely without ever pausing to consider "the truth" at all.
They don't "lie", that would entail thinking about the truth and then speaking differently. What might be true or false never crosses their minds.
You and parent poster are both wrong. A politician rarely ever lies. Incredibly, most career politicians sincerely believe what they say. They just change their beliefs more often than most people, even several times a day.
Whenever some specific belief is challenged by external conditions (poor polling, disagreement with wealthy donors, etc), they just go through long doublethink processes multiple times with their advisors, until they're persuaded that changing their position is the best thing to do. Once they believe what they say, they simply sell it like only Real Believers could.
Isn't it just a limit then? The best politician simply changes his beliefs for every person he talks to until "belief" is so fluid it becomes completely unmoored and meaningless. Hence no consideration of truth or falsehood and being able to sincerely tell everyone what they want to hear.
>You and parent poster are both wrong. A politician rarely ever lies. Incredibly, most career politicians sincerely believe what they say. They just change their beliefs more often than most people, even several times a day.
I'm sorry, but I truly believe that not only is this view utterly naive but apologist as well, and I simply think it tries to blot the sun with its thumb.
Seems like he didn't expect the extent of the protests at all. I think this is a case where we are aided by social networks. It is easier than ever to not only rally large groups, but also inspire others.
I have no idea what the details of the case are (it's all still coming out) but the timeframe was extremely short. I would challenge anyone to make such a momentous decision inside a day or so.
Iceland has a population that is less than half - nearer a third - of the city I live in. On that smallish scale, direct action by a significant number of people carries a lot of weight I imagine!
It's a tiny country. I've been to rock concerts that had bigger crowds than that protest. (Estimates are 22,000 for the Iceland protests. Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have drawn bigger numbers just to their rallies.)
People often don't admit they screwed up until they have to. When someone like a prime minister does it, it's a nice example to show that even their power has limits.
I wish we saw this more often in the US, but these days it seems like between a giant government and giant corporations, the people at the heads of them answer to almost no one.
> I wish we saw this more often in the US, but these days it seems like between a giant government and giant corporations, the people at the heads of them answer to almost no one.
The biggest reason why I want privacy and security for all is I don't want my future heads of government and policy makers to be beholden to anyone who might have dirt on them. If someone was able to get to those documents and leak them, who's to say someone else was not able to get to them before the leak?
What if someone were to get a hold of all the private conversations between future POTUS X and their boyfriends/girlfriends? I am more concerned that my elected representatives might have to reply "how high" when some clandestine operator says "jump". Yes, I am aware about campaign financing as well (saw the John Oliver video) and there's something we need to do about that as well.
In the US you pretty much have to have an FBI investigation and pending or filed charges, and foil-wrapped bundles of hundred dollar bills in the freezer, before anyone has to resign. Brazen in politics is a feature.
The declaration that they're NOT going to resign has become a reliable indicator for impending resignation. cf I have every confidence in my Minister for Thing. I have no plans to run for the Presidency/Leader of Party.
> Gunnlaugsson becomes the second Icelandic premier to resign amid street protests, after Geir Haarde was forced out during the 2009 financial collapse.
Meh, its a country of 330,000 people with some pretty oddball politics as its norm. This PM is 41 years old and has only been in government 7 years. Its not like he represents the old guard, the banking industry, CEOs, the wealthy, or somesuch. He's kinda a nobody, even by Icelandic standards. He didn't have the political capital to cushion his fall so he took the easy way out.
I'll be impressed when there's some reform or change in a powerful country or against a powerful and corrupt leader like Russia's Putin, who is clearly fleecing the Russian people to enrich himself and his friends. So far the only good news of note is that the US and the IRS will be cracking down harder on these characters now that they have all this ammo against them.
Sadly, this will get a lot of people thinking "our side won" when this is pretty much the lowest prize we could have. Where's the real reform? Where's the big leaders being taken down? Iceland is pretty much a suburban Danish city on an island. Its not a world power. My city's dog catcher got more votes than this guy. Lets demand more than trivial wins.
That said, bravo to the Icelandic people. Their example of a more direct form of democracy is pretty inspiring.
It's a country of 330.000 highly intelligent, civilized and self-reliant people, with a manageable size and a coherence which allows them room for experimentation.
I was actually dining out in Copenhagen with an old Icelandic friend last night. She apologized for being slightly unsocial, but simply had to follow events as they transpired. This was clearly huge back home.
Also some background. The prime minister married into money, his wife's family being extremely succesful Toyota importers and dealers. On his accession he made a clear pledge that all his financial dealings would be above board and in plain sight.
To be fair, over 1/3 of the population live in Reykjavik so it is easier for them to go and protest the Prime Minister. Getting 8 million to Washington DC in less than a day would be a logistical nightmare.
Population of Washington DC is a bit less than 5 times that of Reykjavik, so it would be like getting 50k protesters out. Still very impressive.
Meh? This affects those of us that live in this country quite a lot. What is it that you find so odd or different about our politics from the rest of the world?
Occupy Wall Street in fact drew the attention of millions of Americans. It also had practical results by shining the spotlight on the US banking system, as did the broad public anger at Wall Street.
The largest US banks have been semi-neutered, nearly nationalized by the Fed when it comes to control, and are heavily tamped down when it comes to risk. The result of all of that, is that America's banks are now arguably the strongest - and among the safest - in the world (compare Wells Fargo and JP Morgan right now to Europe's banks for example, or see: Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse).
It is still a country, and despite how small it may be, it is leading the way in fighting the corruption that the Panama leak exposed. This event will also influence how other involved countries will deal with their members of government now too.
You could say the same about the Arab spring, that starter in Tunisia which is smaller country and lead to several other countries taking down the reign. It was about the message: "Even if a dictator stayed decades ruling you can take him down".
And again there was the opposite message from Syria: "The reign can bomb you, and also call their allies to bomb you".
It was like a domino, leader falling after leader until Assad didn't. And no one did after.
Tunisia felt legitimate. I was there (for a whole month, before and during). Libya felt pushed. Egypt and everything else felt like foreign influence had more impact than local discontent.
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/717337076807639040