As in, what consistency from Ritchie?
The reality is that Google is a natural monopoly in the age of IT. That monopoly exists solely because of the state granted privilege endowed by patent law, in particular. These now permit it to collect the most phenomenal income in excess of any costs, with the income being determined by it pretty much at will since it is impossible to argue that market forces really operate within its advertising space. This monopoly pricing then creates what an economist would call a rent in the form of excess profits that it now intends to use to spread its tentacles where it will. No doubt its untaxed offshore funds will help it do just that: in fact they may drive the policy.
This is not benign.
Nor is it to be passively accepted.
This from the man who complains that companies aren’t investing in anything with their cash.
So, if you do go and do long term high risk research with your cash you’re spreading your tentacles and thus must be controlled. If you don’t, giving the cash back to shareholders or just sitting on it, then you’ve got to be taxed and controlled because you, umm, should be spreading your tentacles.
Maybe the consistency is just that every company should damn well do what Ritchie damn well tells them to?
BTW, Google doesn’t have a monopoly even on search advertising (55-60% of a market is not a monopoly), it’s also not patent protected, or rather the reason for their dominance (note, not monopoly) isn’t patent protection but network effects.
Corbynism is going to be fun, isn’t it?