4 ms·
But that's the structural problem with the likes of Sunak being in government: maybe it's all legitimate business, but because of his role it looks bad, and the
by toyg 3y ago
But that's the structural problem with the likes of Sunak being in government: maybe it's all legitimate business, but because of his role it looks bad, and there is no real way to prove it one way or the other.
An honourable person would recuse himself from situations where even the suggestion of impropriety is possible. Sunak should not have been PM to start with.
- rayiner 3y ago[flagged]
- olddustytrail 3y agoIt's astonishing that you think that ordinary people in first world countries are "unsuccessful".
- Valodim 3y agoIt seems fair to compare to folks from the same country in this context, no?
- olddustytrail 3y agoYes, that's fair and the complete opposite of what the person I responded to was doing. What's your point?
- rayiner 3y ago“Unremarkable” then? Maybe “undistinguished?” Or “unexceptional?”
- olddustytrail 3y ago"ordinary"? "common"? "working class"? "not fitting with the gentry"? A basic slob like you, you mean?
- tptacek 3y agoThere are a variety of ways to distinguish oneself, and not all of them are qualifying.
- sky_rw 3y agoYes, honourable politicians get their kickbacks through book deals, inflated speaking fees, and brilliantly timed stock deals. Having a business owner with a transparent revenue source is far less preferable to an honourable politician who's family gets legitimately deserved board seats on foreign energy corporations.
- ilc 3y agoYou will always have a conflict of interest. I remember there being a desire to build a concrete plant near my house when I grew up. When the council running the town had to put the meeting in the largest room they had, and people started poking through the whitewashing... it went away. If I was a member of that zoning panel, I'd still not want it there. But if it is the best spot for the town... I am in conflict of interest. These type of conflicts happen ALL the time. People will never be lily white, and have no conflicts. And from what people are saying on the size of the deal, etc.. .it may have been in the works before he became PM. These type of deals don't happen over night.
- toyg 3y agoThat's such a false equivalence. A conflict of interest over trivial matters is inconsequential; one where billions of pounds could change money, it very much is. People will never be squeaky clean, but from the highest office in the land one must expect better than whiffs of dodgy multi-billion deals. If one can't possibly shake that whiff, s/he shouldn't be in that office.
- mattzito 3y agoI'm not from the UK, so I don't have a deep understanding of the dynamics of politics there, but it seems like avoiding all situations where even the suggestion of impropriety is impractical for just about everybody who might be in a position to be PM. If you're in a position of power, you're going to have relationships where there might be the appearance of impropriety for anything - and you may not even know there would be the suggestion of impropriety until after the fact. Infosys has 40 clients w/ greater than $100m/year contracts, which they don't enumerate individually, but from skimming the internet, it looks like oil and gas, banking, manufacturing, and tech companies all potentially fit into that bucket - so should he recuse himself from everything that is related to any of those industries? Before he was married into Infosys, he was a banker and presumably has lots of relationships with these large companies regardless - should he recuse himself from anything that might touch any of those large companies? Not a rhetorical question, I'm trying to understand what the criteria is.
- toyg 3y agoAs far as I'm concerned the answer is yes to all those. Which is why he is such a bad candidate for any role of importance in a honest goverment - the fact that he's been Chancellor and PM says a lot about how much his party cares about corruption.
- penguin_booze 3y ago> Sunak should not have been PM to start with Care you expand more? I thought (granted, without any evidence) he's poised better compared to his predecessors. Better in what way? Well, not a clown; lasted more than 45 days -- neither of which, I admit, is not high praise. So, I thought he was maybe a decent chap. I'd be interested in any pointers au contraire. Regardless, I agree on the recusal part: Caesar's wife must be above all suspicion.
- toyg 3y agoThis government shouldn't have existed. His predecessors made very clear that the 2019 politic mandate does not exist anymore, and the nominally-majority party is now, reshuffle after purge after reshuffle, bereft of enough competency and political coherence to govern. The end of Truss should have meant an election, we're all killing time to ensure MPs collect a few more paychecks. The project has been cancelled but the contractors are still here.
- tzs 3y ago> the likes of Sunak What does that mean?
- toyg 3y agoMultibillionaires from inherited wealth.