This feels like a nothingburger: - Infosys already had a $100m/year contract with BP - the new contract is 1.5b over 10 years, so a significant increase, but as part of the contract infosys becomes the primary IT partner for BP, therefore not an unimaginable increase - Infosys's customers include Shell, Aramco, Chevron, and others. They're one of the top IT services company for the energy industry, so this isn't an o…
It is still a conflict of interest. In most non-corrupt countries, the politician would have to disclose and recuse themselves of any decision impacting the interested party.
This feels like a nothingburger: - Infosys already had a $100m/year contract with BP - the new contract is 1.5b over 10 years, so a significant increase, but as part of the contract infosys becomes the primary IT partner for BP, therefore not an unimaginable increase - Infosys's customers include Shell, Aramco, Chevron, and others. They're one of the top IT services company for the energy industry, so this isn't an o…
The article’s opening paragraph makes it sound like Sunak’s father in law was acting on non-public information to get a piece of the new oil and gas leases that were being offered:
> A firm founded by Rishi Sunak’s father-in-law signed a billion-dollar deal with BP two months before the prime minister opened hundreds of new licences for oil and gas extraction in the North Sea.
That angle doesn’t make sense if you realize that the firm is an IT company, not a company that is involved in oil and gas extraction.
This feels like a nothingburger: - Infosys already had a $100m/year contract with BP - the new contract is 1.5b over 10 years, so a significant increase, but as part of the contract infosys becomes the primary IT partner for BP, therefore not an unimaginable increase - Infosys's customers include Shell, Aramco, Chevron, and others. They're one of the top IT services company for the energy industry, so this isn't an o…
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.
This feels like a nothingburger: - Infosys already had a $100m/year contract with BP - the new contract is 1.5b over 10 years, so a significant increase, but as part of the contract infosys becomes the primary IT partner for BP, therefore not an unimaginable increase - Infosys's customers include Shell, Aramco, Chevron, and others. They're one of the top IT services company for the energy industry, so this isn't an o…
This is still problematic though because revenue from these new licenses will effectively flow to the PM through this _new_, significantly larger, contract. This is why divestment is important for politicians.
As much as I don't trust the current and recent crop of senior UK government politicians, this is a editorialised title. The company, Infosys is his father in laws (his wife does have shares), and as far as I can see there is no link between this IT contract and North Sea oil rights. But maybe I'm wrong and it a simple bribe, but I doubt it. Fundamentally though, a billionaire should not be a political leader, too mu…
Heck. I had to pass on a couple deals because I have family members in California government. Guess that's not a problem if you're a Trump or a Sunak.
To combat climate change we have to lower our use of oil and natural gas but it is preferable that we control our own supply during the transition period instead of being dependent on geopolitical adversaries like Russia and "frenemies" like Saudi Arabia.
Also it's probably a reach to claim that an Indian IT outsourcing bodyshop made the UK drill for oil and natural gas in the North Sea.
As much as I don't trust the current and recent crop of senior UK government politicians, this is a editorialised title. The company, Infosys is his father in laws (his wife does have shares), and as far as I can see there is no link between this IT contract and North Sea oil rights. But maybe I'm wrong and it a simple bribe, but I doubt it. Fundamentally though, a billionaire should not be a political leader, too mu…
This is how business gets done in the UK. There is nothing legally wrong about this. However, it is clear that Rishi has a personal pro oil interest. This may well align with his political ideology, but it does give the appearance of a conflict of interest.
This feels like a nothingburger: - Infosys already had a $100m/year contract with BP - the new contract is 1.5b over 10 years, so a significant increase, but as part of the contract infosys becomes the primary IT partner for BP, therefore not an unimaginable increase - Infosys's customers include Shell, Aramco, Chevron, and others. They're one of the top IT services company for the energy industry, so this isn't an o…
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.
Yes, 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.
This feels like a nothingburger: - Infosys already had a $100m/year contract with BP - the new contract is 1.5b over 10 years, so a significant increase, but as part of the contract infosys becomes the primary IT partner for BP, therefore not an unimaginable increase - Infosys's customers include Shell, Aramco, Chevron, and others. They're one of the top IT services company for the energy industry, so this isn't an o…
It is still a conflict of interest. In most non-corrupt countries, the politician would have to disclose and recuse themselves of any decision impacting the interested party.
> It is still a conflict of interest.
His wife isn't in government, and AFAIK Sunak owns no part of Infosys.
As much as I don't trust the current and recent crop of senior UK government politicians, this is a editorialised title. The company, Infosys is his father in laws (his wife does have shares), and as far as I can see there is no link between this IT contract and North Sea oil rights. But maybe I'm wrong and it a simple bribe, but I doubt it. Fundamentally though, a billionaire should not be a political leader, too mu…
Is a billionaire really more likely to be corrupt? The marginal value of money is much lower for them. It's much more interesting when people of modest wealth enter politics and become wealthy while in office, or shortly after leaving.