[dead]
Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences
41–50 of 87 posts
Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences
#42The level of corruption in the U.K is just fascinating. As Brit I can only laugh. I do fear next election and that general public will continue to vote for which ever party keeps their house price high
Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences
#43As 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…
> Fundamentally though, a billionaire should not be a political leader, too much opportunity of corruption or the appearance of it. Quite the contrary, the richer a person is, the harder they are to corrupt (both in theory - need more money to sway them - as in practice - much cheaper to corrupt someone else), and the less they care about being corrupted (they can afford to follow their principles, e.g. Musk buying T…
> or the appearance of it
The public at large see a rich person with an opportunity to grow their wealth through politics. You may well be right, and that is the (original) concept behind the House of Lords, but as with everything in politics its appearance that matters.
Also it's not always about them being corrupted, it can be them as the corrupting force.
Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences
#44As 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.
Yes. The reality is that becoming a billionaire usually involves some pretty heinous shit conducted against your fellow man for personal benefit. This is a huge self selection for basically people who have no empathy.
Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Fundamentally though, a billionaire should not be a political leader, too much opportunity of corruption or the appearance of it. Quite the contrary, the richer a person is, the harder they are to corrupt (both in theory - need more money to sway them - as in practice - much cheaper to corrupt someone else), and the less they care about being corrupted (they can afford to follow their principles, e.g. Musk buying T…
> the richer a person is, the harder they are to corrupt That is quite a lot view of non-rich citizens. A lot have morals as baseline for corruption, beyond the cash / assets we hold.
I view rich and non-rich people equally. Many are moral, many others are corruptible. Among the latter, it’s harder (more expensive) to corrupt a non-rich person
Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[dead]
Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences
#47This 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.
You 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.
Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences
#48This 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.
I'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.
Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences
#49As 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…
> Fundamentally though, a billionaire should not be a political leader, too much opportunity of corruption or the appearance of it. Quite the contrary, the richer a person is, the harder they are to corrupt (both in theory - need more money to sway them - as in practice - much cheaper to corrupt someone else), and the less they care about being corrupted (they can afford to follow their principles, e.g. Musk buying T…
Some might say that amassing that much wealth is a sign that they are already corrupted in some way.
I would say: beware of the principles of those who wield power and have little common cause with you.
Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences
#50They also reinstated IR35 regulation that favours his wife’s Infosys outsourcing firm. The UK is such a dysfunctional country that I wouldnt be surprised if the government would simply decriminalise corruption and influence peddling in particular. The latter is illegal but barely enforced. I predict that if the situation continues the country will simply implode. The left will no doubt blame Brexit, but the left is e…
Two-party "democracy" gave the UK a decade of ill-represented government. The switch from FPTP to a proportional ranked voting system needs to happen for its democracy to be sustain itself in the future.
> Two-party “democracy” gave the UK a decade of ill-represented government.
There are 11 parties represented (12 that have won seats, but Sinn Fein is Sinn Fein), not counting independents, in the House of Commons.
> The switch from FPTP to a proportional ranked voting system needs to happen for its democracy to be sustain itself in the future.
Don’t disagree with this, though.