Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences

thelondoneconomic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences

#61

Post by tgv »

cowpig wrote: post #54

Apparently many of the commenters here are not familiar with the concept of a blind trust[0] or of people in positions of power recusing themselves from decisions in which they have a conflict of interest[1]. Basically, working in positions of governmental power should not have any kind of financial interest in anything they have power over, otherwise it will muddy their ability to govern in a way that is the best in…

Blind trust doesn't work. It's a smokescreen. If your political actions improve your stock value, that increase will still be there when you step down.

Sunak's wife is the daughter of the Infosys founder. According to Wikipedia:

> She holds a 0.93-per-cent stake in Infosys, along with shares in several other British businesses

Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences

#62

Post by penguin_booze »

toyg wrote: post #9
mattzito wrote: post #4

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.

> 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.

Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences

#63

Post by olddustytrail »

Valodim wrote: post #60
olddustytrail wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's astonishing that you think that ordinary people in first world countries are "unsuccessful".

It seems fair to compare to folks from the same country in this context, no?

Yes, that's fair and the complete opposite of what the person I responded to was doing. What's your point?

Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences

#64

Post by cowpig »

mattzito wrote: post #4

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…

I would not use the word "nothingburger" to describe a powerful politician being in a position where they have a conflict of interest, especially in a situation that could have an impact on climate change.

Doesn't matter if it only impacts a relatively small portion of his family's immense wealth. The level of tolerance for that should be zero.

Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences

#65

Post by penguin_booze »

mrd3v0 wrote: post #7
gumballindie wrote: post #3

They 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.

For anyone wondering, FPTP is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting.

Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences

#66

Post by eesmith »

cowpig wrote: post #36
lotsofpulp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is he going to divest? Divorce his wife?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_trust

That's a possibility ... if it's your own money.

I'm pretty sure lotsofpulp's underlying question is, how would that - or any divestment - work when it's the PM's father-in-law which has the shares and is chairman emeritus?

Are all relatives within distance X supposed to divest? And if not, you can't become PM? Hopefully they all like you enough!

Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences

#67

Post by lotsofpulp »

cowpig wrote: post #36
lotsofpulp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is he going to divest? Divorce his wife?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_trust

The point is he is invested in Infosys because his father in law is invested in Infosys. Nothing can change that, other than him no longer being related or caring about his father in law, and hence his wife.

Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences

#69

Post by rayiner »

olddustytrail wrote: post #51
rayiner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's astonishing that you think that ordinary people in first world countries are "unsuccessful".

“Unremarkable” then? Maybe “undistinguished?” Or “unexceptional?”

Re: Sunak’s family firm signed deal with BP before opening new North Sea licences

#70

Post by rayiner »

eldavojohn wrote: post #56
mattzito wrote: post #4

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…

So you're effectively arguing that quid pro quo isn't quid pro quo if you can't prove the counterfactual (that this contract would have happened without drilling rights)? Doesn't that seem ... stupid? To put the onus on the people who have no access to any communications or details about what looks like corruption? It's my opinion that without forcing them to do everything in the open and prove to us that there is no…

It’s literally in the definition of “quid pro quo”: “a favor or advantage granted in return for something.”

By your line of logic, if Elizabeth Warren votes for something that benefits Harvard, that’s improper without any evidence that Harvard is giving her something in return.

Post reply on HN