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

71–80 of 87 posts

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

#71

Post by rayiner »

samwillis wrote: post #6

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…

Isn’t it better for billionaires to be political leaders than career bureaucrats, academics, or bartenders?

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

#72

Post by extasia »

saos wrote: post #42

The 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

I agree with your last point. How do we fix this problem though?

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

#73

Post by rayiner »

hh3k0 wrote: post #22
sky_rw wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Yes, honourable politicians get their kickbacks through book deals, inflated speaking fees, and brilliantly timed stock deals. False dilemma.

[flagged]

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

#74

Post by olddustytrail »

rayiner wrote: post #69
olddustytrail wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

"ordinary"? "common"? "working class"? "not fitting with the gentry"?

A basic slob like you, you mean?

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

#75

Post by bparsons »

krona wrote: post #19
bparsons wrote: post #11

Earlier 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.

This isn't how conflicts work. In any sort of high profile role --let alone high office-- the interests of your spouse and family are treated as your own.

For the purposes of public office or even a CEO at a publicly traded company, the appearance of a conflict is no difference than a material conflict.

It is pretty clear that Sunak is toast and that the people around him simply don't care anymore.

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

#76

Post by bparsons »

tomp wrote: post #24
samwillis wrote: post #6

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…

> 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…

Friend, I have a bridge to sell you in San Francisco. Great deal, just for you.

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

#77

Post by toyg »

ilc wrote: post #47
toyg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That'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.

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

#78

Post by toyg »

rayiner wrote: post #73
hh3k0 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, honourable politicians get their kickbacks through book deals, inflated speaking fees, and brilliantly timed stock deals. False dilemma.

[flagged]

And? The two are not exclusive problems, one can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Saying nothing is hypocritical and blaming only one side is tribalistic.

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

#79

Post by toyg »

penguin_booze wrote: post #62
toyg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mu…

This 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.

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

#80

Post by toyg »

hristov wrote: post #52
krona wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is still a conflict of interest. His wife isn't in government, and AFAIK Sunak owns no part of Infosys.

If his wife owns part of Infosys, he essentially owns it too. Married couples tend to share their assets. Furthermore, his wife is a citizen of India, infosys is domiciled in india and indian courts tend to split marital assets in the middle in the case of a divorce.

Married couples, in the UK, don't "tend to share assets" - by law, all assets belong to the marriage, end of story. Private agreements to the contrary can be (and often are) disregarded by the courts.

What she makes is as his as hers.

Post reply on HN