Sunak's Undeclared Wealth

go-nads! said:
I just don’t understand why someone this wealthy would be interested in government. Surely if he is so capable he would be employed by the family company and be far better rewarded for his talent.

I could understand if he was doing the job in a philanthropic role, but seeing as he is working for that party - just what is it he is working towards?
Click to expand...
Money earns money. Running the country is a hobby for some.
 
Laughing said:
She owns less than 1%of Infosys has no say in day to day or strategic decisions at Infosys and if she tried to use her influence with the British government she would be called out for it. You are right, and I did say in my post the conflict should have been recorded. My point was only that, from a moral standpoint Infosys knock the British government out of the park. In fact her father Narayana Murthy stepped down as ceo to force Infosys to take a more moral approach to their business dealings. It largely worked in the shakeup at board level. I know the ceo and the coo at Infosys one of them very well. They are honest men
Click to expand...
Infosys could be staffed entirely by saints - it doesn't matter. Sunak could make decisions independently of Infosys, but to the pecuniary advantage of his wife. It's the Caesar's wife case; not only must the Chancellor of the Exchequer be above suspicion - he must be seen to be above suspicion
 
go-nads! said:
I just don’t understand why someone this wealthy would be interested in government. Surely if he is so capable he would be employed by the family company and be far better rewarded for his talent.

I could understand if he was doing the job in a philanthropic role, but seeing as he is working for that party - just what is it he is working towards?
Click to expand...

Little rich boys playing a game really isn't it? Suppose you get yourself in the history books. See also Cameron, Osborne and Boris.

Just like a politics club at their private school. No real consequences for them if they **** it up, but bloody good fun all the same.
 
JackG said:
Infosys could be staffed entirely by saints - it doesn't matter. Sunak could make decisions independently of Infosys, but to the pecuniary advantage of his wife. It's the Caesar's wife case; not only must the Chancellor of the Exchequer be above suspicion - he must be seen to be above suspicion
Click to expand...
Let me say once more, I am not defending the lack of disclosure from sunack. I am merely pointing out that there is no danger in that, particular, lack of disclosure. I also believe that, at least in part there was a failure from civil servants to identify what was pertinent and what not, given this information is in the public domain.
 
Laughing said:
Let me say once more, I am not defending the lack of disclosure from sunack. I am merely pointing out that there is no danger in that, particular, lack of disclosure. I also believe that, at least in part there was a failure from civil servants to identify what was pertinent and what not, given this information is in the public domain.
Click to expand...
We cannot know that. I'm sure that Infosys are absolute paragons of virtue; I am less sure of Sunak. He is in a position to benefit from his own actions as a chancellor, simply by ownership of assets. This requires no complicity on behalf of the assets owned. A complete disclosure of his interests is a minimum requirement for a person in his position, in the interests of transparency.
 
Keelo said:
I know this is a bit off piste, but when i see him walking with his tight little suit on i cant for the life of me get Norman Pitkin....AKA Norman Wisdom, out of my mind !
Click to expand...
Ha! My wife mentions that every time he pops up, not seen him in a well fitted suit yet. I wonder if he borrows one from lost property, like when you forgot your PE kit and had to wear shorts that belonged to a much smaller kid
 
JackG said:
It's the Caesar's wife case; not only must the Chancellor of the Exchequer be above suspicion - he must be seen to be above suspicion
Click to expand...
This. As the Grauniad article says:
Ministers are held to a higher level of disclosure than MPs. The code of conduct states they must provide a “full list in writing of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict”. This list “should also cover interests of the minister’s spouse or partner and close family which might be thought to give rise to a conflict”.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine).
 
Cambsred said:
My first instinct with this is that it doesn't really matter.

But then in deeper thought it has to be a purposeful action to actively ignore this wealth/ link and not declare it.

It doesn't impact me the wealth of a politician and I don't really care, but its the lack of transparency that comes with it that is disturbing. If it is required to declare and he has chosen not to, the act of not declaring it should be explored and whatever the consequence of that may be (probably not a lot anyway)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the wealth of a politician is that important, but their investments and connections are. If their decisions could make millions or lose millions to their personal wealth then that is a clear conflict of interest that is in the public interest.
 
BoroMart said:
I'm not sure the wealth of a politician is that important, but their investments and connections are. If their decisions could make millions or lose millions to their personal wealth* then that is a clear conflict of interest that is in the public interest.
Click to expand...
*Or that of their closest relatives, including but not limited to, their spouse.
 
Presumably the PPE degree at Oxford University teaches students how to lie, cheat and scheme their way to the top.

Lack of diversity applies at many levels.
 
www.theguardian.com

Rishi Sunak's wife owns part of firm that funnelled money through Mauritius

Exclusive: Akshata Murty owns 5% of IMM, which used structure that could reduce taxes payable in India
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Nobody can accrue such repulsive levels of wealth without this kind of fraud becoming as common as having a cup of tea.

Akshata Murthy’s shares in her father’s company are worth $573m meanwhile 250m Indians have to survive on less than $2 a day.

edition.cnn.com

This is what it means to be poor in India today

My country’s growing wealth hasn’t trickled down. Just ask Amina, who lives in a slum in the shadow of one of India’s glitziest shopping malls.
edition.cnn.com edition.cnn.com

Abhorrent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top