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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
False dilemma.
Hilary Clinton’s speaking fees to big banks, or Elizabeth Warren’s connections to academia, are a lot more material to those individuals than Infosys turning a $100 million contract into a $150 million contract is to Sunak.
Saying nothing is hypocritical and blaming only one side is tribalistic.
A basic slob like you, you mean?
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.