Sky broadcast a damning interview with Rishi Sunk yesterday in the links he has, via his wife and her holdings in Infosys, to Russia, in which it is widely reported that Infosys is still trading:
In response I tweeted this:
The Mirror called me and asked for an interview. I explained my logic, saying in an article in that paper today:
I follow a rule which is commonplace in finance, which is to ask the question whether someone is a fit and proper person to undertake the job. The person has to prove that they are independent, to be able to offer objective advice on which people can rely, and that their opinion making is free from influence.
Rishi Sunak is the man in charge of our nation's finances. My question is, is he a fit and proper person to be in charge? Is he objective and able to form an uninfluenced opinion about what is best for this country, independent of Russia's influence on his family's fortune? I don't think he is.
I happen to think that an important issue, especially when he does not even declare this association in the MP's Register of Interests when very obviously it has a significant impact on his family's fortunes.
As The Mirror notes, Infosys did confirm to them they are still running a small operation in Russia that services global clients locally, but are not serving local clients. When many firms have pulled out of Russia I think it reasonable to wonder why that is necessary.
And, as did Sky, I think the Chancellor needs to be held to account for what does influence his decision making. I doubt his objectivity, as very clearly do others, and think it right to have that on the record.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Do you have any idea of the value of his wife’s shares in Infosys? Bear in mind the family’s fortune is estimated to be £500m+ (excluding the billions of his father-in-law).
Such reports are in the media today. You seem to have read them.
God – for some standards in public life to exist – wouldn’t that be nice?
These sort of relationships should not be allowed exist in my view. But this is not new.
Did not Ernest Marples as Minister for Transport commission Doctor Beeching to close thousands of railway lines whilst the Government he was a member of saw a major growth in road building – using one of the major contractors Marples had a financial interest in?
And I think to top it all he fled to Monaco to avoid paying tax didn’t he?
Marples was ahead of his time. He’d fit in in today’s Tory Party/Parliament – no problem – where self interest is constantly validated.
You took the Russian coin by appearing on the Russian State propaganda channel RT.. or does t that count?
I took a payment from a production company to appear on a programme that appeared on RT
But three things. The sums were fairly small. And I am not running the state’s finances. And I refused to go on well before it came off air. In. other words, if I did make a mistake (and some will think I did, I know) I took action. Sunak has not. And that is the point.
If Western media were truly balanced, then I think people’s criticism of RT would be more justified.
But Western media is NOT balanced at all – outlets are increasingly monopolised and politicised, wider debate is regularly stymied at the cost to society and accountability in general.
Neo-liberal orthodoxy is constantly rammed down our throats; BREXIT was enabled through it.
I watched RT on a number of occasions knowing full well who was running it. Sometimes content was interesting and also in stark contrast to what was delivered elsewhere. Some of those on RT were Westerners who were critical of Western political economy (more heterodox than orthodox) and would not get much exposure on major media outlets.
Even if RT was just Russia’s or Putin’s way of holding up a mirror to the West does not mean that it was always wrong or invalid with what they had to say.
But to say the West is morally superior is not really correct either.
Such is the complexity of our modern world.
I think you are in danger of conflating ideas it is important to keep distinct. Wiser counsels have already suggested that the withdrawal of a licence in the UK for RT was a mistake; because it is important that the West makes clear the we have different standards of media freedom from Russia. Simply banning RT in the UK is too close to the Russian propaganda methodology, and sends a poor message to Russia that their media can then exploit within Russia against the West, for hypocrisy: a poor strategic judgment in the media war by the UK. It is then for individuals to make their judgement, whether to appear or not. Richard made his position clear, which seems to me unexceptionable.
Your approach also reflects an oversight of the real distinction; between open attempts to propagandise (over which it is easy to make a judgement), and hidden influence. Russia has used its oligarchy to sink Kermlin influence deep into the flesh of Britain’s society, without anyone notcing. There is the real problem. Johnson complains that we must not condemn all Russians for the crimes of the Kremlin. The problem for the public is that the public has no way of knowing how to discriminate between the two. The oligarchs do not have a flag painted on the foreheads that determines their real allegiance. At the same time the Government has been slow to sanction the oligarchs, plodding piecemeal through the detailed legal minefield, lest they breach the very law (which the oligarchs have exploited at will to silence their critics), instead of making the decisive executive action to defend the security of the State; and rushing a draconian law through Parliament against all of the oligarchs, then correcting the errors in detail, ex-post. Why draconian? In a world crisis, and the State security under threat, you do not take shor measures.
Because the Government already stands responsible for allowing the oligarchs to bury their power and influence ideep nto British politics, power and society far deeper than most everyday UK citizens (actually ‘subjects’, which better reveals their status) can ever dream of possessing. The Government carries sole responsiblity for carrying the can of responsibility for the mess they created, and we are now all fated to suffer. What we must not find; much later, and far too late – is that the Government has been so slow to act against malign oligarchs they missed through their wimpish response, and the miscreants have escaped all the consequences, along with their loot.
The problem remains. We do not know just how far the Government has compromised the State through it activities over the last twenty plus years. How could we? How are we gonig to find out how bad it is, even now?
“We do not know just how far the Government has compromised the State through it activities over the last twenty plus years. How could we? How are we gonig to find out how bad it is, even now?”
It may well be much worse than most of us can imagine – at least on the basis of this illuminatind and deeply disturbing article I just read in the Guardian Weekly and have now searched out & found on the Guardian website (where I had failed to see it): https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/mar/08/gas-powered-kingmaker-uk-welcomed-putin-dmitry-firtash-ukraine
“Oligarch Dmitry Firtash is wanted by the FBI for bribery. Nonetheless, he was received into the heart of the British establishment”: It appears that the MoD sold this highly dubious individual an old tube station next to his house with access to the London Underground. The mind boggles.
I see the article I linked to was an extract from his latest book: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/mar/17/butler-to-the-world-by-oliver-bullough-review-britain-reliance-russian-dirty-money
“We do not know just how far the Government has compromised the State through it activities over the last twenty plus years. How could we? How are we going to find out how bad it is, even now?”
This is why I think the Tories can’t afford to lose. They’re playing for keeps which is where the desperation you mention might come from. They passed the line of no return a long time ago. They’re fully committed to oligarchical, authoritarian capitalism now.
Maybe this is where Labour got in could really hurt them and why the Tories will fight like cornered rats to stay in power?
Mind you – would Labour do it? Blair & Co’s ‘relaxed’ attitudes to wealth may have started all this off – no doubt the Tories offered more tax breaks though. But then again…………will we ever know?
Quite possibly the tip-of-the-iceberg stuff. Most of the Sunaks family’s interests are in India. India is on record as wanting to maintain relationships with Russia (which furnishes India with various weapons systems). Thus it is India & the Sunak operations there that might be more relevant to “is he a fit an proper person”.
Putting aside the family interests, his recent non-action with regard to those at the bottom of UK society suggests that he falls into the class of tory hand wringers – “oh its so terrible but there is nothing I can do old chap” – style of. Sunak is a vile person and unfit for any position in politics. I have given lifts to more “fit & proper” tramps.
I don’t understand why the papers are so coy about saying what her shareholding is and what is is worth.
Her holding on 31 December 2021 is a matter of public record on the company’s own website. https://www.infosys.com/investors/reports-filings/quarterly-results/documents/share-holding/clause-35-december31-2021.pdf
AKSHATA MURTY 3,89,57,096 0.93%
A new quarterly report should be available shortly.
The share price is also a matter of public record.
The shares are listed in India and currently worth Rs 1,887.4 each which is about £18. There are also ADRs listed in New York and worth $24.63 which is also about £18.
If that is right, her holding is worth around £700 million.
“Steve says:
March 25 2022 at 7:56 am
You took the Russian coin by appearing on the Russian State propaganda channel RT.. or does t that count?”
The increasingly desperate establishment puppets line, the usual deflection and whataboutery. “Steve” comparing pebbles to small planets. This isn’t working anymore “Steve”; too many people feeling the effects. It’s personal to millions now. Why not have a whinge at the bad guys on behalf of the working poor, the food bank users, etc, etc?
Where’s a like button when I need one George Falconer. We’ll said
Hi Richard,
You make a very valid point about Sunak and conflict of interest, however, your point needs to be made broadened to include Sunaks general millionaire status. His economic wealth, ex merchant banker and his considerable assets, property and shares is a conflict of interest with “the interests of the UK as a whole”. These are class interests based his own personal wealth and those of the Tory party. Tax policy and Govt borrowing are used to build hos own personnel wealth as well as keep the Tory in power. His fake smile and amenable, but arrogant demeanor tells it’s own tale. A real player.
Accepted
Sunak always appears confident on camera. I’ve never seen him ill at ease. Until this clip.
He looks absolutely terrified.
That he didn’t declare his spouses affairs in Infosys will surely be playing heavily in his mind.
He knows he’s crossed the “sleaze line”, with potentially high penalties to his career, wealth, extended family relations.. not sure ruthless Murthy will take kindly to his son in law exposure here
Seems even the most ‘squeaky’ Conservatives have a clutter of skeletons jostling to escape from the closet…
Sunak seems to be attempting to claim (perhaps with some justification) that the shares are his wife’s assets, not his, and so he is not required to register them.
To which I might ask, does his wife’s shareholding satisfy the test of relevance within Category 8 here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmcode/1882/188204.htm
“Any relevant financial interest or material benefit which does not clearly fall into one of the other categories … if the Member nevertheless considers that it meets the test of relevance; in other words, that it might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions or words as a Member”
Do you think Sunak derives any material benefit from the fact that his wife owns shares worth hundreds of millions of pounds, and might that influence his actions? Can anyone say with a straight face “no” twice?
No one could do that
I think he has failed to declare an interest, which in itself proves my point
Everybody is being very hard on the poor man, who looked very fragile in the Sky News clip. To be scrupulously fair about this, it could be that the Chancellor, faced – after all – with so many difficult and confusing pressures just now, thinks the ‘marriage’ reltionship is, more or less, much like a zero-hours contract; or perhaps employment on a P&O ferry.
🙂
I find it quite distrubing that there is so little real scrutiny on Rishi Sunak’s performance in his day job that we are having to look to his outside interests for the means of being rid of him. To be clear I do think we should be looking at his outside relationships and finance arrangements.
If he doesn’t understand the precarious position many find themselves in then surely this is enough to show that he is unfit for the post.
If he doesn’t understand the precarious position the economy is in then surely this is enough to show that he is unfit for the post.
If, on the other hand, he does understand these issues and the impact that his policies will have, and earlier articles here suggest that he is making a choice, then his callous attitude to the majority of people in the UK should immediately rule him out of any public office.
And thats without touching on the corruption and fraud surrounding PPE and furlough etc.
Might I suggest anyone wishing to stoke the ire to the accompaniment of some lovely guitar work to check out ‘Dogs’ by Pink Floyd.
In my far less elevated role of school governor I am asked to complete an annual declaration of interest which specifically includes those relating to my spouse or other family members. I had assumed that is standard for all public appointments, including cabinet ministers.
🙂
Indeed, my wife (when an accountant at the large firms) was required to give details of her and my investments each year, and those made for our children, to check that they did not give rise to any potential conflict of interest. Not just shares, but ISAs and pensions and the rest. And not that she was ever directly involved in advising any of them, but just in case there was a risk for the wider firm.
Precisely