Sunak's wife business dealings with Russia

I don't care the politcal colour I do care about honest and open Parliament.

There have been several cases, from all parties, when friends, family, acquaintances etc. have benefitted from decisions made in HoP /cabinet and through lobbying. I do not think it is healthy or moral. Declaring business interests of family and close acquaintances is sensible.
Lab, Con, Lib etcetc

He has no known involvement with his wife's family company and if he were my husband I would be horrified if he publicly spoke about my business affairs. Which Sunak didn't. What's your problem with him in the absence of any evidence of his wife having received any income from the company since the invasion? Apart from being the Conservative chancellor, etc etc...

I MEAN RISHI!!

Sorry, I was shouting.

But at least I haven't slapped anyone.

Yet.

And in the absence of any information about Mrs Sunak’s own business dealings over the last few weeks (as I am sick of saying), where is there any evidence of immorality? Should she be blamed for legal dealings by a company in which she has/had very much a minority shareholding?

It seems that at least one purportedly intelligent woman on this thread refuses to believe that other people are not concerned by a person's wealth but by their morals.

Money isn't everything GSM. I know many Conservatives think it is.

It seems that the intelligent women on this thread can’t understand that nothing is known of her post-invasion business dealings or income but she is being castigated nevertheless. As is her husband for not talking about her private and, like it or not, legal business interests.
I’m not going to repeat this yet again and will leave you to pull them both apart. You know you enjoy it.

I actually thought it was quite normal if you had high security clearance that your spouses affairs were looked into too

A little over emotive there GSM. No one sees this as 'a delight' and certainly not 'a gift'.

Rather it is a scandal. If this were WWII, and a British politician's wife had financial dealings with the Nazis, the consequences would probably be an internment camp, not an excuse as weak as 'His wife's dealings are nothing to do with him.'

See what I mean folks?

Read the OP, GSM, read the OP

This thread is about Mrs Sunak’s business interests (see title). It is not up to her husband to speak for her.
But what a delight for so many - rich and Tory. What a gift!

volver I live in hope that the U.K. will have truthful politicians, I would also like to see our politicians have integrity which seems pretty low at the moment.

Unless of course you consider being married to a Conservative chancellor and being a rich woman are sufficient grounds for slander.

GSM, GG13, however many times you say it, it doesn't make it true that people are concerned about this because Sunak and his wife are rich. I am concerned about it because there are many companies withdrawing from Russia, and the man in one of the four great offices of state in this country says he doesn't know if his wife has an interest in a company that is still trading with Russia, and what's more we're being unfair to ask him about it.

So you can comfort yourself with the deception that we hate rich people, or you can see the truth that we expect integrity from our senior politicians and that's not what we're getting.

Responding to MaizieD’s question upthread, In theory, it should be simple for Infosys to explain what exactly they do in Russia. Quotes from the link Maizie gave:

Infosys said it has no direct business relationships with local Russian enterprises in a clarification of the IT services major’s operations in Moscow.

Infosys further clarified that it has a small team of 100 employees in Russia who cater to global clients based there.

No direct business relationships smacks of obfuscation.

The company’s website, a picture of style over substance, isn’t the easiest to find information on.

Infosys are, for example, providers of AI in Croatia and Russia for Ansaldo Energia, a part Italian - part Chinese-owned power engineering corporation. I believe their business is the manufacture of heavy-duty gas turbines. They also have a nuclear subsidiary. Infosys need to be clear on what this power is being used for and whether their AI is helping fuel Putin’s war machine.

I’m not being ridiculous. She has been paid dividends by the company. She may or may not receive dividends this year. She may choose not to receive them or for them to go to a charity. I repeat you do not know her current position. You just choose to assume the worst with no grounds whatsoever for that assumption. Unless of course you consider being married to a Conservative chancellor and being a rich woman are sufficient grounds for slander.

Wasn't aware he was being mooted as a possible successor to BJ, but if he is, I would guess that his wife's dealings will have to be made public knowledge whether they want it or not!
I'm afraid he is just like the rest of his party - have absolutely no knowledge or interest about what is really going on below their social circle.

Ah, OK. I'm working but how do you know I'm drawing a salary?

Don't be ridiculous.

How do you know she is currently taking any income from this company? You don’t. Perhaps you’d like to send her to the guillotine pending publication of the current year’s accounts. Unfortunately you won’t be able to reverse the process if you’re proved wrong.

Germanshepherdsmum

I have already said that we know nothing of his wife’s post-invasion income, nor whether she is trying to extricate herself from the company in which she has only a very small interest. Shouldn’t we wait until we have post-invasion information rather than judge her on her income last year, which is totally irrelevant to the Ukraine situation?

So sit and wait while the next-of-kin & spouse of our chancellor and possible future PM continues to benefit from profit made from a country waging an invasion of a European country? Wait until it's all over. And then cast judgement? After the profit is made and Ukraine has been colonised by Russia?

Hmmm. Not at all corrupt.

I'm not judging anybody for being rich.

This woman seems like quite an admirable person.

www.standard.co.uk/insider/celebrity/mackenzie-scott-success-jeff-bezos-divorce-a4512601.html

But I'll certainly judge people for being two faced.

The wealth I mean.

Definitely. Shouldn’t be allowed.

Germanshepherdsmum

I have already said that we know nothing of his wife’s post-invasion income, nor whether she is trying to extricate herself from the company in which she has only a very small interest. Shouldn’t we wait until we have post-invasion information rather than judge her on her income last year, which is totally irrelevant to the Ukraine situation?

It’s far to easy just to judge someone for being rich though…

I have already said that we know nothing of his wife’s post-invasion income, nor whether she is trying to extricate herself from the company in which she has only a very small interest. Shouldn’t we wait until we have post-invasion information rather than judge her on her income last year, which is totally irrelevant to the Ukraine situation?

I think the "feminist" argument is a straw man. I don't think anyone is saying he is "in charge" of his wife's business. It's more a case of him benefiting, as all spouses do, from what their partners do.

I think the questioning also comes from where his conscience sits. If I knowingly marry a thief and accept his view of life as okay, then I must expect the law to look at me too and people to judge my character on that information. If he is knowingly married to someone who receives large amounts from investments in Russia then he has the right to say it does or doesn't sit well with him.

Surely a partner, whatever their sex, must have their individual conscience. Or do the "feminists" who have raised this argument, now feel women have the right to stop a "man" having his separate moral compass?

Also nobody is suggesting Sunak's wife should not be an independent business woman any more than Patel's husband should not ŕun a company just that both should have to declare it before any debate/ vote that might harmof benefit those businesses. The speaker would then decide if they should abstain from voting. (I know that is not the rules..but I think it should be!)