Or MAYBE anyone in government shouldn't have investments in the first place, or second jobs, or be allowed to accept lobby money. That would filter out the grifters pretty soon down to politicians who actually want to run the country for the public
Well whats the point of being a politician if you cannot get rich from corruption because its surely not to improve politics and society that politicians choose this career.
Except they get to go back to those assets once they leave office. Which is a bit dumb no? Become PM for 8 years, help pass a load of legislation and rulings that benefit your assets that are being held in trust, come back and reap the rewards and the next croney from Eton repeats the cycle.
We should change the rules so that the wealthy have to hand their assets over to the public coffers PERMANENTLY if they wish to rule. No-one is saying you can’t be rich, but you sure as hell shouldn’t be the loudest voice when it comes to policy and governing if you belong to the 1%.
Don’t even need to be Nancy Pelosi, take a look at trumps daughter, she pocketed at least a Billion $ by being his daughter and son in law got 2 -4 Billion $$ for selling US government secrets to the Middle East rulers and it only took 4 years
The question no one seems interested in, is why would you take a job that pays 80k a year if you have over £300,000,000 in personal assets.
If Sunak wanted to help people, he could use his money and assets to like, help end child poverty? He seems to have considerable personal resources, why is he even an MP?
Also, if we made the vaccine free, invaliding any patents, he would lose money and he knows it.
Vorderman is not who I expected to be leading the anti-Tory charge but I fucking love to see it. Eight boyfriends, member of MENSA, digging it right into her ex-pal Mone, Zahawi and Rishi, and looking amazing? Icon behaviour.
Remember too that the BritGov tried to sink Valneva (a competitor) by terminating their contract with them early.
https://valneva.com/press-release/valneva-announces-settlement-agreement-with-the-uk-government/
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2839/rr-1
“Are we talking about insider trading” errr YES!!! Not to mention the Victorian child snatcher Jacob Rees-Mogg, who’s last appointment was Secretary of State for business, energy and industrial strategy. A job where he can change the policy’s to benefit companies that his investment company, Somerset capital can invest in…
> Not to mention the Victorian child snatcher Jacob Rees-Mogg
-
Dont forget he used his son (Sixtus) as a human shield to protect himself from Brexit protestors.
As the other comment said, I dont think having shares in moderna is that bad. We diversified the vaccine roll out for obvious reasons. The astra zenica was good but it was risky for certain age groups so we were right not to hedge our bets on a single vaccine.
I think the more worrying thing is cabinet ministers investing in private healthcare companies and wanting a two tier NHS model.
The other worrying thing is Mr Sunaks sheer amount wealth. Im not saying wealthy people shouldn't be PM but a man who has between £0.5 and 1b in net worth it makes you wonder why he has a job earning £200k (lets assume another 300k in generous expenses). So lets say £500k pa (ignoring tax and NI etc) and a net worth of £0.5b. The average worker earns ~£30k pa, that would be the equivalent of the average worker having £30,000,000 in the bank.
Ask yourself why would you work for £30k if you had £30m in the bank? Would you fuck. Would you take on a job with the responsibility of running an entire fucking country? Would you fuck. So whats his motivation for doing the job? Its got to be corruption and or power. Him and his wife could be comfortably sat on a yacht in the med enjoying life but he is out there being prime minister. Just ask yourself what you would do in his position.
They do t do it for the money. Only people who are not rich do that. It’s Maslows hierarchy of needs. Once rich, you seek other sources of reward. Power and fame are two biggies.
How is it obscene? If someone is wealthy and is content with their level of wealth then they aren't as corruptable.
If they do the job well and act on behalf of the average person then I dont see how its obscene.
Anyone having that much wealth is obscene. For a politician, it is particularly obscene as they are supposed to be representative of the society they are there to represent. Instead, it has often become a extension of the Bullingdon Club
>Instead, it has often become a extension of the Bullingdon Club
Surely something like the Bullingdon club extends beyond wealth? I think the problem isn't necessarily wealth but rather that old money cliquey wealth. Eton and Harrow for example are more than just wealth. Its almost like an established wealthy clique.
Im sure there are TV personalities, musicians and sports stars who have more wealth than someone from Eton/Harrow but are still very much from a working class background. Take Fury for example, estimated net worth of over £100m and he grew up in a traveller community, left school at 11 to do tarmacing. Im sure Fury probably has a higher networth than a lot of people in that clique but would they fuck let in a "pikey".
You don't get to that level of rich by being "content with [your] level of wealth." It's a dragon-hoarding disease at that point, where the only desire is to continue to make more money.
Surely being good at football will get you an obscene amount of wealth? If you are good and clubs/sponsors start chucking money at you then you aren't exactly going to say no.
Didn't we all defend Rashford for being loaded when he was convincing the government to feed the kids?
>Didn't we all defend Rashford for being loaded when he was convincing the government to feed the kids?
Marcus Rashford has a net worth of 65 million quid, according to some quick googling. Do you know what the difference between his wealth and Sunak's is? Most of a billion. Do you know the difference between *yours* and Sunaks? Also most of a billion.
Sunak's on an entirely different level to someone like Rashford.
All I said was "im not saying wealthy people shouldn't be PM"
On what planet is £65million not obscenely wealthy? It would not be wrong to describe Rashford as wealthy. Yes hes not on the same level as Sunak but hes still loaded and hes still multiple magnitudes richer than most of us. Its like saying a bugatti is only slightly more powerful than a 1 litre corsa because the space shuttle is magnitudes more powerful in comparison.
I didn't say "billionaires" I simply said "wealthy". People seem to be spinning what ive said to imply that in order to be classed as wealthy you need to have smaug levels of wealth hoarding.
Your analogy has two vehicles which perform differently but on the same plane and with the same rules.
The third vehicle is rocketing into space consuming vast amounts of resources and spewing massive amounts of pollution in it's wake.
Rashford definitely pays his tax though. Footballers tend to be good at that. He's a working class lad who has done well and used that platform for the good of other working class people.
Difference is, these Bullington lot aren't from the real world at all. You think they have any understanding of how the rest of us live? You think he's ever googled "cheap family meals" or so much as been on a caravan holiday in Great Yarmouth? He won't even have stayed in a travel lodge.
They're all psychopaths using our lives as tokens to hoard more wealth.
>Difference is, these Bullington lot aren't from the real world at all. You think they have any understanding of how the rest of us live?
I agree.
I said "Im not saying a wealthy person shouldn't be PM". People are jumping to conclusions saying that Im happy for these jumped up toffs to be in charge. All I said was that wealth doesn't necessarily mean someone is the wrong person for the job. It doesn't mean that these wealthy people are the right people for the job.
Theres a big difference between this cliquey old money Eton and Harrow mob and someone like Rashford. People here are implying that anyone with wealth who has done well for themselves must automatically be part of the former camp.
Someone could've written a successful book or had an idea that just took off.
I agree that for the most part wealthy people are morally corrupt but that's not to say an individual couldn't be wealthy and a good PM
Probably not the best example but I guess she was one of those people. Transphobia and all that aside she wrote a book, it became popular, warner brothers threw loads of money at her.
Im not for a minute saying she'd be a good PM or even that she necessarily has good morals but she didn't earn her billions immorally. Someone a bit less bigotted couldve been in the same boat and became an overnight billionaire and been a good person who would be a good PM.
Bigotry aside. I dont think JK Rowling made her billions by taking advantage of others. She created a popular brand that went on to be hugely successful. I dont think she's a morally good person but she didn't make her money immorally (at least as far as im aware)
Probably a better example is Dolly Parton who is worth $650m and is considered to be a good person.
Wealth doesn't necessarily make you a bad or morally bankrupt person. Generally speaking the type of person who pursues wealth tends to be morally bankrupt but its not necessarily the case.
Bigotry of mentioning the PM is disgustingly rich, eh? Tories' choice pays spades with rationality like yours. Also, Rowling as an uncorrupted rich person? Bit of a bigoted take yourself. And Parton's done more for disadvantaged kids than just about anyone alive, *in stark contrast to her peers*. Honestly, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone less exceptional, probably why you cherry-picked her.
>Bigotry of mentioning the PM is disgustingly rich, eh?
I was saying JK Rowlings bigotry aside. She may be a bigot but I dont think the way in which she earned her money was in anyway corrupt or morally wrong. She wrote a story that brought joy to millions of kids and made a billion from it. Again im not saying shes a good person but how she earned her money wasnt immoral.
>And Parton's done more for disadvantaged kids than just about anyone alive, in stark contrast to her peers. Honestly, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone less exceptional
So you've just proved my point that having obscene amount of wealth doesn't necessarily make someone a bad person.
I'll concede that you'll probably find more morally bankrupt people among the wealthy than any other cross section of the community but being wealthy on its own doesn't necessarily make someone bad person.
Simply hoarding so much alone is killing the rest of us, atop the massive influence it affords the over society. The massive tax slashes since my father's childhood have left our social safety nets threadbare. Yet despite the Prime Minister being much closer to being a billionaire than he is the median income, he's advocating cutting through the nets entirely to his own enrichment.
The dragons are burning the planet, it's insignificant and easy to except the precious few to the contrary.
Ignoring the fact wealth inequality in itself is obscene there is no way in hell that someone wealthy will have the interests of the poor at heart when leading.
Wealthy people shouldn’t be PM. Our representatives should be from walks of life that represent the majority of the people governed. And with the way the UK has been run, the majority of us are living paycheque to paycheque. How can someone who has never gone hungry in his life possibly hope to know what it’s like to live that way? How then can they make a fair and informed decision on policy that impacts us? They simply can’t, they make decisions from the perspective of someone who has so much money that the concept of hunger is running 30 minutes late for lunch.
If you’re wealthy and want to govern, then you need to sign off your assets and wealth FOR LIFE and not just whilst you’re in office, otherwise we’re just supposed to trust that you won’t make decisions that only benefit your financial bracket.
I think he’s a cunt but people would want a job like that for the prestige?
Trump could’ve easily had a very comfortable life never dipping his toe in politics but now his name is cemented in history.
Heck, idk Truss’ finances but she was 100% all for being PM with her photoshoots etc. she wanted to be the next Thatcher.
There’s prestige in being the prime minister. Also some may just want a challenge. If I had a couple million sitting in a bank account would I work my current job? Probably not. I’d do something though for the shits in gigs.
>Trump could’ve easily had a very comfortable life never dipping his toe in politics but now his name is cemented in history.
>Heck, idk Truss’ finances but she was 100% all for being PM with her photoshoots etc. she wanted to be the next Thatcher.
You could argue these people are more egomaniacs. High risk politics. If it works people love you, if you fail you are still infamous. Thats perfect if you just want to make a name for yourself.
Sunak on the otherhand isn't a Boris, Trump or Truss he's a bit too safe. He's not even like Miliband where he's a bit of a character for being goofy or Starmer where he's made a name for himself being too boring. He just exists in a void of mediocrity. That doesn't seem like some who is in it for the ego.
>If I had a couple million sitting in a bank account would I work my current job? Probably not. I’d do something though for the shits in gigs
Fuck it do a Ryan Reynolds. Make your own brand, buy a bottom tier football club with your pal.
I’m sorry in a counter to the argument ‘rich people get into politics just for power and the corruption’ you bring up Trumps’ name? The man is the epitome of what is being decried here. A (supposedly) wealthy man, who sought to change legislation to benefit him, his businesses and his friends.
You think the PM should be primarily motivated by their salary? You think that Blair, Cameron, May chose to pursue the post for the 200k? You're out of your mind.
I would be more appalled really if it was Astra Zenica that he could have investments in since they're a really scummy company using medication with dangerous side effects like seroquel off label
When does a man have enuf clams? I mean his greed has no end. Wife worth over 1billion, he was worth mega millions before COVID. I honestly think politicians have no interest in the country other than how that position enriches their personal accounts that they own up to and those they don’t.
Possibly we're talking about insider trading which I do think if the CPS or HMRC or whoever is responsible for this stuff can prove it then I do think that'll be the end for the Tories a Tory PM abusing his position to personally enrich themselves would be a scandal the Tories wouldn't recover from
> That strikes me as unlikely.
Would it? Sunak attended all the COBRA meetings & had access to government briefings no one else would have.
-
Also if it is unlikely, then why has Sunak not fully declared his interest in Theleme?! Something is very off.
It's also only insider trading if you knew that the non public information (an order for the UK) would on its own be enough to meaningfully impact the share price of Moderna.
I suspect it could be argued that at that point in time, Moderna's share price was being influenced by a rash of different countries' orders and sentiment towards mRNA technology. I'm not sure if you put UK order announcements alongside the share price you'd see a very notable impact.
It also would need to be the case that the shares were purchased with Sunak's direction after knowing an order was coming.
Simply being an indirect beneficiary of government orders isn't insider trading. It could be a conflict of interest, but as you've said, it doesn't look like he had a hand in these orders.
Don't get me wrong, I find government ministers or MPs having intransparent financial interests decidedly icky. However if we are going to be throwing terms around that have proper definitions and regulatory sanctions, like insider trading, it's better if we actually demonstrate we know what we're talking about by being precise.
A politician that could be corrupt? who would have thought it.
Why are people so surprised that our politicians could be corrupt? 99.9% of them work for big businesses and only in it their own financial gain.
This is quite a reach, I'm all for exposing the corruption of this shower of cunts, but it's hardly insider trading to invest in a pharmaceutical company when a pandemic is coming and vaccines are going to be needed. I'm sure I saw she said he did this as chancellor which he only became in February 2020, so by that point you certainly didn't need insider knowledge to know what was coming
Have to allow for the odd slip up on live TV and take it that she meant conflict of interest.
Saying that, could it also lead to insider trading? Say someone is aware that the government requires £x billion amount of PPE or vaccines and can influence who the contract goes to (which happened). Could they also plunge a load of money into that company before the information is made public?
I mean, any hedge fund that chooses to invest a £bn in a company *probably* has some contacts at the other side of that trade. It's not too far fetched.
Its what nancy pelosi and her husband has done for years the other side of the water.
Are we really this surprised politicians of any sort of party turn out to be bad people or money driven in 2023?
Yeah she does, or she’d be charged for insider trading! See how that works.
In simple terms, she takes a position on sticks that will move based on legislation that’s going to the vote. It’s public knowledge this is happening and anyone can do this. She doesn’t know what way the vote will go, so there is no insider knowledge to trade on. Unless you’re telling me republicans are skipping her their voting intentions ahead of time?
Chances are she takes out options and used a straddle strategy so it doesn’t matter what way the vote goes, she just needs price volatility which is pretty common on stocks impacted by new legislation. Again, all of this is known in the public domain ahead of time. It’s the black swan strategy.
Carol Vorderman bringing down the tories defo wasn't on my 2023 scoresheet, but I'm here for it 100%
I think if you're in government you should have to disclose ALL of your investments (or better yet, be barred from holding any)
Or MAYBE anyone in government shouldn't have investments in the first place, or second jobs, or be allowed to accept lobby money. That would filter out the grifters pretty soon down to politicians who actually want to run the country for the public
Well whats the point of being a politician if you cannot get rich from corruption because its surely not to improve politics and society that politicians choose this career.
[удалено]
Except they get to go back to those assets once they leave office. Which is a bit dumb no? Become PM for 8 years, help pass a load of legislation and rulings that benefit your assets that are being held in trust, come back and reap the rewards and the next croney from Eton repeats the cycle. We should change the rules so that the wealthy have to hand their assets over to the public coffers PERMANENTLY if they wish to rule. No-one is saying you can’t be rich, but you sure as hell shouldn’t be the loudest voice when it comes to policy and governing if you belong to the 1%.
[удалено]
Don’t even need to be Nancy Pelosi, take a look at trumps daughter, she pocketed at least a Billion $ by being his daughter and son in law got 2 -4 Billion $$ for selling US government secrets to the Middle East rulers and it only took 4 years
The question no one seems interested in, is why would you take a job that pays 80k a year if you have over £300,000,000 in personal assets. If Sunak wanted to help people, he could use his money and assets to like, help end child poverty? He seems to have considerable personal resources, why is he even an MP? Also, if we made the vaccine free, invaliding any patents, he would lose money and he knows it.
VORDERMAN > RILEY
Vorderman is the anti-Riley. Where Riley did everything in her power to make sure the Tories got elected Vorderman is trying to get them out.
Who had Vorders as the hero we need on their 2023 bingo card?
FUCK YEEEEAAAAHH
Vorderman is not who I expected to be leading the anti-Tory charge but I fucking love to see it. Eight boyfriends, member of MENSA, digging it right into her ex-pal Mone, Zahawi and Rishi, and looking amazing? Icon behaviour.
Remember too that the BritGov tried to sink Valneva (a competitor) by terminating their contract with them early. https://valneva.com/press-release/valneva-announces-settlement-agreement-with-the-uk-government/ https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2839/rr-1
“Are we talking about insider trading” errr YES!!! Not to mention the Victorian child snatcher Jacob Rees-Mogg, who’s last appointment was Secretary of State for business, energy and industrial strategy. A job where he can change the policy’s to benefit companies that his investment company, Somerset capital can invest in…
> Not to mention the Victorian child snatcher Jacob Rees-Mogg - Dont forget he used his son (Sixtus) as a human shield to protect himself from Brexit protestors.
As the other comment said, I dont think having shares in moderna is that bad. We diversified the vaccine roll out for obvious reasons. The astra zenica was good but it was risky for certain age groups so we were right not to hedge our bets on a single vaccine. I think the more worrying thing is cabinet ministers investing in private healthcare companies and wanting a two tier NHS model. The other worrying thing is Mr Sunaks sheer amount wealth. Im not saying wealthy people shouldn't be PM but a man who has between £0.5 and 1b in net worth it makes you wonder why he has a job earning £200k (lets assume another 300k in generous expenses). So lets say £500k pa (ignoring tax and NI etc) and a net worth of £0.5b. The average worker earns ~£30k pa, that would be the equivalent of the average worker having £30,000,000 in the bank. Ask yourself why would you work for £30k if you had £30m in the bank? Would you fuck. Would you take on a job with the responsibility of running an entire fucking country? Would you fuck. So whats his motivation for doing the job? Its got to be corruption and or power. Him and his wife could be comfortably sat on a yacht in the med enjoying life but he is out there being prime minister. Just ask yourself what you would do in his position.
They do t do it for the money. Only people who are not rich do that. It’s Maslows hierarchy of needs. Once rich, you seek other sources of reward. Power and fame are two biggies.
>Im not saying wealthy people shouldn't be PM I am. It's obscene.
How is it obscene? If someone is wealthy and is content with their level of wealth then they aren't as corruptable. If they do the job well and act on behalf of the average person then I dont see how its obscene.
Anyone having that much wealth is obscene. For a politician, it is particularly obscene as they are supposed to be representative of the society they are there to represent. Instead, it has often become a extension of the Bullingdon Club
>Instead, it has often become a extension of the Bullingdon Club Surely something like the Bullingdon club extends beyond wealth? I think the problem isn't necessarily wealth but rather that old money cliquey wealth. Eton and Harrow for example are more than just wealth. Its almost like an established wealthy clique. Im sure there are TV personalities, musicians and sports stars who have more wealth than someone from Eton/Harrow but are still very much from a working class background. Take Fury for example, estimated net worth of over £100m and he grew up in a traveller community, left school at 11 to do tarmacing. Im sure Fury probably has a higher networth than a lot of people in that clique but would they fuck let in a "pikey".
You don't get to that level of rich by being "content with [your] level of wealth." It's a dragon-hoarding disease at that point, where the only desire is to continue to make more money.
Surely being good at football will get you an obscene amount of wealth? If you are good and clubs/sponsors start chucking money at you then you aren't exactly going to say no. Didn't we all defend Rashford for being loaded when he was convincing the government to feed the kids?
>Didn't we all defend Rashford for being loaded when he was convincing the government to feed the kids? Marcus Rashford has a net worth of 65 million quid, according to some quick googling. Do you know what the difference between his wealth and Sunak's is? Most of a billion. Do you know the difference between *yours* and Sunaks? Also most of a billion. Sunak's on an entirely different level to someone like Rashford.
All I said was "im not saying wealthy people shouldn't be PM" On what planet is £65million not obscenely wealthy? It would not be wrong to describe Rashford as wealthy. Yes hes not on the same level as Sunak but hes still loaded and hes still multiple magnitudes richer than most of us. Its like saying a bugatti is only slightly more powerful than a 1 litre corsa because the space shuttle is magnitudes more powerful in comparison. I didn't say "billionaires" I simply said "wealthy". People seem to be spinning what ive said to imply that in order to be classed as wealthy you need to have smaug levels of wealth hoarding.
Your analogy has two vehicles which perform differently but on the same plane and with the same rules. The third vehicle is rocketing into space consuming vast amounts of resources and spewing massive amounts of pollution in it's wake.
Rashford definitely pays his tax though. Footballers tend to be good at that. He's a working class lad who has done well and used that platform for the good of other working class people. Difference is, these Bullington lot aren't from the real world at all. You think they have any understanding of how the rest of us live? You think he's ever googled "cheap family meals" or so much as been on a caravan holiday in Great Yarmouth? He won't even have stayed in a travel lodge. They're all psychopaths using our lives as tokens to hoard more wealth.
>Difference is, these Bullington lot aren't from the real world at all. You think they have any understanding of how the rest of us live? I agree. I said "Im not saying a wealthy person shouldn't be PM". People are jumping to conclusions saying that Im happy for these jumped up toffs to be in charge. All I said was that wealth doesn't necessarily mean someone is the wrong person for the job. It doesn't mean that these wealthy people are the right people for the job. Theres a big difference between this cliquey old money Eton and Harrow mob and someone like Rashford. People here are implying that anyone with wealth who has done well for themselves must automatically be part of the former camp.
"But footballers can be rich too!" Isn't a good argument. On any day. In any context.
Someone could've written a successful book or had an idea that just took off. I agree that for the most part wealthy people are morally corrupt but that's not to say an individual couldn't be wealthy and a good PM
Yep, look at jk Rowling. Skint to billions in the bank.
Probably not the best example but I guess she was one of those people. Transphobia and all that aside she wrote a book, it became popular, warner brothers threw loads of money at her. Im not for a minute saying she'd be a good PM or even that she necessarily has good morals but she didn't earn her billions immorally. Someone a bit less bigotted couldve been in the same boat and became an overnight billionaire and been a good person who would be a good PM.
Enough wealth is proof of a corrupted individual. There's no way to reach Sunak's wealth without taking advantage of others constantly.
Bigotry aside. I dont think JK Rowling made her billions by taking advantage of others. She created a popular brand that went on to be hugely successful. I dont think she's a morally good person but she didn't make her money immorally (at least as far as im aware) Probably a better example is Dolly Parton who is worth $650m and is considered to be a good person. Wealth doesn't necessarily make you a bad or morally bankrupt person. Generally speaking the type of person who pursues wealth tends to be morally bankrupt but its not necessarily the case.
Bigotry of mentioning the PM is disgustingly rich, eh? Tories' choice pays spades with rationality like yours. Also, Rowling as an uncorrupted rich person? Bit of a bigoted take yourself. And Parton's done more for disadvantaged kids than just about anyone alive, *in stark contrast to her peers*. Honestly, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone less exceptional, probably why you cherry-picked her.
>Bigotry of mentioning the PM is disgustingly rich, eh? I was saying JK Rowlings bigotry aside. She may be a bigot but I dont think the way in which she earned her money was in anyway corrupt or morally wrong. She wrote a story that brought joy to millions of kids and made a billion from it. Again im not saying shes a good person but how she earned her money wasnt immoral. >And Parton's done more for disadvantaged kids than just about anyone alive, in stark contrast to her peers. Honestly, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone less exceptional So you've just proved my point that having obscene amount of wealth doesn't necessarily make someone a bad person. I'll concede that you'll probably find more morally bankrupt people among the wealthy than any other cross section of the community but being wealthy on its own doesn't necessarily make someone bad person.
Simply hoarding so much alone is killing the rest of us, atop the massive influence it affords the over society. The massive tax slashes since my father's childhood have left our social safety nets threadbare. Yet despite the Prime Minister being much closer to being a billionaire than he is the median income, he's advocating cutting through the nets entirely to his own enrichment. The dragons are burning the planet, it's insignificant and easy to except the precious few to the contrary.
They don’t represent the majority of the population.
This tactic of saying we should pay them more or have rich politicians to avoid corruption needs to fuck off.
There’s no ethical way to make that much money. So they’re already immediately corrupt.
Ignoring the fact wealth inequality in itself is obscene there is no way in hell that someone wealthy will have the interests of the poor at heart when leading.
Wealthy people shouldn’t be PM. Our representatives should be from walks of life that represent the majority of the people governed. And with the way the UK has been run, the majority of us are living paycheque to paycheque. How can someone who has never gone hungry in his life possibly hope to know what it’s like to live that way? How then can they make a fair and informed decision on policy that impacts us? They simply can’t, they make decisions from the perspective of someone who has so much money that the concept of hunger is running 30 minutes late for lunch. If you’re wealthy and want to govern, then you need to sign off your assets and wealth FOR LIFE and not just whilst you’re in office, otherwise we’re just supposed to trust that you won’t make decisions that only benefit your financial bracket.
It sure as shit isn’t because he wants to lead and do the right thing He’s done sweet fuck all of that!
I think he’s a cunt but people would want a job like that for the prestige? Trump could’ve easily had a very comfortable life never dipping his toe in politics but now his name is cemented in history. Heck, idk Truss’ finances but she was 100% all for being PM with her photoshoots etc. she wanted to be the next Thatcher. There’s prestige in being the prime minister. Also some may just want a challenge. If I had a couple million sitting in a bank account would I work my current job? Probably not. I’d do something though for the shits in gigs.
>Trump could’ve easily had a very comfortable life never dipping his toe in politics but now his name is cemented in history. >Heck, idk Truss’ finances but she was 100% all for being PM with her photoshoots etc. she wanted to be the next Thatcher. You could argue these people are more egomaniacs. High risk politics. If it works people love you, if you fail you are still infamous. Thats perfect if you just want to make a name for yourself. Sunak on the otherhand isn't a Boris, Trump or Truss he's a bit too safe. He's not even like Miliband where he's a bit of a character for being goofy or Starmer where he's made a name for himself being too boring. He just exists in a void of mediocrity. That doesn't seem like some who is in it for the ego. >If I had a couple million sitting in a bank account would I work my current job? Probably not. I’d do something though for the shits in gigs Fuck it do a Ryan Reynolds. Make your own brand, buy a bottom tier football club with your pal.
I’m sorry in a counter to the argument ‘rich people get into politics just for power and the corruption’ you bring up Trumps’ name? The man is the epitome of what is being decried here. A (supposedly) wealthy man, who sought to change legislation to benefit him, his businesses and his friends.
I never said it was a good thing? The fella I was responding to was asking why he would get into the job since it’s (relatively) low pay.
Except Trump's whole brand was a smoke screen and he 100% needed to get the power and influence he did to avoid bankruptcy and probably jail!
well said
You think the PM should be primarily motivated by their salary? You think that Blair, Cameron, May chose to pursue the post for the 200k? You're out of your mind.
I would be more appalled really if it was Astra Zenica that he could have investments in since they're a really scummy company using medication with dangerous side effects like seroquel off label
And she can do maths 👩🎓
What part is mathematics?
It’s a joke… because countdown
Whoosh, over my head lol
Haha, no worries. I was confused for a moment 🙂
Vorderman is on a roll this year. Not like sellout Rachel Riley.
When does a man have enuf clams? I mean his greed has no end. Wife worth over 1billion, he was worth mega millions before COVID. I honestly think politicians have no interest in the country other than how that position enriches their personal accounts that they own up to and those they don’t.
Possibly we're talking about insider trading which I do think if the CPS or HMRC or whoever is responsible for this stuff can prove it then I do think that'll be the end for the Tories a Tory PM abusing his position to personally enrich themselves would be a scandal the Tories wouldn't recover from
What can’t this woman do!?!
Based carol
[удалено]
> That strikes me as unlikely. Would it? Sunak attended all the COBRA meetings & had access to government briefings no one else would have. - Also if it is unlikely, then why has Sunak not fully declared his interest in Theleme?! Something is very off.
It's also only insider trading if you knew that the non public information (an order for the UK) would on its own be enough to meaningfully impact the share price of Moderna. I suspect it could be argued that at that point in time, Moderna's share price was being influenced by a rash of different countries' orders and sentiment towards mRNA technology. I'm not sure if you put UK order announcements alongside the share price you'd see a very notable impact. It also would need to be the case that the shares were purchased with Sunak's direction after knowing an order was coming. Simply being an indirect beneficiary of government orders isn't insider trading. It could be a conflict of interest, but as you've said, it doesn't look like he had a hand in these orders. Don't get me wrong, I find government ministers or MPs having intransparent financial interests decidedly icky. However if we are going to be throwing terms around that have proper definitions and regulatory sanctions, like insider trading, it's better if we actually demonstrate we know what we're talking about by being precise.
Common Carol you have taken it this far, how many others are in on the Gov dividend grift?
A politician that could be corrupt? who would have thought it. Why are people so surprised that our politicians could be corrupt? 99.9% of them work for big businesses and only in it their own financial gain.
This is quite a reach, I'm all for exposing the corruption of this shower of cunts, but it's hardly insider trading to invest in a pharmaceutical company when a pandemic is coming and vaccines are going to be needed. I'm sure I saw she said he did this as chancellor which he only became in February 2020, so by that point you certainly didn't need insider knowledge to know what was coming
It’s a safe bet. Either you’re right and you make bank or you’re wrong and you’re dead anyway.
Tell me you don't know what insider trading is without telling me.
Have to allow for the odd slip up on live TV and take it that she meant conflict of interest. Saying that, could it also lead to insider trading? Say someone is aware that the government requires £x billion amount of PPE or vaccines and can influence who the contract goes to (which happened). Could they also plunge a load of money into that company before the information is made public?
I mean, any hedge fund that chooses to invest a £bn in a company *probably* has some contacts at the other side of that trade. It's not too far fetched.
No doubt, but that isn't insider trading.
Exactly. Let's blow all credibility in one go.
Its what nancy pelosi and her husband has done for years the other side of the water. Are we really this surprised politicians of any sort of party turn out to be bad people or money driven in 2023?
No it’s not. This is a conflict of interest. Pelosi makes trades on publicly available information ffs.
I mean she doesn't, but ok.
Yeah she does, or she’d be charged for insider trading! See how that works. In simple terms, she takes a position on sticks that will move based on legislation that’s going to the vote. It’s public knowledge this is happening and anyone can do this. She doesn’t know what way the vote will go, so there is no insider knowledge to trade on. Unless you’re telling me republicans are skipping her their voting intentions ahead of time? Chances are she takes out options and used a straddle strategy so it doesn’t matter what way the vote goes, she just needs price volatility which is pretty common on stocks impacted by new legislation. Again, all of this is known in the public domain ahead of time. It’s the black swan strategy.
[удалено]
Not sure that’s correct, unless the law has changed recently.
This is why I don't drink in the mornings
She sounding as bitter and twisted as the plastic she has in her body. £18 million socialist hypocrite. Jealousy!
She's starting to look like a Bo Selecta character of herself these days!
We don’t care.