Rishi Sunak
>Richest prime minister
>Owns a $7.2 million penthouse in Santa Monica, California.
>Owns a £4.5 million houses in central London
>Owns a £300,000 flat in London
>Owns a 1.5 million georgian manir house in Yorkshire for holding luxury parties
>history more in banking and finance rather than politics
>Went to some of the most expensive private schools and colleges in UK and USA
>many holdings in the Cayman Islands for offshore tax and use as a secrecy haven
>Family related to Infosys, a multi billion $ company with a small history of tax fraud and visa fraud accusations in the US.
I mean no hate but isn't he more of a banker/buisnessman than a politician?
Arguably, but once you’ve been Prime Minister, that more or less trumps whatever else you’ve done. David Cameron was a PR man, but nobody thinks of him that way now.
Why not? You explained for yourself how the slimy cunt is the human embodiment of everything wrong with our politics.
In theory his background in business and finance should make for a good politician, but the problem is in reality it's just a massive conflict of interest. He was never a public servant, he never had any sense of duty to the country, he was only ever and inside man for the banks and big business.
Yes, which is precisely why he wasn't very good at the job. In banking, the only thing anyone cares about is making the line go up and to the right; the bottom line trumps everything else. In politics, perception always trumps reality.
Much like Gordon Brown, he was a competent chancellor who was hopelessly out of his depth as Prime Minister - they both lacked the skills to deal with the media or the backstabbing rats in their own party. In defence of Gordon Brown, at least he actually gave a toss about the country but of course he did sell all our gold.
Except that time he told everyone to go out and spread the plague, in the middle of the plague, and gave out vouchers to do it. He caused hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.
>he was actually a decent-ish politician
What planet do you live on lad. A badly programmed AI would do a better job of pretending to be human than he did; the only reason he compares at all favourably is because he managed to come off as an inept tit than an outright crook.
>>467213 >Except that time he told everyone to go out and spread the plague, in the middle of the plague, and gave out vouchers to do it. He caused hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.
From a purely economic standpoint, we should have just let the fucker rip - it would have killed off a load of unproductive people and we wouldn't have racked up hundreds of billions in debt from closing the economy for months at a stretch. Obviously that would be disastrous from a health perspective, but a lot of US states did go with that strategy.
The job of a cabinet should be to hammer out all those disagreements between different departments, with the Prime Minister having the final say if the ministers can't agree among themselves. The problem that the covid enquiry revealed is that Boris Johnson's own personal dysfunctions stopped us from even approaching that. He was known as "the shopping trolley", because he would wildly veer from one extreme to the other depending on who was talking to him at the time.
Eat Out To Help Out made perfect sense as an economic policy, it just didn't fit with the health strategy that we had chosen. You could argue that the Chancellor should have foreseen this, but ultimately it's not his job.
I would argue that killing people is bad for the economy no matter what. That's people who could be paying taxes and buying stuff, but instead they are dead.
I could see the argument for just letting it rip, I wouldn't have agreed with it but it would have been logically consistent at least. Whereas paying people furlough and giving out supplements etc so that people stay at home, and then following that up with a policy to encourage people to go out, that's entirely self contradictory. It doesn't make sense.
For every pound you pay in tax, about 44p goes towards the elderly, either through state benefits, social care or the increased health expenditures on older people. If we just killed everyone who was eligible for a flu vaccine, the survivors would be living in a utopia. Obviously we aren't going to do that, but it's just a statement of fact that covid mitigation measures were a massive economic transfer from taxpayers to non-taxpayers.
I am quite confident that the covid measures were much more vastly a transfer from taxpayers to business owners. Business owners who greased the right palms. If the responses were intended to protect the elderly then they wouldn't have fumbled it so badly by letting it leak into care homes in a manner so crass it can only by described as appearing to be intentional.
The covid response was an excuse to turn the money tap on and do what they did in 2008, on an even bigger scale- Socialising the losses for the wealthy while making the ordinary person foot the bill. The lockdowns weren't intended to protect anyone's health, young or old. That's why it was so half arsed and inconsistent. It was a cover up for pure opportunism on a scale that I am almost certain we will still be seeing shocking exposes and documentaries on in 20-30 years time.
The eldery suck up resources while they are alive, but in fact they are quite economically efficient, they pass it all on when they die and they keep a lot of people in jobs who would otherwise pile on top of the 2m people we already have unemployed.
