UKH

 This looks very dodgy given the ministerial code

httpsps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/27/huge-wealth-of-sunaks-fa...

Ministerial code ... hahahahaahhaahhaahahahhaahaahhaahhahhhahaha!

Strange how benefit claimers aren't given the benefit of the doubt if they fail to mention other income and assets.

Be fair to him. I imagine he just forgot that his wife is richer then the Queen

Link didn't work so

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/27/huge-wealth-of-sunaks-fami...

I couldn’t get your link to work but a google search revealed this extract from what I presume is your guardian link - 

‘Before entering the Treasury, Sunak met the government’s then head of propriety and ethics, Helen MacNamara, to decide what needed to be declared, a government source said. MacNamara reviewed the interests of Sunak and Murty and confirmed at the time, and again recently, that she was satisfied with what had been registered. Sir Alex Allan, the former independent adviser on minister’s interests, also approved the disclosures, according to the source’.

Give the guy a break.  Anybody could forget their wife was a multi-billionaire.   It's not as if owning huge amounts of property and company equity is going to influence your decisions as chancellor.

It's hardly a secret that his wife is a billionaire. Anyone who follows politics has known for about as long as they've known who Rishi Sunak is.

As per Pirates of the Carribean:

"the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules"

How many people follow politics that closely?

That's no excuse for not putting it on his form.  He's trying to avoid disclosing the details of where their money is and how much they actually have.

There are many things the UK government and Bank of England might do as pandemic interventions or in the course of trade deals for which he could have massive personal interests at stake.

I think you might be surprised. How many Red Wall voters realised that their post-Brexit unemployment benefit would be the responsibility of a man wealthier than Croesus?

It is hard to see how that is compatible with the Ministerial Code. It really does give the appearance of one law for the rich and the rest can go hang. 

I just quoted part of the guardian article, I didn’t give an opinion on it.

In my opinion he should have declared everything just to stop people making accusations and should have a word with himself for not doing so.

If it doesn’t meet the ministerial code he needs to have a word with those who advised him.

I wasn't challenging your opinion - as you say, you didn't give one. I thought I was contributing a point of discussion regarding potential weaknesses in the Ministerial Code. I would agree with your opinion as you have stated it. 

My wife's late father was an Australian state MP. He and I were on opposite sides of the political fence, but I had a great deal of respect for his very high regard for public duty and the correct standards of behaviour. One of his pieces of advice to new MPs was never to do anything that you wouldn't want to see on the front of the local newspaper. He would be appalled by the standards we are currently being subjected to. 

The register is to allow the electorate and, in particular, their elected representatives to know whether he has a potential interest in any matter over which he is supposed to act impartially.  That goes a long way further than revealing he has a rich wife with a rich family.  So I'm not at all sure what point you are making.   The existence of a the register and the need to supply information is intented to curb self interest in the public interest.  Do you have a problem with that?

Even though I am no voter for  the Tories ( despite our differences)I hardly think this is news. His background and his wife’s incredible wealth had been well publicised. Good on him for taking on the role of Chancellor, he could easily have a more prosperous and less intense existence doing something else. 

The first paragraph of that is 'get Brexit done'.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministerial-code

I didn't know. Naively, I didn't think his partner was of any relevance to his position.

I have a different view now...

Very public spirited of him! 

It's almost like all Tory politicians are filthy liars, isn't it?

I quite like the part that says

There must be no bullying and no harassment; no leaking; no breach of collective responsibility. No misuse of taxpayer money and no actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The precious principles of public life enshrined in this document –integrity,objectivity, accountability, transparency, honesty and leadership in the public interest –must be honoured at all times; as must the political impartiality of our much admired civil service

It 's almost like there's a wager going in the cabinet to see who can tick them all off the fastest

ETA: I think Boris already won actually. They playing 'best of 3' now

Apparently Johnson was responsible for writing that particular part of the document.

Hardly any wonder then that nobody is minded to take it seriously or believes he actually meant any of it.

How many people read the register of Members Interests?

Most usefully for me, the reporter who brought me the story.