Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
You stated that Peter Davies had himself directly made millions from the Royal Mail sell-off - that isn't true.
The investment funds managed by Lansdowne made profits, yes, (and by the way, Lansdowne got £50 million in the RM share offer, out of their company annual turnover of £18,000 million), so I am not sure what the confusion is, or are you conflating the profits made by the pension funds that Lansdowne manage with Peter Davies personal earnings?
---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:26 ----------
So, by that logic, no MP sponsored by Unions, or with family in a Union, should be allowed to sponsor or support bills concerning work-place activities, union rights, etc etc.... 
btw, I agree with you regarding ministers and jobs outside - but you may find it difficult to garner support when you comment that only a fool could disagree with you....  |
I think you are fixating of the direct or otherwise culpability of George Osbourne's best man. The elephant in the room is that he should not have been there in the first place. Even the Telegraph objects:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...es-friend.html
You are right, Labour MPs should not be sponsored by Unions, again a conflict of interests.
So do you deny that politicians who support the free market engineer policies that favour business at the expense of the country and its longer term interests?