首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Even by David Cameron’s standards, it was a swift U-turn. First thing yesterday, Downing Street was still refusing to publish a
Even by David Cameron’s standards, it was a swift U-turn. First thing yesterday, Downing Street was still refusing to publish a
admin
2016-10-24
95
问题
Even by David Cameron’s standards, it was a swift U-turn. First thing yesterday, Downing Street was still refusing to publish a list of the significant donors to the Conservative Party who had dined at No 10. By mid-morning, the Prime Minister had bowed to the pressure of the inevitable.and details of four dinners were duly released. Quite right, too.
Mr. Cameron claims to want to lead the most transparent and open government in the world. But the reality has been all too different, the most substantial progress is made only when the Prime Minister has a gun to his head.
Rules ensuring that ministers log all meetings with media executives, for example, were only put in place after the uproar over phone hacking had claimed the News of the World and led to the creation of the Leveson Inquiry. Given that the cozy relations between Government and media would unavoidably feature in the hearings, Mr. Cameron’s move was less a sign of a heartfelt commitment to openness than a pre-emptive strike(预防性打击).
Similarly, proposals to set up a register of lobbyists had all but stalled until this newspaper’s investigation revealed Bell Pottinger executives soliciting for business from a repressive government, boasting about their links with the Conservative high command and claiming that clients’ "messages" would get through to top advisers.
And it is only now—in an attempt to head off the scandal over Peter Crudda’s crude selling of access and influence—that Mr. Cameron has grudgingly revealed his dinner dates with major benefactors and set out rules that ministers meeting with party donors must report any discussions of policy to their Permanent Secretaries.
Mr. Cameron’s ill-judged uncommunicativeness alone would have added to suspicions of impropriety. But it is his supporters’ efforts to explain his reluctance——with false distinctions between public and private dinners, between meals and that take place in Downing Street or elsewhere, between public and private dinners, between those at Mr. Cameron’s expense and those not—that really make the case for complete openness in all matters relating to access to the Prime Minister.
A central claim is that the Downing Street flat is a private home and that any activities there should therefore be inviolable. The assertion is a ridiculous one. The flat is the residence of the British Prime Minister. It cannot be argued that simply because food is served upstairs rather than downstairs there is no cause for concern.
Quite the reverse, in fact. So long as large sums of money are changing hands, the implication of influence bought is unavoidable;even more so, if the meetings are informal. Indeed, the two-step over Mr. Cameron’s supper companions has only added to the sense of government-by-inner-group, of a blurred world of friendship and influence accessible to those with money to pay. It is up to the Prime Minister to dispel such damaging impressions forthwith.
Ultimately, there is but one remedy: take the big money out of politics. Previous attempts to cap donations have fallen foul of the three main parties’ inability to agree. But the Cruddas scandal may yet tip the balance, and Francis Maude, a senior Tory minister, yesterday announced plans for quick cross-party talks on reform.
In the meantime, it is obligatory upon Mr. Cameron to establish an immediate policy of absolute transparency. That means not simply a list of dinners with donors. It means every engagement of any kind must be put into the public domain. The sacrifice of his personal privacy is a small price to pay to guarantee the incorruptibility of the highest office of the land.
As to Cameron’s supporters’ claim that the Downing Street flat is a private home and that any activities there should be inviolable, the writer clearly
选项
A、justifies its authority
B、refutes the assertion
C、plays joke on the media
D、supports the idea of privacy
答案
B
解析
卡梅伦的支持者们声称唐宁街公寓是私人住所,那里的任何活动应该不受侵犯,作者显然驳斥这种断言。根据第七段头两句,有一个重要的传言:唐宁街公寓是私人住所,因此,那里的任何活动都不应该受到侵犯。该断言荒唐可笑。“该断言荒唐可笑”暗示作者在驳斥这种断言。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/R3GO777K
0
考博英语
相关试题推荐
Readingbooksisahabitthatispopularly【C1】______bymoreandmorepeople.Itbenefitsourlivesbyimprovingourknowledgeto
Readingbooksisahabitthatispopularly【C1】______bymoreandmorepeople.Itbenefitsourlivesbyimprovingourknowledgeto
Chooseoneappropriatewordfromthefollowingwordbanktofillintheblanksnumberedfrom1to15inthepassagebelow.Chang
Despitethefactthattodayvirusareknowntocausecancerinanimalsandinplants,thereexistsagreatreluctancetoaccept
Awisemanoncesaidthattheonlythingnecessaryforthetriumphofevilisforgoodmentodonothing.So,asapoliceoffice
SomeuniversitiesandcollegesinChinarequiretheirPhDstudentstopublishresearchpapersinEnglish.Writeanessayofnol
73.5percentofmajorU.S.firmsreportthattheyrecordandreviewtheiremployees’communicationsandactivitiesonthejob.
Sofar,thepolicecanonly______onthepossiblemotivesforthekilling.
Althoughmostdreamsapparentlyhappen______,dreamactivitymaybeprovokedbyexternalinfluences.
Everyyearanumberofstudentsgraduatefromtheschoolwhichwill______newstudentsthefirstweekinSeptember.
随机试题
什么是沟通?其要素有哪些?如何理解沟通在组织中的必要性?
微生物自动鉴定系统的工作原理是
对糖尿病合并肾病者应首选()。
下列情形中,必须实行招标拍卖挂牌方式的有()。
如果基础货币为5亿,活期存款准备金率为10%,定期存款准备金率为2%,定期存款比率为30%,超额准备金率为5%,通货比率为20%,则货币存量为()亿元。
基金管理公司的机构设置包括()
心理测验按测验的方式可分为()。(2007年11月三级真题)
已知y=χ2-2χ+2,在χ∈[t,t+1]上其最小值为2,则t=().
某仓库失窃,四个保管员涉嫌被传讯。四人的口供如下:甲:我们四人都没作案。乙:我们中有人作案。丙:乙和丁至少有人没作案。丁:我没作案。如果四人中有两人说的是真话,有两人说的是假话,那么以下哪项断定成立?
阅读下列说明,回答问题1至问题3。[说明]某网站登录系统采用MD5对用户信息进行加密,用户登录界面为login.html,errorasp用于显示登录出错信息,list.asp用于显示正确登录后页面。[login.html文档的内容
最新回复
(
0
)