2. 外语
  3. 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

admin2016-10-24  55
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://jikaoti.com/ti/fDyYFFFM
0

考博英语

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)