In reply to MG:
> (In reply to romainbossut)
> Not only it's immoral, but it distorts the competition, because smaller businesses who do not have access to politicians cannot influence policy for competitive advantage.
>
> At what point do you think politicians should be able to have a private, off the record meeting? What about if you go to see your MP, or when a small business does, or when a cabinet minister meets a business representative, or when a union leader meets government minister?
>
Unless required for security/startegic reasons I don't think there is a need for "private" discussions at any point with influential third parties politics shoudl be public, not behind doors.
> In each case there are good reasons why the discussion should be private. For example a business owner probably doesn't want rivals knowing they are struggling financially but may want to show politicians where policy changes could help. I don't see why global leaders are any different. Of course it can go too far (such as with Murdoch) but a sensible balance seems desriable to me.
>
If a business owner keeps it private that his business his struggling then hiding it most likely unlawful. For most global companies, especially if operating in the US, they are required to publish quarterly report on their financial situation and possible risks for their business. In the Uk at least once a year, even small companies have to publish their accounts and reports, the requiremednts are even higher if their are Plc.
A policy change might indeed help this business, but what about their competitors ? For them the game is rigged, if they cannot influence policy as well.
> In any case this is hardly a secret meeting - it's all over the media.
Then why not invite a few journalists to cover what is being said inside ?