Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Brewer6066 t1_j6egev5 wrote

Reply to comment by Timbershoe in Nadhim Zahawi sacked as Tory party chair over tax affairs by davetowers646

None of this is true. The chairman is appointed by the leader of the party, Rishi Sunak. He alone has the power to fire him.

There is no committee formed. The prime minister asked his ethics advisor to investigate. Even this wasn’t actually required and he could have fired him without the report.

5

Timbershoe t1_j6eib4g wrote

There was, in point of fact, an investigation committee run by Sir Laurie Magnus.

Here is the output:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advice-from-the-independent-adviser-on-ministers-interests-january-2023/letter-from-sir-laurie-magnus-to-the-prime-minister-29-january-2023--2

Now, you can have a little semantic argument about what I mean by the word committee, or you could look up the legal definition and just skip that.

> Committee. An individual or group of people to whom authority has been delegated to perform a particular function or duty.

The reason the PM needed cause is because there is more than one politician in the Conservative Party. There a large group of them, with alliances and views that might not be the same as his. If he wants to fire someone without cause, he’s liable for backlash, such as a vote of no confidence. He’s the party leader, not the party dictator.

So while you say none of what I say is true, I’m afraid you’re completely wrong.

1

Brewer6066 t1_j6ej9kk wrote

I didn’t say there wasn’t a report, just that it wasn’t required. It wasn’t, the prime minister is perfectly entitled to sack him without one. Enough information was available to publicly to confirm he’d broken the ministerial code. You said that you need a report to fire the party chairman, you don’t.

You’re the one making semantic arguments. Suggesting that asking someone to do something which is part of their job cannot be sensibly described as forming a committee.

I note you’ve ignored the points I made about the relationship between the leader and chairman of the party. Can I assume you accept that this is correct and you just don’t want to admit it?

Edit: and they’ve blocked me.

8