Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

tarotslayer t1_j6cfi9q wrote

Next should be Suella Braverman, otherwise UK is NGMI

25

marcingrzegzhik t1_j6cg8pd wrote

Oh man, this is a bit of a shocker. This news is really unexpected. I guess this is what happens when you don't pay your taxes! Wonder what will happen next...

13

thompsonir t1_j6cgg4q wrote

And now we are down to just 16 corrupt cabinet members

129

Granopoly t1_j6chkir wrote

Is Sunak's letter available anywhere?

7

lochnesslapras t1_j6clcum wrote

I doubt anyone is surprised, except at how long it took for the sacking to happen honestly.

75

DrTBag t1_j6d9gl8 wrote

Replying to marcingrzegzhik (#1,576,296)

He'll say he's sorry for the distraction that this misunderstanding has caused, lay low for a few weeks or months and then get another position when one's available. There's a also a 0.1% chance that this won't be the end of the scandal and they'll look into what other tax dodging and illegal things he's been upto. Considering he didn't immediately get fired, I imagine he has enough connections or dirt on important people to prevent that.

11

kdlangequalsgoddess t1_j6dfcg9 wrote

For a moment I thought Zahawi had been having affairs with their taxes. You know, compromising photos, whips, chains, improperly completed tax forms, the whole David Mellor thing. Christ, that was 30 years ago. I'm old.

6

Timbershoe t1_j6dgtt9 wrote

Replying to lochnesslapras (#1,577,006)

He was the chairman of the party.

It takes a lot of voting to oust the chairman, but most folk saw this coming a mile away. He was Bojo’s appointee and wasn’t leaving without a lot of folk pushing him out.

He should have resigned when it all went public. But no, he had to make it difficult like a spoilt child.

17

Timbershoe t1_j6dhh6q wrote

Replying to DrTBag (#1,581,360)

It takes an investigation committee to fire the chairman. There technically isn’t anyone more senior than him in the party, even the PM is supposed to report to him.

He’s supposed to resign, not force a committee to formed and investigate him in order for the PM to be given reasonable reason to fire him.

He’s not coming back. If for no other reason than it’d increase attention on all politicians taxes, and very few of them would like that (on either side of the house).

−1

limaconnect77 t1_j6dn49j wrote

Will be brought back as a ‘special’ advisor after the inevitable Tory GE win and reshuffle then will get parachuted into a cabinet position (transport or education) - a case of the British electorate playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes.

1

LurraKingdom t1_j6e0hqs wrote

Never heard of him but familiar with the Tories. Was he the only one actually laying his tax so they had to oust him? Feels more likely than the alternative at this point.

3

Brewer6066 t1_j6eaxp6 wrote

Replying to Timbershoe (#1,582,597)

No one votes for the role the position is appointed by the leader of the party i.e. the Prime Minister. Hence how he was able to sack him. Boris Johnson didn’t appoint him to the role either, he previously appointed him to the role of Chancellor, ironically after Rishi Sunak resigned the role.

17

PeliPal t1_j6eekxi wrote

Replying to tarotslayer (#1,576,206)

UK is not gonna make it no matter what happens. English media and parties have spent a decade viciously antagonizing Scotland and Northern Ireland and you have new generations of young people who don't see any benefit to continuing the union no matter who is in charge of Westminster. Starmer has proven devolution is just a lie, he has no intention of maintaining good faith in the union if Labour wins the next general election, he'll just continue exporting transphobia and other Tory-led culture wars into Scotland and NI because he thinks he'll get votes from some Tories for doing so.

3

Brewer6066 t1_j6egev5 wrote

Replying to Timbershoe (#1,582,709)

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

Replying to Brewer6066 (#1,588,608)

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

Replying to Timbershoe (#1,588,893)

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

Bucket-O-wank t1_j6eqfl8 wrote

Replying to tarotslayer (#1,583,461)

The person you replied to said it was good to see a good representation of Asian people in government, it reflects to an extent the makeup of the UK.

I’m not a troll, I can be a lot more ascerbic than that .

I asked a genuine question, maybe I’m unaware as to any underlying MO 38943 has got.

How do you translate their comment?

7

tarotslayer t1_j6ewref wrote

Replying to Bucket-O-wank (#1,590,170)

Did you read what he said? Him insinuating that other minorities are not as "exemplary" as Asians in the UK and it's a racist dog whistle used by right-wing guys to say that minority ran cities in the US are worse (which is not true) and him repeating the same talking points is enforcing such racist tropes. What does one benefit from spreading false racial stereotypes and tropes? That was my question.

−6