Genie Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 Usual questions for the PM to answer. When did he know about Zahawi’s tax issues? Why didn’t he do anything about it until now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 But of course they did. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 We’re averaging about 2 scandals week with the Tories of the last few years. It’s absolutely relentless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichfield Dean Posted January 23, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 23, 2023 1 hour ago, ml1dch said: But of course they did. Surely if this is true it has to be the end of Sunak? This is not something you can just brush off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 23, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 23, 2023 In a normal world Sunak would be gone in the morning if not already if that story is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 23, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 23, 2023 We haven't lived in a normal world for some time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 People: “oh they are all the same, I can’t be bothered” And thus, nothing changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 24, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 24, 2023 12 hours ago, Genie said: When did he know about Zahawi’s tax issues? Why didn’t he do anything about it until now? "I'm not going to comment on an ongoing investigation, but what I will say is this is the government that got Brexit done, biggest economic growth since blah de blah, levelling up, magical money tree, covid vaccines, inflation..." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 17 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: "I'm not going to comment on an ongoing investigation, but what I will say is this is the government that got Brexit done, biggest economic growth since blah de blah, levelling up, magical money tree, covid vaccines, inflation..." “… Putin’s appalling invasion” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolta Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 1 hour ago, Dodgyknees said: People: “oh they are all the same, I can’t be bothered” And thus, nothing changes. This phrase may as well be a badge that says 'I voted Tory.' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy54 Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 1 hour ago, Dodgyknees said: People: “oh they are all the same, I can’t be bothered” And thus, nothing changes. So true, If there is general apathy of voters at the next GE, then elected MP may have a tiny amount of votes yet still get in representing a constituency that the vast majority either didnt vote for at all or voted for someone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 24, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2023 I suspect the turnout at the next GE will be relatively high. Low turnouts happen due to apathy and that won't be the case next year, people actively want change 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 24, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2023 Revel in the news that this is from the polling company he part owns and the ownership of which was responsible for the income he didn't pay tax on When Tory voters think you should go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 24, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2023 Quote EXCLUSIVE: Boris Johnson loan probe into BBC chair to be run by father of Rishi Sunak's policy chief William Shawcross, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, will lead a probe into Richard Sharp’s appointment as BBC chair. But Mr Shawcross’s daughter, Eleanor, is head of No10’s policy unit Mirror Its just laughable at this stage 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 By “loan” are we assuming it’s actually a gift/bribe? It would be fairly easy to confirm if any repayments on said loan ever occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 24, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2023 Huff Post saying Zahawi gone by PMQs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted January 24, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 24, 2023 52 minutes ago, Genie said: By “loan” are we assuming it’s actually a gift/bribe? It would be fairly easy to confirm if any repayments on said loan ever occurred. It doesn't really matter if it's loan or gift. It could be a loan on paper, but the terms might be laughably generous, or it may be a nod and wink basis for paying back. A politician shouldn't be having what is clearly a reciprocal relationship with an outside entity. If they need a loan, they should be a one way conversation, the same as anyone off the street. When someone associated with that loan gets their back scratched, it immediately looks improper at best, and most likely is improper to some degree. The defence given seems to be that Sharp is just a intermediary, but that doesn't really seem to help matters imo. 'i just helped Johnson get a big wedge of cash, it wasn't my money' isn't a slam dunk defence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 24, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2023 38 minutes ago, Chindie said: It doesn't really matter if it's loan or gift. It could be a loan on paper, but the terms might be laughably generous, or it may be a nod and wink basis for paying back. A politician shouldn't be having what is clearly a reciprocal relationship with an outside entity. If they need a loan, they should be a one way conversation, the same as anyone off the street. When someone associated with that loan gets their back scratched, it immediately looks improper at best, and most likely is improper to some degree. The defence given seems to be that Sharp is just a intermediary, but that doesn't really seem to help matters imo. 'i just helped Johnson get a big wedge of cash, it wasn't my money' isn't a slam dunk defence. The first line is important, because the appointment process requires that any factors which are or could be perceived to be a conflict of interest have to be declared by the candidates. I heard that Sharp, prior to the process, told Simon Case, the senior cabinet officer, about the “arrangement” and was told “woah! You shouldn’t be anywhere near this”. So he clearly knew it was (at best) a bad look. When the interviewing etc. got underway he didn’t declare this stuff, which he should have done. Also, apparently Johnson, Sharp and the Canadian bloke who provided the loan guarantee had a dinner at Chequers during lockdown, when they shouldn’t have met up at all, in person. It’s claimed that the subject of the loan guarantee wasn’t discussed at their cosy meal, which seems non-credible. Since he’s been in the role he’s been stepping outside his remit and involving himself in decisions which he shouldn’t be involved with, like appointing the BBC news editor. So undeclared conflict of interest, Johnson appointing a chum and major Tory donor to what is supposed to be an independent role and then that person steering things in a particular direction, favourable to the Tories. Nothing to see here. Move along. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy54 Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 1 hour ago, blandy said: The first line is important, because the appointment process requires that any factors which are or could be perceived to be a conflict of interest have to be declared by the candidates. I heard that Sharp, prior to the process, told Simon Case, the senior cabinet officer, about the “arrangement” and was told “woah! You shouldn’t be anywhere near this”. So he clearly knew it was (at best) a bad look. When the interviewing etc. got underway he didn’t declare this stuff, which he should have done. Also, apparently Johnson, Sharp and the Canadian bloke who provided the loan guarantee had a dinner at Chequers during lockdown, when they shouldn’t have met up at all, in person. It’s claimed that the subject of the loan guarantee wasn’t discussed at their cosy meal, which seems non-credible. Since he’s been in the role he’s been stepping outside his remit and involving himself in decisions which he shouldn’t be involved with, like appointing the BBC news editor. So undeclared conflict of interest, Johnson appointing a chum and major Tory donor to what is supposed to be an independent role and then that person steering things in a particular direction, favourable to the Tories. Nothing to see here. Move along. Plus sprinkle in a few peerages and knighthoods etc to smooth the "deal" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts