"Clearly, in this case, there are question that need answering," says Rishi Sunak. That means, "Nadhim Zahawi's answers to me have been unsatisfactory, but as the Prime Minister, I am a busy man, so I am passing this on to the Independent Ethics Adviser." What is there left to discuss, Zahawi? Get out.
Likewise, if the BBC Board needs to "review any potential conflict of interest" relating to the appointment of Richard Sharp as its Chairman, then that conflict must have existed. Just as HMRC could not have given Zahawi a penalty for nothing, so the BBC Board cannot review nothing. For a position such as this, unless there is obviously not a conflict of interest, then there is one. It's tough at the top.
Zahawi should be gone by Prime Minister's Questions, but even if he were not, then someone should stand up and ask Sunak something rather more pressing, namely whether he agreed with the Wes Streeting and Keir Starmer about privatising hospitals while nationalising General Practice, and with Sajid Javid about charging for GP appointments and for visits to A&E?
Streeting has given permission for proposals such as Javid's to be made by the people who had spent 50 years itching to make them. As Health Secretary, Streeting would not abolish such charges if they were already in place. NHS privatisation would now face no Official Opposition. By endorsing Streeting's views, Starmer has effectively named him as his successor in the course of the next Parliament, at the end of which Starmer will be 67 to Streeting's 46.
But Starmer's dishonesty is becoming a story. He lied to his party members to get their votes, so he would lie to anyone else to get their votes. We are heading for a hung Parliament. To strengthen families and communities by securing economic equality and international peace through the democratic political control of the means to those ends, including national and parliamentary sovereignty, we need to hold the balance of power. Owing nothing to either main party, we must be open to the better offer. There does, however, need to be a better offer. Not a lesser evil, which in any case the Labour Party is not.
That means, "Nadhim Zahawi's answers to me have been unsatisfactory, but as the Prime Minister, I am a busy man, so I am passing this on to the Independent Ethics Adviser." What is there left to discuss, Zahawi? Get out. Likewise, if the BBC Board needs to "review any potential conflict of interest" relating to the appointment of Richard Sharp as its Chairman, then that conflict must have existed”
ReplyDeleteYes, the mere fact somebody is being investigated for an alleged offence means they must be guilty since you cannot investigate “nothing.” Thats the logic of despotisms with no right to defence or presumption of innocence.
Sunak has said frankly that Zahawi had not given him satisfactory answers, and he should have been strong enough to have sacked him on the spot for that. Zahawi will be sacked. This is just a way of passing the buck for the inevitable.
DeleteLikewise, unless Sharp could have proved on the spot that there had been no conflict of interest in his appointment, that the mere suggestion was outrageous, then that appointment should never have been made and ought to be revoked, as it now will be. Yes, that is harsh. But it's tough at the top.
That’s just utter drivel. He’s being investigated because to ascertain whether he deliberately did anything wrong. Giving unsatisfactory answers is not proof of an offence. And Sharp doesn’t have to prove anything if no conflict of interest is found.
ReplyDeleteBoth he and Zahawi will stay in their jobs just as Suella Braverman saw through and saw off the leftwing mob that tried to hound her out.
This isn't law. This is politics.
Delete