|
|
Post by mick on Jan 30, 2023 9:19:49 GMT
Didn't we learn the same from the McCann case in Portugal? Being declared an arguido (suspect).
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Jan 30, 2023 10:43:14 GMT
US law is somewhat better on this issue - if a person is being questioned as part of an investigation, they must be told if they are a target in that investigation. Had that been done in this case, then the whole thing may (or may not) have gone away. The 'genuine mistake' defence could not have been applied. There are many things we could usefully adopt from other countries legal systems. This is a good example, had he been informed that he was being investigated there could be no doubt.
As to whether he should have been sacked earlier, it is reasonable to investigate properly and not rely on media reports. Whether he should have resigned is a different question however, any one with sufficient wealth to be in that position should be aware of the possibility of things going wrong and/or receiving bad advice.
Over paying HMRC is always preferable to under paying.
|
|
|
|
Post by mick on Jan 31, 2023 8:25:42 GMT
US law is somewhat better on this issue - if a person is being questioned as part of an investigation, they must be told if they are a target in that investigation. Had that been done in this case, then the whole thing may (or may not) have gone away. The 'genuine mistake' defence could not have been applied. There are many things we could usefully adopt from other countries legal systems. This is a good example, had he been informed that he was being investigated there could be no doubt.
As to whether he should have been sacked earlier, it is reasonable to investigate properly and not rely on media reports. Whether he should have resigned is a different question however, any one with sufficient wealth to be in that position should be aware of the possibility of things going wrong and/or receiving bad advice.
Over paying HMRC is always preferable to under paying.
Well said sir!
In particular I agree that 'due process' had to be followed. Nobody, not even the most obnoxious, should be fired on the basis of press reports and the opposition baying for blood.
There's an argument that Sunak could have acted a little quicker and a strong argument that Z should have 'considered his position'.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Jan 31, 2023 9:04:42 GMT
There are many things we could usefully adopt from other countries legal systems. This is a good example, had he been informed that he was being investigated there could be no doubt.
As to whether he should have been sacked earlier, it is reasonable to investigate properly and not rely on media reports. Whether he should have resigned is a different question however, any one with sufficient wealth to be in that position should be aware of the possibility of things going wrong and/or receiving bad advice.
Over paying HMRC is always preferable to under paying.
Well said sir!
In particular I agree that 'due process' had to be followed. Nobody, not even the most obnoxious, should be fired on the basis of press reports and the opposition baying for blood.
There's an argument that Sunak could have acted a little quicker and a strong argument that Z should have 'considered his position'.
Mick
I would say that due process wasn't really followed in this case - at least the due process that would apply to anyone else in any other job. They would be suspended pending the outcome of the process, and that would have helped the government enormously here if that had happened - it would have made it clear that due process was being followed from the start and shut down the vast majority of the criticism of anyone but Zahawi. TBH the fact that Zahawi didn't resign shows him to be completely unfit for public office in the first place, but I'm afraid that's where we are today in politics - brazen it out and never take responsibility is the name of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by kate on Jan 31, 2023 9:38:36 GMT
We are in no better situation than back in ancient Roman times.
Money and power lead to more money and more power.
We think we have power through voting once every few years. We don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Jan 31, 2023 10:02:57 GMT
We think we have power through voting once every few years. We don't.
I agree, Kate. The situation could be materially improved if we had a decent PR system. As things stand, I could give my vote to any of the candidates who might stand at the next election, and my vote would have no influence whatsoever upon the outcome. The Tory will get in.
|
|
|
|
Post by mick on Jan 31, 2023 10:33:01 GMT
Well said sir!
In particular I agree that 'due process' had to be followed. Nobody, not even the most obnoxious, should be fired on the basis of press reports and the opposition baying for blood.
There's an argument that Sunak could have acted a little quicker and a strong argument that Z should have 'considered his position'.
Mick
I would say that due process wasn't really followed in this case - at least the due process that would apply to anyone else in any other job. They would be suspended pending the outcome of the process, and that would have helped the government enormously here if that had happened - it would have made it clear that due process was being followed from the start and shut down the vast majority of the criticism of anyone but Zahawi. TBH the fact that Zahawi didn't resign shows him to be completely unfit for public office in the first place, but I'm afraid that's where we are today in politics - brazen it out and never take responsibility is the name of the game. Your ‘process’ may not exist in respect of MP’s. If it does then I can’t find it. Maybe someone can provide better info. MP’s are not employees and the powers to suspend them seem to be very limited. The Speaker can do it but only for very specific offences. The parliamentary standards committee can do it but that’s pretty long winded. Although I agree that your procedure would be appropriate for a regular employee I’m not convinced that it was open to be used in this case. I agree about your comments on fitness to serve. A properly switched on member should have heard very loud alarm bells as soon as HMRC began asking questions. Finally where are the ‘advisors’ in all this. I can’t believe that Z was dealing with a seemingly complex issue without professional advice. Shouldn’t they be in the dock as well? Mick |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Jan 31, 2023 10:37:27 GMT
We think we have power through voting once every few years. We don't.
I agree, Kate. The situation could be materially improved if we had a decent PR system. As things stand, I could give my vote to any of the candidates who might stand at the next election, and my vote would have no influence whatsoever upon the outcome. The Tory will get in.
That maybe true. I would have said the same in my area until the last (local) elections when the Tories took a real bashing and lost their majority. Don’t make your prediction come true through apathy. Mick Mick |
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Jan 31, 2023 10:41:16 GMT
I would say that due process wasn't really followed in this case - at least the due process that would apply to anyone else in any other job. They would be suspended pending the outcome of the process, and that would have helped the government enormously here if that had happened - it would have made it clear that due process was being followed from the start and shut down the vast majority of the criticism of anyone but Zahawi. TBH the fact that Zahawi didn't resign shows him to be completely unfit for public office in the first place, but I'm afraid that's where we are today in politics - brazen it out and never take responsibility is the name of the game. Your ‘process’ may not exist in respect of MP’s. If it does then I can’t find it. Maybe someone can provide better info. MP’s are not employees and the powers to suspend them seem to be very limited. The Speaker can do it but only for very specific offences. The parliamentary standards committee can do it but that’s pretty long winded. Although I agree that your procedure would be appropriate for a regular employee I’m not convinced that it was open to be used in this case. Yes, but we're not talking about his role as an MP here, which I agree is different, but his role as a minister, in which I believe he IS an employee. And I'm not saying it is the current process, but that it ought to be - it protects everyone. Especially the PM. Indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Jan 31, 2023 11:16:51 GMT
Nick, a agree that "process" wasn't followed but that may be because there is no process.
If there is a process, whose process is it, the party's, the government's or legal process based on employment law?
There are many questions here:
Is the chairman of a political party employed by the party, is he paid by the party? If he is paid by the party he is an employee and thus due process should follow employment law.
Is he a minister, if so who employs him is it parliament, the country, the civil service (unlikely but one must ask)?
A minister can, in most cases, only be in that role if they are an elected Member of Parliament thus, any misconduct by a minister must surely be misconduct by an MP mustn't it? I haven't the legal knowledge to say but would I want someone as my MP who had been sacked for misconduct?
He is an MP, who employs our MPs?
Clearly he can be dismissed from his position as party chairman without also being dismissed as an MP but what does his being dismissed from one position say about his suitability as an MP? Should his conduct while party chairman affect his position as an MP?
The situation is complex because the position is far from clear in respect of his employment etc.
I agree that there should be a process, published and approved by parliament, for the disciplining of politicians and party officials. When there is any hint of impropriety the approved process should be followed and results of any enquiry published in full. We are after all talking about people in public office.
|
|
|
|
Post by mick on Jan 31, 2023 11:37:08 GMT
Nick
I’m not quoting because it’s getting too cumbersome.
I was interested about ministers being employees so Googled. I can find nothing at all either way.
Do you know any source?
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by steveandthedogs on Jan 31, 2023 11:37:57 GMT
The PM does not need any due process to sack a minister [at least, as far as I understand it]. All s/he has to do is say "you are sacked" and that is it. There does not need to be a reason, although it is often for political expediency. Sunak should have got rid of Z as soon as reports started appearing to protect his own position. By not doing so, he has made himself look weak, politically inept and indecisive. Not a good idea for a PM.
S
|
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Jan 31, 2023 11:39:29 GMT
Nick, a agree that "process" wasn't followed but that may be because there is no process. If there is a process, whose process is it, the party's, the government's or legal process based on employment law? There are many questions here: Is the chairman of a political party employed by the party, is he paid by the party? If he is paid by the party he is an employee and thus due process should follow employment law. Is he a minister, if so who employs him is it parliament, the country, the civil service (unlikely but one must ask)? A minister can, in most cases, only be in that role if they are an elected Member of Parliament thus, any misconduct by a minister must surely be misconduct by an MP mustn't it? I haven't the legal knowledge to say but would I want someone as my MP who had been sacked for misconduct? He is an MP, who employs our MPs? Clearly he can be dismissed from his position as party chairman without also being dismissed as an MP but what does his being dismissed from one position say about his suitability as an MP? Should his conduct while party chairman affect his position as an MP? The situation is complex because the position is far from clear in respect of his employment etc. I agree that there should be a process, published and approved by parliament, for the disciplining of politicians and party officials. When there is any hint of impropriety the approved process should be followed and results of any enquiry published in full. We are after all talking about people in public office. My understanding is that, for some reason that I don't even begin to comprehend, Chairman of the Conservative Party is a cabinet level ministerial position, albeit unpaid. It may also be a paid position within the party. Actual employment status is vague, but technically, ministers are appointed by the monarch - in reality, they serve at the discretion of the PM. So I don't think there would be the slightest issue in the PM putting in place a procedure that looks like a normal employment disciplinary process, and I believe the PM is the one with the most to gain from this, politically. Looks awful the way it tends to go now - expression of full support, wavering, announce an investigation, sack. |
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Jan 31, 2023 11:43:59 GMT
Nick I’m not quoting because it’s getting too cumbersome. I was interested about ministers being employees so Googled. I can find nothing at all either way. Do you know any source? Mick No. And without doubt, it's a very grey area. What IS clear is that the PM has complete discretion over their appointments, so on one hand, we're wrong to talk about due process as there really isn't any, but on the other hand, nothing I can see stops the PM from introducing whatever process he sees fit - well, nothing but the court of public opinion and the next general election on one hand, and the political factor of party factions on the other, anyway - same things that govern pretty much everything. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Jan 31, 2023 11:50:00 GMT
Nick, a agree that "process" wasn't followed but that may be because there is no process. If there is a process, whose process is it, the party's, the government's or legal process based on employment law? There are many questions here: Is the chairman of a political party employed by the party, is he paid by the party? If he is paid by the party he is an employee and thus due process should follow employment law. Is he a minister, if so who employs him is it parliament, the country, the civil service (unlikely but one must ask)? A minister can, in most cases, only be in that role if they are an elected Member of Parliament thus, any misconduct by a minister must surely be misconduct by an MP mustn't it? I haven't the legal knowledge to say but would I want someone as my MP who had been sacked for misconduct? He is an MP, who employs our MPs? Clearly he can be dismissed from his position as party chairman without also being dismissed as an MP but what does his being dismissed from one position say about his suitability as an MP? Should his conduct while party chairman affect his position as an MP? The situation is complex because the position is far from clear in respect of his employment etc. I agree that there should be a process, published and approved by parliament, for the disciplining of politicians and party officials. When there is any hint of impropriety the approved process should be followed and results of any enquiry published in full. We are after all talking about people in public office. My understanding is that, for some reason that I don't even begin to comprehend, Chairman of the Conservative Party is a cabinet level ministerial position, albeit unpaid. It may also be a paid position within the party. Actual employment status is vague, but technically, ministers are appointed by the monarch - in reality, they serve at the discretion of the PM. So I don't think there would be the slightest issue in the PM putting in place a procedure that looks like a normal employment disciplinary process, and I believe the PM is the one with the most to gain from this, politically. Looks awful the way it tends to go now - expression of full support, wavering, announce an investigation, sack. It would seem therefore that a process could be instituted such that, for example, the chairman of the party could be suspended pending investigation then either reinstated or sacked as appropriate. It would benefit all the political parties to have such a process as it would ensure that the leader of the party was not embroiled in anything during the process. As a country we look a shambles when these things happen, put in place a process and we look organised and professional. |
|
