Best Of

FPT to Turbotubbs.....

If I was the suspicious type I might have thought Starmer himself was the lawyer who gave Ange the advice! This has worked out perfectly for him. He's got a shiny new team none of whom eat peas with their knife. From a government POV this couldn't have worked out better. Angie was never up to the job and despite protestations Starmer's much more comfortable without that particular loose cannon swinging around Downing Street.....

....No the story is about Ange herself and the snobbery that brought her down. The Telegraph and Mail have been campaigning against her for months. Pure snobbery. Someone on here yesterday called her 'Gobby'. I'm afraid that's what females from her background who are climbing the ladder are having to put up with.It is so depressing.... Just another scalp for some double barrelled nobody at the Telegraph

If Labour and its supporters tell themselves that "snobbery that brought her down" then they're screwed. Rayner did something minorly wrong, but for a value that is eye-watering for many voters. She denied wrongdoing, and then tried to blame others. She was in denial. All MPs (of all parties, not just Labour) need to learn lessons from this. Many are too thick, or greedy, or self-important, to do so.

The government's media management, and management of its MPs, is awful. They need to fix this. They need to develop a few simple messages and deliver them effectively. Since Starmer is incapable of the messaging, they need someone else. Lammy isn't it.

I don't think Rayner did deny wrongdoing. She fessed up, and wanted to pay the £40k. And she promptly and quite graciously accepted the findings of the Independent Adviser, falling on her sword immediately and admitting she'd been negligent.

Yes but the narrative of those hostile to Rayner is to paint as negative a picture of her as possible to forestall any attempt at rehabilitation in a year or two.

The fact remains she breached the Ministerial Code and that made her position untenable. Whether said Code is fit for purpose is another question - we want to ensure Government is as free as possible from allegations of corruption or inappropriate influence such as from third party lobbying companies - but the notion complex non-Government related private financial transactions need to be held to such a high standard - well, I understand why many would wish our Ministers to be beyond any kind of reproach especially since the Expenses Scandal - doesn't sit well with me and some latitude for genuine errors should exist (as distinct from deliberate and planned tax evasion).

She was a damn fool not to seek further advice as recommended.

But I'm remembering how but for a chance conversation with my accountant I would once have ended up paying the wrong rate of stamp duty too, and it would never even have crossed my mind to check.

There but for the grace of God...

Most of the population will have had similar experiences. The whole thing has essentially been a nonsense.

But an important political job dione by the Telegraph, with which they are
delighted.

Most of the population don't own more than one home, or have Trusts for their kids.

Most MPs on the other hand might be different.

OTOH, most/all people whose children suffer medical disaster do have trusts for their child. The compensation is owned by the child who whether as a child or [edit] often also as an adult, as here, is legally incapable oif managing it. So a trust is vital. Indeed, I'm not sure it's even possible to pay the compo without a trust to receive it. That's the fair comparison.

Nor did Ms Rayner own two houses except in the technical sense, which was due to expire soon anyway. Which is fewer than a lot of MPs.

Trevor Phillips of Sky suggest the winners from yesterday are Shabana Mahmood and Pat McFadden

He expects Mahmood to be much more forceful on immigration and the boats and McFadden on reigning in the welfare budget

I agree with him and actually quite like both those politicians and appointments

The bigger question is will labour mps go along with these two important ministers

Re the last paragraph, likely QTWTAIN - but, they do have one last chance after the budget to properly seize the moment and get the unpopular (to Labour MPs, anyway) out of the way with, to then move the narrative on to (they hope) a better 2027/28/29.

It will require a level of direction, conviction and strength of purpose that Labour have been extremely lacking up til now, so I don’t rate the chances at higher than 10%, but the next 12 months are really critical for Labour - they’ve already wasted the first 12, and they’re soon going to be approaching midterm where any will to do anything painful will completely evaporate.

Backbench MPs want to close the deficit, avoid tax rises and avoid spending cuts.

There's one and only one way that's possible, and no not an economic miracle, the country needs serious per capita economic growth.

The problem is we haven't had that in a long time, despite continuous technological improvements which should make it viable.

The way to achieve that is to remove the handbrakes from the economy that enable people to say no to development and growth.

The problem is there seems to be no desire to actually do that, as in addition to opposing deficits, taxes and spending cuts, they also oppose development and growth.

Truss taught us a valuable lesson: that the room for manoeuvre of a UK government is quite limited and that the penalties for exceeding those limits are harsh. It is the reluctance of politicians of all stripes to accept the value of that lesson that I find painful.

Come on, that lesson was learned in September 1992, it had just been forgotten.

It had also been taught in the 60s and 70s as well - devaluation anyone?

France learned it in the Mitterrand Presidency - the truth is the scope for Govenrments to be "radical" pace Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher has been vastly reduced by globalisation and the new inter dependencies of trade, debt management and so on. That's why Governments end up doing nothing but that's about all they can do.

Every time we discuss trying to reduce the deficit on here for example, we end up with some numpty advocating the wholesale slashing of pensions and benefits - for many people that's all they have. There are many rich pensioners but not all pensioners are rich. They are many poor hard working people but not all working people are poor or work hard - that's the problem when you try policy making by generalisation, misconception or prejudice.

Senile old man says what?

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3ly4jbv3lgw2m

What happened in North Korea ? It's not too clear in the thread, there.

@ReichlinMelnick

This story is WILD. Trump sent Seal Team 6 into North Korea to plant a listening device. The operation went sideways within minutes, when a fishing boat was unexpectedly at the landing site. Seal Team 6 killed everyone on board, sunk the bodies, and fled. Congress was never told.

https://x.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1963944912119906657

What do you think Obama or H. Clinton would have done differently if the same proposal was made to them?

I think both of them would remember if they ordered it

Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.

The sympathy well is bone dry.

I've been away so catching up on this story.

I think I disagree on both of your counts.

The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.

She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.

So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.

So not everyone on here's a shit. That's good to know.

AIUI to error was that though she was not longer party to the original house ownership she was still drawn into her child's trust purely because the child is still under 18. This is very esoteric knowledge IMO and also I would say counter-intuitive.

To be fair to her, if I had moved in 2015 as we intended (in the end we stayed put) I would also have been caught out by this. It would never occur to me that as Trustee for my daughters selling my home and buying another would have made me liable for Stamp Duty at the higher rate, and I would have answered 'No' to the question asked by the Conveyancer 'Do you own any other property'?

Having said that I'm not a senior politician. If you are you have to be squeaky-clean (which means attention to detail), and if you aren't, then that's on you. So she had to go. It might be unfair, but that's politics.