Best Of

This is ridiculous - you can find the official gov.uk guidance on higher rate stamp duty for second home purchases in two clicks from googling 'stamp duty rules' where it says

If any of you will own, or part own more than one residential property worth £40,000 or more, you will have to pay the higher rates on your new purchase (unless there is another reason why the higher rates do not apply).

Include any residential property that:

is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)
you have an interest in as the beneficiary of a trust
Include your current home, if you still own it at the end of the day you buy your new home.

'Expert opinion, complicated tax blah blah blah'

She can fuck right off

Based on what you know, is it clear to you it was a second home? What other home did she own?

The trust thing that was set up, that she thought she had completely withdrawn from and no longer counted for her (or that’s what she’s claiming she understood it based on advice.) is it still a crime if it happened based on someone else’s guidance from whom you sought how to do such things right, and whose answers you trusted? If the bad advice was from the trust who already had all the details of her particular position so she couldn’t have misled them in anyway.

But reading her body language, it tells me I completely agree with you - she knew she was on the make, and that she has to resign from government when the fast track investigation concludes. Do we have eta for the commissioners report?

But after resigning from Government, perhaps for the first time, what standard should she then be held to? Will you call for her to resign as an MP as well over this? when others have made strong political comebacks after very similar things, after time on back benches. Because if she doesn’t stand down as MP, and survives the election in May 2029, we know she will be back on the front bench because it’s what always happens. Ultimately can those who set themselves up as White Knights really be held to sterner punishments than everybody else? 🤷‍♀️

I think losing Rayner would be a major blow to a Starmer government that is already dead in the water. For all her faults she is one of the most dynamic and charismatic of Labour's front benches, very much her own person and not cut from the identi-cut PPE/SPAD/MP cloth. She may well have to go, and has certainly blotted her copy book very badly.

A couple of thoughts though:

Of our 650 MPs a great number have 2 or more homes, including Farage, Sunak, Jenrick etc etc, and even more notably the King and other members of the Royal family.. There may well be further casualties to this sort of scrutiny over property affairs. Rayner's came to light because of her visibility as a politician and role in charge of housing, but I bet there are a number of others looking anxiously over their property assets and tax affairs. There are some professions and domestic situations that multiple properties are a requirement rather than an extravagance.

Secondly, this entire mess has arisen from the differential treatment of second properties, and the anomalies arising from that. Stamp Duty used to be a transaction tax, but now is being used to punish second home owners, landlords etc as a way of distorting the market in favour of a perceived policy goal. Council tax replaced the Poll Tax (and that in turn replaced the Rates) and was originally designed to fund local services. At one time Council Tax had a discount for second homes (I think on the grounds that as part time residents, owners were light users of local services) but now are charged 2 or more times the rate as a way of punishing owners. If properties were merely taxed on the capital value rather than as a way of punishing second home owners then none of these issues would have arisen.

"Of our 650 MPs a great number have 2 or more homes, including Farage, Sunak, Jenrick etc etc, and even more notably the King and other members of the Royal family"

That's going to be the case, as being an MP is an unusual job as it has two separate work locations, often very far apart: their constituency and London. An MP having a home in both locations makes sense, and buying a second home even more sense if you expect to be MP for more than one term.

"There may well be further casualties to this sort of scrutiny over property affairs."

There may well be; but that's a rather silly defence of Rayner. It's also been Labour MPs who have had property-related issues over the recent period, especially as poor (at best) landlords.

Rayner did wrong, and has (eventually) admitted it. That's either incompetence on her part, which does not reflect well on her, or deliberate. The fact she is a woman and has kids is irrelevant.

Sure, but there are a number of other jobs than MPs that require people to be in 2 places, with a family home in one city and a work address in another. Royals, Newspaper editors, business leaders, Mayors, actors, media performers, journalists all may well have reasonable need for multiple properties. We saw some years ago that many MPs flipped houses for expense purposes. How likely is it that they have done so for tax purposes too?

When the dogs get released in such a case they don't just bite the intended target, and there's nothing more British than getting hot under the collar about hypocrisy. Rayner won't be the only casualty of this.

That line would be much easier to justify if the property in question were not in Brighton.

Again, there may be logical reasons for it, but it's not her constituency or her workplace, and nothing says 'tough working class northerner' like a flat in Brighton.

Her new partner lives there doesn't he? Hence her spending weekends there when her ex-husband is in the Ashton house with the kids.

Yes, that's the 'logical reason' but it's not going to cut across much. In particular I don't think it's going to play well in Ashton.

This is ridiculous - you can find the official gov.uk guidance on higher rate stamp duty for second home purchases in two clicks from googling 'stamp duty rules' where it says

If any of you will own, or part own more than one residential property worth £40,000 or more, you will have to pay the higher rates on your new purchase (unless there is another reason why the higher rates do not apply).

Include any residential property that:

is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)
you have an interest in as the beneficiary of a trust
Include your current home, if you still own it at the end of the day you buy your new home.

'Expert opinion, complicated tax blah blah blah'

She can fuck right off

Based on what you know, is it clear to you it was a second home? What other home did she own?

The trust thing that was set up, that she thought she had completely withdrawn from and no longer counted for her (or that’s what she’s claiming she understood it based on advice.) is it still a crime if it happened based on someone else’s guidance from whom you sought how to do such things right, and whose answers you trusted? If the bad advice was from the trust who already had all the details of her particular position so she couldn’t have misled them in anyway.

But reading her body language, it tells me I completely agree with you - she knew she was on the make, and that she has to resign from government when the fast track investigation concludes. Do we have eta for the commissioners report?

But after resigning from Government, perhaps for the first time, what standard should she then be held to? Will you call for her to resign as an MP as well over this? when others have made strong political comebacks after very similar things, after time on back benches. Because if she doesn’t stand down as MP, and survives the election in May 2029, we know she will be back on the front bench because it’s what always happens. Ultimately can those who set themselves up as White Knights really be held to sterner punishments than everybody else? 🤷‍♀️

I think losing Rayner would be a major blow to a Starmer government that is already dead in the water. For all her faults she is one of the most dynamic and charismatic of Labour's front benches, very much her own person and not cut from the identi-cut PPE/SPAD/MP cloth. She may well have to go, and has certainly blotted her copy book very badly.

A couple of thoughts though:

Of our 650 MPs a great number have 2 or more homes, including Farage, Sunak, Jenrick etc etc, and even more notably the King and other members of the Royal family.. There may well be further casualties to this sort of scrutiny over property affairs. Rayner's came to light because of her visibility as a politician and role in charge of housing, but I bet there are a number of others looking anxiously over their property assets and tax affairs. There are some professions and domestic situations that multiple properties are a requirement rather than an extravagance.

Secondly, this entire mess has arisen from the differential treatment of second properties, and the anomalies arising from that. Stamp Duty used to be a transaction tax, but now is being used to punish second home owners, landlords etc as a way of distorting the market in favour of a perceived policy goal. Council tax replaced the Poll Tax (and that in turn replaced the Rates) and was originally designed to fund local services. At one time Council Tax had a discount for second homes (I think on the grounds that as part time residents, owners were light users of local services) but now are charged 2 or more times the rate as a way of punishing owners. If properties were merely taxed on the capital value rather than as a way of punishing second home owners then none of these issues would have arisen.

"Of our 650 MPs a great number have 2 or more homes, including Farage, Sunak, Jenrick etc etc, and even more notably the King and other members of the Royal family"

That's going to be the case, as being an MP is an unusual job as it has two separate work locations, often very far apart: their constituency and London. An MP having a home in both locations makes sense, and buying a second home even more sense if you expect to be MP for more than one term.

"There may well be further casualties to this sort of scrutiny over property affairs."

There may well be; but that's a rather silly defence of Rayner. It's also been Labour MPs who have had property-related issues over the recent period, especially as poor (at best) landlords.

Rayner did wrong, and has (eventually) admitted it. That's either incompetence on her part, which does not reflect well on her, or deliberate. The fact she is a woman and has kids is irrelevant.

Sure, but there are a number of other jobs than MPs that require people to be in 2 places, with a family home in one city and a work address in another. Royals, Newspaper editors, business leaders, Mayors, actors, media performers, journalists all may well have reasonable need for multiple properties. We saw some years ago that many MPs flipped houses for expense purposes. How likely is it that they have done so for tax purposes too?

When the dogs get released in such a case they don't just bite the intended target, and there's nothing more British than getting hot under the collar about hypocrisy. Rayner won't be the only casualty of this.

That line would be much easier to justify if the property in question were not in Brighton.

Again, there may be logical reasons for it, but it's not her constituency or her workplace, and nothing says 'tough working class northerner' like a flat in Brighton.

This is ridiculous - you can find the official gov.uk guidance on higher rate stamp duty for second home purchases in two clicks from googling 'stamp duty rules' where it says

If any of you will own, or part own more than one residential property worth £40,000 or more, you will have to pay the higher rates on your new purchase (unless there is another reason why the higher rates do not apply).

Include any residential property that:

is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)
you have an interest in as the beneficiary of a trust
Include your current home, if you still own it at the end of the day you buy your new home.

'Expert opinion, complicated tax blah blah blah'

She can fuck right off

Based on what you know, is it clear to you it was a second home? What other home did she own?

The trust thing that was set up, that she thought she had completely withdrawn from and no longer counted for her (or that’s what she’s claiming she understood it based on advice.) is it still a crime if it happened based on someone else’s guidance from whom you sought how to do such things right, and whose answers you trusted? If the bad advice was from the trust who already had all the details of her particular position so she couldn’t have misled them in anyway.

But reading her body language, it tells me I completely agree with you - she knew she was on the make, and that she has to resign from government when the fast track investigation concludes. Do we have eta for the commissioners report?

But after resigning from Government, perhaps for the first time, what standard should she then be held to? Will you call for her to resign as an MP as well over this? when others have made strong political comebacks after very similar things, after time on back benches. Because if she doesn’t stand down as MP, and survives the election in May 2029, we know she will be back on the front bench because it’s what always happens. Ultimately can those who set themselves up as White Knights really be held to sterner punishments than everybody else? 🤷‍♀️

I think losing Rayner would be a major blow to a Starmer government that is already dead in the water. For all her faults she is one of the most dynamic and charismatic of Labour's front benches, very much her own person and not cut from the identi-cut PPE/SPAD/MP cloth. She may well have to go, and has certainly blotted her copy book very badly.

A couple of thoughts though:

Of our 650 MPs a great number have 2 or more homes, including Farage, Sunak, Jenrick etc etc, and even more notably the King and other members of the Royal family.. There may well be further casualties to this sort of scrutiny over property affairs. Rayner's came to light because of her visibility as a politician and role in charge of housing, but I bet there are a number of others looking anxiously over their property assets and tax affairs. There are some professions and domestic situations that multiple properties are a requirement rather than an extravagance.

Secondly, this entire mess has arisen from the differential treatment of second properties, and the anomalies arising from that. Stamp Duty used to be a transaction tax, but now is being used to punish second home owners, landlords etc as a way of distorting the market in favour of a perceived policy goal. Council tax replaced the Poll Tax (and that in turn replaced the Rates) and was originally designed to fund local services. At one time Council Tax had a discount for second homes (I think on the grounds that as part time residents, owners were light users of local services) but now are charged 2 or more times the rate as a way of punishing owners. If properties were merely taxed on the capital value rather than as a way of punishing second home owners then none of these issues would have arisen.

"Of our 650 MPs a great number have 2 or more homes, including Farage, Sunak, Jenrick etc etc, and even more notably the King and other members of the Royal family"

That's going to be the case, as being an MP is an unusual job as it has two separate work locations, often very far apart: their constituency and London. An MP having a home in both locations makes sense, and buying a second home even more sense if you expect to be MP for more than one term.

"There may well be further casualties to this sort of scrutiny over property affairs."

There may well be; but that's a rather silly defence of Rayner. It's also been Labour MPs who have had property-related issues over the recent period, especially as poor (at best) landlords.

Rayner did wrong, and has (eventually) admitted it. That's either incompetence on her part, which does not reflect well on her, or deliberate. The fact she is a woman and has kids is irrelevant.

Sure, but there are a number of other jobs than MPs that require people to be in 2 places, with a family home in one city and a work address in another. Royals, Newspaper editors, business leaders, Mayors, actors, media performers, journalists all may well have reasonable need for multiple properties. We saw some years ago that many MPs flipped houses for expense purposes. How likely is it that they have done so for tax purposes too?

When the dogs get released in such a case they don't just bite the intended target, and there's nothing more British than getting hot under the collar about hypocrisy. Rayner won't be the only casualty of this.

That line would be much easier to justify if the property in question were not in Brighton.

Again, there may be logical reasons for it, but it's not her constituency or her workplace, and nothing says 'tough working class northerner' like a flat in Brighton.

Her new partner lives there doesn't he? Hence her spending weekends there when her ex-husband is in the Ashton house with the kids.