Best Of

I think this headline is really bad for Angela Rayner, I know it is The Telegraph...

Rayner used disabled son’s NHS compensation to buy second home

Deputy Prime Minister sold share of her Ashton-under-Lyne house to child’s trust for £162,500

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/03/rayner-used-disabled-son-nhs-compensation-buy-second-home/

I think the headline is simply misleading, in that it implies corrupt use of funds. No, she didn't.

But that's our tabloid media, when 98% of readers just see the headline and standfirst.

The Trust bought a part share of her adapted marital house so that her son could continue to live there, with her former husband and her in rotation. No problems there as long as it is at market value (which has a tolerance on it). She then used her own money as a deposit on a place in Brighton.

(Two minor points - Why did she only have a share of 25%? Perhaps as part of the divorce settlement or other reason we won't know. And why did the Trust need to own part of it - I suggest for making sure that her son has protected occupancy rights eg when the parents both pass away.)

I'll wait for the enquiry on the Stamp Duty matter - it sounds most like an expensive timing error.

Politically, it needs to be a quick enquiry (if not there is a more credible argument for standing aside), and if there is evidence of deliberate tax evasion she will be gone. She needs to produce copies of the advice.

I wonder if Kemi has overcooked it. Both sides seem hostile.

She owned 50%, as did her husband. She then gave 25% to the trust, and sold 25%.

There would only be misconduct, as a trustee, had she sold her share for more than its market value. As I said, the headline is mendacious.

I assume the intention is to ensure that her son has a place he can always live in.

I don't think Rayner will resign. There will be a list of excuses and in the end Labour will not only brazen it out but can give examples of the Tories doing the same (Patel as an example).

I don’t recall a Patel stamp duty scandal?

Where did I say there was? She is up in front of the ministerial standards bod. Who told Patel to resign, Boris! said no, and the standards bod resigned.

So let's assume the standards bod says she has been Bad. So what? The Tories set the awful precedent and I don't think a beleaguered PM wants to concede anything to the mob at the moment.

Good morning

This is not about the Tories whose behaviour is already factored in but Starmer and his promise to govern with integrity

I doubt Rayner will resign but I cannot see how she can continue as Housing Secretary with the looming Autumn Statement homing in on property taxes

Furthermore, she is damaged by this and I expect the court of public opinion will not be impressed

I noticed a rather unkind cartoon of Rayner and Reeves with the caption ' two tears labour'

Not an edifyng couple of days

It is hugely damaging for her and more so for Starmer. My point is that our politics has been so debased that such scandals have been reduced to "meh" levels.

The Tories simply aren't relevant any more, and even less so when shrieking holier-than-thou with their own long list of scandals still fresh in the memory.

My take? Labour are crap at politics like this because they self-righteously believe they are the Good Guys. Which is how we end up with insanities like the minister for homelessness making her tenants homeless. "We're not the Tories" is something I heard too many Labour activists say over the years...

One of the problems with lowering the bar to labelling people terrorists is that, for some leaders, that's now a green light for extra-judicial execution.

That is a more sinister slippery slope than (say) assisted dying.
The US is evidently some way down it.

Rand Paul: "The reason we have trials and we don't automatically assume guilt is what if we make a mistake and they happen to be people fleeing the Venezuelan dictator? ... off our coast it isn't our policy just to blow people up ... even the worst people in our country, if we accuse somebody of a terrible crime, they still get a trial."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1963382824880259393

Life meets Tom Clancy. “Clear and Present Danger”.

The film was rubbish.