Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
HMRC are anything but proactive on tax evasion.
Some years ago, a relative in the building line tried lobbying civil service/politicians to do the following -
1) use the data on people extracting cash on a weekly basis in excess of £10,000. 2) correlates that with planning permission on properties owned. 3) every single time you’d find a builder taking cash in hand, and breaking a whole bunch of other laws, to boot.
He was told that this was impossible. Or wrong. Or would be fattening. Or something.
HMRC are overworked - literally the only thing they care about is getting letters out before the 12 month / 4/6 year deadline is hit at which point it's moved from queue 1 to queue 2 and everything kicks off again...
Merging the Inland Revenue and HM Customs was Gordon Brown’s worst mistake.
Discuss.
Making HMRC issue benefits (tax credits) was the worst mistake. They are not set up for giving people money, and operate up to 22 months in arrears rather than in real time
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
I get it
It’s ok when your side do it. Right-e-o
I’ve not seen a smoking gun so far. But it definitely smell enough to be worth investigating.
Labour appeared to have reached the electoral stage of countering their tediously centrist, wouldn't-say-boo-to-a-goose vibe by doing edgy photo shoots.
Nothing will top Caroline Flint.
Don't forget Lord Mandelbrot in his ~£2500 Eames Chair.
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
I get it
It’s ok when your side do it. Right-e-o
I’ve not seen a smoking gun so far. But it definitely smell enough to be worth investigating.
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
HMRC are anything but proactive on tax evasion.
Some years ago, a relative in the building line tried lobbying civil service/politicians to do the following -
1) use the data on people extracting cash on a weekly basis in excess of £10,000. 2) correlates that with planning permission on properties owned. 3) every single time you’d find a builder taking cash in hand, and breaking a whole bunch of other laws, to boot.
He was told that this was impossible. Or wrong. Or would be fattening. Or something.
HMRC are overworked - literally the only thing they care about is getting letters out before the 12 month / 4/6 year deadline is hit at which point it's moved from queue 1 to queue 2 and everything kicks off again...
Merging the Inland Revenue and HM Customs was Gordon Brown’s worst mistake.
Discuss.
Making HMRC issue benefits (tax credits) was the worst mistake. They are not set up for giving people money, and operate up to 22 months in arrears rather than in real time
problem is it was the lesser of two choices - DWP are even worse than HMRC...
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
Well, I'm not surprised he's Neidled, but the fact is the rules are bad and that's the fundamental problem. Similarly, an issue with buy to let sales is many solicitors appear to be unaware any CGT must be paid within 60 days and is levied at a different rate.
Sorting these issues out would be beneficial, although I won't hold my breath.
The twist today is that there was some council funded work performed at her husband’s home to accommodate specific needs of one of her children
If her main house was Vicarage Road but her child was living elsewhere…
If so, then what? Worst case is she makes an apology, blames her advisors and pays back a few hundred quid. A bit like Nadhim Zahawi.
ETA as said earlier, her problem is that Starmer might weaponise it, not that voters will.
AIUI, Zahawi undertook very aggressive tax planning. Certainly poor judgement but not necessarily illegal if there was the possibility that what he did was legal.
It’s possible - and of course what you and I read in the press may not be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - that Rayner may simply have evaded taxes
Which is much more serious.
This was before Rayner became an MP so she'd not have had an accountant. She was a council care worker on PAYE. If the conveyancing solicitor did not mention CGT, then at worst the whole thing is a mistake.
The point about Zahawi was that he paid back a far larger sum by several orders of magnitude, and no-one really cares. If Rayner was a slum landlord, people can understand and condemn, but the voter on the Clapham omnibus will put this in the too hard basket.
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
I get it
It’s ok when your side do it. Right-e-o
I’ve not seen a smoking gun so far. But it definitely smell enough to be worth investigating.
Non Dom status must be drawn very broadly if the wife of the PM can have that status. Does she really not live in this country?
Non-doms *do* live in ‘this country’, that’s the point. They’re foreign citizens with significant overseas earnings, who wish those overseas earnings to be taxed overseas rather than in the UK.
Why should they not be paying those taxes here? Or does Mrs Sunak not use any of the services of this country and instead bubbles around?
If the status was not allowed, she’d instead base herself in Dubai or Singapore, and pay (much lower) taxes there.
Non-doms have to pay UK taxes on UK income, but they’re not citizens and shouldn’t pay tax on overseas investments.
Frankly I don't want her here if she seems to want to contribute so little to British life. Just like her husband she claims to love this country but does everything to show she actually hates it.
She can leave then - and take the several hundred thousand pounds a year in taxes with her.
It’s not a zero-sum game, the wealthy can choose where to live and invest, and need to be attracted.
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
I get it
It’s ok when your side do it. Right-e-o
I’ve not seen a smoking gun so far. But it definitely smell enough to be worth investigating.
Rayner has joined the SNP?
Huge, if true.
There are only two sides. Tories and non-Tories.
Though according to BJO Labour are Tories, and the only non-Tories are Greens + GG.
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
I get it
It’s ok when your side do it. Right-e-o
I’ve not seen a smoking gun so far. But it definitely smell enough to be worth investigating.
Me? Labour? News to me.
Just because I think the media offensive is donkeygate standard doesn't mean I'd vote for Ms Rayner (though given the likely choice in her constituency ...).
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
HMRC are anything but proactive on tax evasion.
Some years ago, a relative in the building line tried lobbying civil service/politicians to do the following -
1) use the data on people extracting cash on a weekly basis in excess of £10,000. 2) correlates that with planning permission on properties owned. 3) every single time you’d find a builder taking cash in hand, and breaking a whole bunch of other laws, to boot.
He was told that this was impossible. Or wrong. Or would be fattening. Or something.
HMRC are overworked - literally the only thing they care about is getting letters out before the 12 month / 4/6 year deadline is hit at which point it's moved from queue 1 to queue 2 and everything kicks off again...
Merging the Inland Revenue and HM Customs was Gordon Brown’s worst mistake.
Discuss.
Making HMRC issue benefits (tax credits) was the worst mistake. They are not set up for giving people money, and operate up to 22 months in arrears rather than in real time
problem is it was the lesser of two choices - DWP are even worse than HMRC...
Well, the whole tax credits thing was a mistake. An obvious effort by Blair to get the middle classes to buy into the benefit system by making sure they got some
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
HMRC are anything but proactive on tax evasion.
Some years ago, a relative in the building line tried lobbying civil service/politicians to do the following -
1) use the data on people extracting cash on a weekly basis in excess of £10,000. 2) correlates that with planning permission on properties owned. 3) every single time you’d find a builder taking cash in hand, and breaking a whole bunch of other laws, to boot.
He was told that this was impossible. Or wrong. Or would be fattening. Or something.
HMRC are overworked - literally the only thing they care about is getting letters out before the 12 month / 4/6 year deadline is hit at which point it's moved from queue 1 to queue 2 and everything kicks off again...
Merging the Inland Revenue and HM Customs was Gordon Brown’s worst mistake.
Discuss.
No, the Bank of England/FSA split was the worst. One knew what the banks were up to, but did not have the power to act. The other had the power but didn't have a scooby what the banks were doing.
There was a reason for the BoE/FSA split which I can't quite remember but had something to do with a conflict of interest at the bank's end. It would be a player as well as the referee, like in Kes.
HMRC's problem is that it is seen by both parties as an easy target for cuts. It simply does not have enough staff, and anyone who is any good can get an easy pay rise by switching sides.
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
I get it
It’s ok when your side do it. Right-e-o
I’ve not seen a smoking gun so far. But it definitely smell enough to be worth investigating.
Rayner has joined the SNP?
Huge, if true.
She's pretty much full blooded Scottish dontchaknow
Israel & Hamas ‘close to agreeing six-week Gaza ceasefire in just 24 hours’ after at least 30,000 killed in all-out war Israel is said to have provisionally accepted a deal drafted in the Gaza peace talks in Paris last week https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26319928/israel-hamas-ceasefire-cairo/
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
HMRC are anything but proactive on tax evasion.
Some years ago, a relative in the building line tried lobbying civil service/politicians to do the following -
1) use the data on people extracting cash on a weekly basis in excess of £10,000. 2) correlates that with planning permission on properties owned. 3) every single time you’d find a builder taking cash in hand, and breaking a whole bunch of other laws, to boot.
He was told that this was impossible. Or wrong. Or would be fattening. Or something.
HMRC are overworked - literally the only thing they care about is getting letters out before the 12 month / 4/6 year deadline is hit at which point it's moved from queue 1 to queue 2 and everything kicks off again...
Merging the Inland Revenue and HM Customs was Gordon Brown’s worst mistake.
Discuss.
No, the Bank of England/FSA split was the worst. One knew what the banks were up to, but did not have the power to act. The other had the power but didn't have a scooby what the banks were doing.
There was a reason for the BoE/FSA split which I can't quite remember but had something to do with a conflict of interest at the bank's end. It would be a player as well as the referee, like in Kes.
HMRC's problem is that it is seen by both parties as an easy target for cuts. It simply does not have enough staff, and anyone who is any good can get an easy pay rise by switching sides.
There has been a general belief in Government over the past 20 years that automation removes the need for people doing Administration and it really, really doesn't. Yes it allows you to reduce the number of people doing the admin but the last thing you want is someone on £100,000+ doing work that could be easily handed over to someone earning £25,000 allowing the expensive person to do more valuable work...
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
I get it
It’s ok when your side do it. Right-e-o
I’ve not seen a smoking gun so far. But it definitely smell enough to be worth investigating.
Rayner has joined the SNP?
Huge, if true.
She's pretty much full blooded Scottish dontchaknow
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
I get it
It’s ok when your side do it. Right-e-o
I’ve not seen a smoking gun so far. But it definitely smell enough to be worth investigating.
Rayner has joined the SNP?
Huge, if true.
She's pretty much full blooded Scottish dontchaknow
Do you have an idea how representative ConHome polls are of Conservative Membership? Can we draw reliable conclusions?
We have the relatively known skewed readership of ConHome, but also have this from the link:
Whatever their reasoning, since over half of our panel are GB News viewers, we can expect them to continue to follow Anderson’s career with great interest. He received 428 more votes in opposition to his suspension than he did to become our Backbencher of the Year in 2022.
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
I get it
It’s ok when your side do it. Right-e-o
I’ve not seen a smoking gun so far. But it definitely smell enough to be worth investigating.
Rayner has joined the SNP?
Huge, if true.
There are only two sides. Tories and non-Tories.
Though according to BJO Labour are Tories, and the only non-Tories are Greens + GG.
Yes. That's a perfect demonstration of the logic. Because BJO doesn't feel that Labour are on his side, and because his side is the non-Tory side, by the process of exclusion Labour are Tories.
Israel & Hamas ‘close to agreeing six-week Gaza ceasefire in just 24 hours’ after at least 30,000 killed in all-out war Israel is said to have provisionally accepted a deal drafted in the Gaza peace talks in Paris last week https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26319928/israel-hamas-ceasefire-cairo/
A pleasant day here in London Town (or my part of it anyway).
On topic, George Galloway has form in my part of London having won Bethnal Green & Bow for Respect back in 2005 defeating sitting MP Oona King in a contest dominated by the Iraq War,
I'd argue Iraq had a wider but shallower impact than Gaza is having now - Respect got 20% in East Ham in 2005 coming a clear second and about the same in West Ham. We've seen big by-election wins for the Newham Independents in Plaistow North and Boleyn (the latter before the Gaza conflict began) but whether that will translate into a meaningful anti-Labour vote among the Muslim community (35%) in the Borough and across the constituencies remains to be seen.
You could argue if the level of vote collapse seen in Plaistow North were replicated, Lyn Brown could be in trouble in West Ham & Beckton but we've yet to see Gaza have any salience in non-Muslim majority areas so it may well be even if the Newham Independents camapign hard the sheer weight of Labour dominance will leave them a distant second at best.
As to the longer term effects, looking at the 2026 local elections in Newham, I can envisage the Independents winning more seats on the Council if Gaza is still an active issue and especially against the backdrop of a Labour Government post honeymoon period. In 2006, Respect won 23% of the vote across the Borough but that got them just 3 seats.
I'm a Newham resident and I would vote for independents in local elections not because of Gaza but because my experience of the Council is that they are arrogant and incompetent. In the forthcoming Westminster election I will vote for Stephen Timms, for his integrity and diligence (which is all the more admirable given the huge size of his majority).
Israel & Hamas ‘close to agreeing six-week Gaza ceasefire in just 24 hours’ after at least 30,000 killed in all-out war Israel is said to have provisionally accepted a deal drafted in the Gaza peace talks in Paris last week https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26319928/israel-hamas-ceasefire-cairo/
An article from the SUN!?
Well, if you're interested in making snide comments about the messenger and not the actual good news that the guns might be finally about to fall silent, here's Al Jazeera.
Israel & Hamas ‘close to agreeing six-week Gaza ceasefire in just 24 hours’ after at least 30,000 killed in all-out war Israel is said to have provisionally accepted a deal drafted in the Gaza peace talks in Paris last week https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26319928/israel-hamas-ceasefire-cairo/
Israel & Hamas ‘close to agreeing six-week Gaza ceasefire in just 24 hours’ after at least 30,000 killed in all-out war Israel is said to have provisionally accepted a deal drafted in the Gaza peace talks in Paris last week https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26319928/israel-hamas-ceasefire-cairo/
Israel & Hamas ‘close to agreeing six-week Gaza ceasefire in just 24 hours’ after at least 30,000 killed in all-out war Israel is said to have provisionally accepted a deal drafted in the Gaza peace talks in Paris last week https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26319928/israel-hamas-ceasefire-cairo/
An article from the SUN!?
Well, if you're interested in making snide comments about the messenger and not the actual good news that the guns might be finally about to fall silent, here's Al Jazeera.
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
I get it
It’s ok when your side do it. Right-e-o
I’ve not seen a smoking gun so far. But it definitely smell enough to be worth investigating.
Rayner has joined the SNP?
Huge, if true.
She's pretty much full blooded Scottish dontchaknow
Israel & Hamas ‘close to agreeing six-week Gaza ceasefire in just 24 hours’ after at least 30,000 killed in all-out war Israel is said to have provisionally accepted a deal drafted in the Gaza peace talks in Paris last week https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26319928/israel-hamas-ceasefire-cairo/
An article from the SUN!?
Well, if you're interested in making snide comments about the messenger and not the actual good news that the guns might be finally about to fall silent, here's Al Jazeera.
Do you have an idea how representative ConHome polls are of Conservative Membership? Can we draw reliable conclusions?
We have the relatively known skewed readership of ConHome, but also have this from the link:
Whatever their reasoning, since over half of our panel are GB News viewers, we can expect them to continue to follow Anderson’s career with great interest. He received 428 more votes in opposition to his suspension than he did to become our Backbencher of the Year in 2022.
As he is entitled to. Unless he is charged, convicted and imprisoned and has to resign his seat he still should represent his constituents in Parliament and vote on laws
A pleasant day here in London Town (or my part of it anyway).
On topic, George Galloway has form in my part of London having won Bethnal Green & Bow for Respect back in 2005 defeating sitting MP Oona King in a contest dominated by the Iraq War,
I'd argue Iraq had a wider but shallower impact than Gaza is having now - Respect got 20% in East Ham in 2005 coming a clear second and about the same in West Ham. We've seen big by-election wins for the Newham Independents in Plaistow North and Boleyn (the latter before the Gaza conflict began) but whether that will translate into a meaningful anti-Labour vote among the Muslim community (35%) in the Borough and across the constituencies remains to be seen.
You could argue if the level of vote collapse seen in Plaistow North were replicated, Lyn Brown could be in trouble in West Ham & Beckton but we've yet to see Gaza have any salience in non-Muslim majority areas so it may well be even if the Newham Independents camapign hard the sheer weight of Labour dominance will leave them a distant second at best.
As to the longer term effects, looking at the 2026 local elections in Newham, I can envisage the Independents winning more seats on the Council if Gaza is still an active issue and especially against the backdrop of a Labour Government post honeymoon period. In 2006, Respect won 23% of the vote across the Borough but that got them just 3 seats.
I'm a Newham resident and I would vote for independents in local elections not because of Gaza but because my experience of the Council is that they are arrogant and incompetent. In the forthcoming Westminster election I will vote for Stephen Timms, for his integrity and diligence (which is all the more admirable given the huge size of his majority).
I didn't realise we were neighbours, my friend.
I agree with you re: Stephen Timms. He is an excellent constituency MP and in a much better position to see off any challenge from Mirza and his group than would a newer MP with no roots to the place. Timms was Newham Council leader back in the day of course.
As for Mirza, yes, you're right. He didn't win Boleyn on the issue of Gaza, he won it pure and simple on how bad the Council has become under Fiaz and her cronies. Whatever you may have thought of Sir Robin Wales, the Council improved on his watch and scored in the top 10 of London Councils on a number of key performance indicators.
Under Fiaz, the Council has declined markedly and Mirza used this to effect in Boleyn and oddly enough his candidate in Plaistow North went more strongly on the failings of the Council than on Gaza and won an even more impressive victory. I'm in Wall End and the by election on the same day as the Boleyn contest was a much more low key affair. The Conservatives turned up in the last 48 hours having abandoned Boleyn as a lost cause but had little prospect of winning the seat.
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
But if you get married, then you've got a period to dispose of one house without incurring CGT because you were living in it. So her statement doesn't sound implausible. (Times piece paywalled, so I have no idea ifd this is disposed of therein.)
Not as long as she took (she sold in 2015) - 5 years after she married.
Properties are usually exempt from CGT for the last 3(?) years.
Increasingly looking like there is something going on here.
Still implausible. HMRC keep an eye on house sales and would have spotted that potential capital gain (as should the solicitor).
Still too many loose variables.
And as for the child moldifications, may that not mean that the child was in the other house waiting for the alterations to be done?
This is now in the stage of "our first gotcha was crap so we're scrabbling around for anything we can possibly make stick if the reader has no idea what we are talking about".
I get it
It’s ok when your side do it. Right-e-o
I’ve not seen a smoking gun so far. But it definitely smell enough to be worth investigating.
Rayner has joined the SNP?
Huge, if true.
She's pretty much full blooded Scottish dontchaknow
A pleasant day here in London Town (or my part of it anyway).
On topic, George Galloway has form in my part of London having won Bethnal Green & Bow for Respect back in 2005 defeating sitting MP Oona King in a contest dominated by the Iraq War,
I'd argue Iraq had a wider but shallower impact than Gaza is having now - Respect got 20% in East Ham in 2005 coming a clear second and about the same in West Ham. We've seen big by-election wins for the Newham Independents in Plaistow North and Boleyn (the latter before the Gaza conflict began) but whether that will translate into a meaningful anti-Labour vote among the Muslim community (35%) in the Borough and across the constituencies remains to be seen.
You could argue if the level of vote collapse seen in Plaistow North were replicated, Lyn Brown could be in trouble in West Ham & Beckton but we've yet to see Gaza have any salience in non-Muslim majority areas so it may well be even if the Newham Independents camapign hard the sheer weight of Labour dominance will leave them a distant second at best.
As to the longer term effects, looking at the 2026 local elections in Newham, I can envisage the Independents winning more seats on the Council if Gaza is still an active issue and especially against the backdrop of a Labour Government post honeymoon period. In 2006, Respect won 23% of the vote across the Borough but that got them just 3 seats.
I'm a Newham resident and I would vote for independents in local elections not because of Gaza but because my experience of the Council is that they are arrogant and incompetent. In the forthcoming Westminster election I will vote for Stephen Timms, for his integrity and diligence (which is all the more admirable given the huge size of his majority).
I didn't realise we were neighbours, my friend.
I agree with you re: Stephen Timms. He is an excellent constituency MP and in a much better position to see off any challenge from Mirza and his group than would a newer MP with no roots to the place. Timms was Newham Council leader back in the day of course.
As for Mirza, yes, you're right. He didn't win Boleyn on the issue of Gaza, he won it pure and simple on how bad the Council has become under Fiaz and her cronies. Whatever you may have thought of Sir Robin Wales, the Council improved on his watch and scored in the top 10 of London Councils on a number of key performance indicators.
Under Fiaz, the Council has declined markedly and Mirza used this to effect in Boleyn and oddly enough his candidate in Plaistow North went more strongly on the failings of the Council than on Gaza and won an even more impressive victory. I'm in Wall End and the by election on the same day as the Boleyn contest was a much more low key affair. The Conservatives turned up in the last 48 hours having abandoned Boleyn as a lost cause but had little prospect of winning the seat.
Moved across London a year ago. I was formerly in Ealing Central and Acton (Rupa Huq's constituency).
Israel & Hamas ‘close to agreeing six-week Gaza ceasefire in just 24 hours’ after at least 30,000 killed in all-out war Israel is said to have provisionally accepted a deal drafted in the Gaza peace talks in Paris last week https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26319928/israel-hamas-ceasefire-cairo/
Is everyone agreeing to stop talking about it part of the deal?
With don’t knows Biden is home and dry. This is not the disaster some are saying, at best it is middling.
With Trump's criminal cases yet to come
Joe Scarborough @JoeNBC “Despite his age, Joe Biden is almost certainly the strongest possible candidate Democrats can field against Donald Trump in 2024.”
That Conservative Party membership poll is scary. They’ve become a rump of extremists, riled up on a diet of GBNews.
It bodes very ill for the party, and let’s be honest, for the country, if the right collapses down a rabbit hole.
You've got to divorce the literal believe of supporting exactly what Lee Anderson said and how he said it from the sentiment: Islamist protestors are treated with kid gloves on Gaza by those in authority.
Donald Trump was elected the most powerful political leader on Earth with -20 or so ratings and might be about to be so again. I suspect a lot of those who voted for Galloway in Rochdale acknowledge that he is less than a Saint, and I suspect that most of Donald Trump's voters acknowledge likewise.
This is interesting. I did not know this about Obama:
In 2012, 11 percent of Michigan Democrats voted “uncommitted” against Barack Obama when he had no opposition. This week, with two challengers on the ballot and progressive activists whipping votes against Biden, the “uncommitted” vote share was just 13 percent.
That Conservative Party membership poll is scary. They’ve become a rump of extremists, riled up on a diet of GBNews.
It bodes very ill for the party, and let’s be honest, for the country, if the right collapses down a rabbit hole.
You've got to divorce the literal believe of supporting exactly what Lee Anderson said and how he said it from the sentiment: Islamist protestors are treated with kid gloves on Gaza by those in authority.
This is the sort of thing people say about Trump.
Your party is toileted. Get out while you still have your sanity.
That Conservative Party membership poll is scary. They’ve become a rump of extremists, riled up on a diet of GBNews.
It bodes very ill for the party, and let’s be honest, for the country, if the right collapses down a rabbit hole.
You've got to divorce the literal believe of supporting exactly what Lee Anderson said and how he said it from the sentiment: Islamist protestors are treated with kid gloves on Gaza by those in authority.
This is the sort of thing people say about Trump.
Your party is toileted. Get out while you still have your sanity.
The fact it annoys The Libz is probably grist to the mill.
They cannot help their erogenous zones being pressed by stuff like this, and it leads them to spectacularly miss the point.
TL;DR - It is too late to replace Biden and even if it were not it is highly debatable to say the least whether any leading Dem would have better chance than good old Joe.
TL;DR - It is too late to replace Biden and even if it were not it is highly debatable to say the least whether any leading Dem would have better chance than good old Joe.
That Conservative Party membership poll is scary. They’ve become a rump of extremists, riled up on a diet of GBNews.
It bodes very ill for the party, and let’s be honest, for the country, if the right collapses down a rabbit hole.
Imagine a scenario where May had dug an even deeper pit and we had ended up with Corbyn in number 10 in 2017. Then imagine that the unions fund Novara News, and stick Bastani's lot on as the in-house TV channel.
Novara News employ the likes of Richard Burgon and Laura Pidcock as hosts. Interviewing other political titans like Dawn Butler. Chancellor McDonnell is interviewed on the Len McClusky show.
Does that sound mental? It does - because it is. But that is what the Tories have done with GBeebies. A televised echo-chamber where only the craziest get on air to speak lies to people who want to believe them.
The road back to electability for the Tories starts with accepting where they are and who they are. And they have no chance of doing so with Rees-Mogg and Anderson on their in-house shitshow.
That Conservative Party membership poll is scary. They’ve become a rump of extremists, riled up on a diet of GBNews.
It bodes very ill for the party, and let’s be honest, for the country, if the right collapses down a rabbit hole.
You've got to divorce the literal believe of supporting exactly what Lee Anderson said and how he said it from the sentiment: Islamist protestors are treated with kid gloves on Gaza by those in authority.
There have been 153 arrests, leading to 36 people being charged. Wouldn’t “kid gloves” imply we’d expect those numbers to be 0?
TL;DR - It is too late to replace Biden and even if it were not it is highly debatable to say the least whether any leading Dem would have better chance than good old Joe.
Super Tuesday is on, err, Tuesday.
It's insane he's still available north of 1.4
Speculation that Haley might just be able to win one contest, DC, as a consolation prize before then.
Who was the greatest leader of the 20th century: Churchill or FDR?
I want to say the latter, since Churchill did one job very well but domestically wasn’t up to much.
Churchill was arguably the more important of the two, since he kept Britain and by extension the allies in the war. Without Churchill, the whole of Europe would have been under the yoke of either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. As they say, he was wrong about almost everything but right about the one thing that mattered most.
Maybe he should have tried a bazooka. Too many disclaimers. Having just read O'Briens book 'How they broke britain' My expectation of 'both barrels' has moved up a notch. His Chapter 2.titled 'Paul Dacre' is the best eviseration of a nasty piece of work that I've read......
......'His favourite word 'cunt' is used so liberally around the office that they call his hysterical treatment of underlings 'The Vagina Monologues'
Does Roger get a c word pass for the same reason that some get an n word pass?
Comments
It’s ok when your side do it. Right-e-o
I’ve not seen a smoking gun so far. But it definitely smell enough to be worth investigating.
Huge, if true.
The point about Zahawi was that he paid back a far larger sum by several orders of magnitude, and no-one really cares. If Rayner was a slum landlord, people can understand and condemn, but the voter on the Clapham omnibus will put this in the too hard basket.
It’s not a zero-sum game, the wealthy can choose where to live and invest, and need to be attracted.
Just because I think the media offensive is donkeygate standard doesn't mean I'd vote for Ms Rayner (though given the likely choice in her constituency ...).
HMRC's problem is that it is seen by both parties as an easy target for cuts. It simply does not have enough staff, and anyone who is any good can get an easy pay rise by switching sides.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13039495/Rayner-puts-boot-Dr-Tartans.html
Former Tory minister Crispin Blunt was in the Commons on Friday voting on a bill to ban conversion therapy, the Sun on Sunday can reveal.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26315610/mp-arrested-back-in-the-commons/
Israel is said to have provisionally accepted a deal drafted in the Gaza peace talks in Paris last week
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26319928/israel-hamas-ceasefire-cairo/
We have the relatively known skewed readership of ConHome, but also have this from the link:
Whatever their reasoning, since over half of our panel are GB News viewers, we can expect them to continue to follow Anderson’s career with great interest. He received 428 more votes in opposition to his suspension than he did to become our Backbencher of the Year in 2022.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/2/us-says-israel-more-or-less-accepts-framework-deal-for-gaza-ceasefire
That's the unknown here.
https://www.tiktok.com/@dazed/video/7341759306838134048
https://conservativehome.com/2022/08/04/conhomes-tory-leadership-election-survey-truss-58-per-cent-sunak-26-per-cent-12-per-cent-undecided/
I agree with you re: Stephen Timms. He is an excellent constituency MP and in a much better position to see off any challenge from Mirza and his group than would a newer MP with no roots to the place. Timms was Newham Council leader back in the day of course.
As for Mirza, yes, you're right. He didn't win Boleyn on the issue of Gaza, he won it pure and simple on how bad the Council has become under Fiaz and her cronies. Whatever you may have thought of Sir Robin Wales, the Council improved on his watch and scored in the top 10 of London Councils on a number of key performance indicators.
Under Fiaz, the Council has declined markedly and Mirza used this to effect in Boleyn and oddly enough his candidate in Plaistow North went more strongly on the failings of the Council than on Gaza and won an even more impressive victory. I'm in Wall End and the by election on the same day as the Boleyn contest was a much more low key affair. The Conservatives turned up in the last 48 hours having abandoned Boleyn as a lost cause but had little prospect of winning the seat.
Malc would never sport a beard.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1s2u11os97Y
They’ve become a rump of extremists, riled up on a diet of GBNews.
It bodes very ill for the party, and let’s be honest, for the country, if the right collapses down a rabbit hole.
Joe Scarborough
@JoeNBC
“Despite his age, Joe Biden is almost certainly the strongest possible candidate Democrats can field against Donald Trump in 2024.”
https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/1764272794664075436
I want to say the latter, since Churchill did one job very well but domestically wasn’t up to much.
In 2012, 11 percent of Michigan Democrats voted “uncommitted” against Barack Obama when he had no opposition. This week, with two challengers on the ballot and progressive activists whipping votes against Biden, the “uncommitted” vote share was just 13 percent.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/03/case-biden/677591/
Your party is toileted. Get out while you still have your sanity.
They cannot help their erogenous zones being pressed by stuff like this, and it leads them to spectacularly miss the point.
TL;DR - It is too late to replace Biden and even if it were not it is highly debatable to say the least whether any leading Dem would have better chance than good old Joe.
Or is that in the past now?
It's insane he's still available north of 1.4
Novara News employ the likes of Richard Burgon and Laura Pidcock as hosts. Interviewing other political titans like Dawn Butler. Chancellor McDonnell is interviewed on the Len McClusky show.
Does that sound mental? It does - because it is. But that is what the Tories have done with GBeebies. A televised echo-chamber where only the craziest get on air to speak lies to people who want to believe them.
The road back to electability for the Tories starts with accepting where they are and who they are. And they have no chance of doing so with Rees-Mogg and Anderson on their in-house shitshow.
Bonus song: “Kid Gloves” by Rush, https://youtu.be/7-lFr5N8KOc
I just checked Google maps and we are about 40km from Pablo Escobar’s hacienda. I’m keeping an eye out for feral hippos
NO DONT OVERTAKE HERE
Truman, IMHO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Congress_members_killed_or_wounded_in_office#:~:text=Since the United States Congress,suffered serious injuries from attacks.
(If I had an explanation for the difference, I would share it with you.)