Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

The voters do not salute Galloway’s courage, strength, and indefatigability – politicalbetting.com

124»

Comments

  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,065
    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,267
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,561

    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.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,382

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,919

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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...
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,398

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,559
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,917

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    'Abject humiliation for the Conservatives' - she's not wrong.

    @SkyNews

    The Chancellor may be considering implementing Labour's signature policy of scrapping non-dom status.

    'It would be an abject humiliation for the Conservatives' after 'years of rubbishing the idea', says
    @bphillipsonMP


    https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1764216449944399914?s=20

    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.
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,065

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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 ...).
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,065
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,398

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,730
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13039495/Rayner-puts-boot-Dr-Tartans.html




  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,398
    AN MP accused of rape has quietly returned to parliament despite being asked to stay away.

    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/
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,398
    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/
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,919

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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...
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,382

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13039495/Rayner-puts-boot-Dr-Tartans.html




    That's TSE's next Eid present sorted.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,561
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13039495/Rayner-puts-boot-Dr-Tartans.html




    That's TSE's next Eid present sorted.
    In a gentler world those would be Garfield Slippers.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,561
    HYUFD said:
    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.

  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,559

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,276

    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!?
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,065
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    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).
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,382
    Roger said:

    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.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/2/us-says-israel-more-or-less-accepts-framework-deal-for-gaza-ceasefire
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,730

    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/

    So Biden was right!
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,382

    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/

    So Biden was right!
    If Hamas accept.

    That's the unknown here.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,184
    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    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.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/2/us-says-israel-more-or-less-accepts-framework-deal-for-gaza-ceasefire
    If we ruled out snide comments about the quality of information sources we'd be left with puns and Leon's ai commentary.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,276

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13039495/Rayner-puts-boot-Dr-Tartans.html




    .......and here's Malc sporting a nice little number by Vivienne Westwood in Paris

    https://www.tiktok.com/@dazed/video/7341759306838134048
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,382

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    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.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/2/us-says-israel-more-or-less-accepts-framework-deal-for-gaza-ceasefire
    If we ruled out snide comments about the quality of information sources we'd be left with puns and Leon's ai commentary.
    So 50% quality?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210
    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.

    ConHome survey last year gave Truss 58%, she got 57%
    https://conservativehome.com/2022/08/04/conhomes-tory-leadership-election-survey-truss-58-per-cent-sunak-26-per-cent-12-per-cent-undecided/
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210
    edited March 3

    AN MP accused of rape has quietly returned to parliament despite being asked to stay away.

    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/

    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
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,224
    Now lets see the religious split on these numbers.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 13,153

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    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.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,730
    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I didn't think there was much in the Angela Rayner story but now I do.

    The Angela Rayner council house case, explained by a tax expert

    Ignorance about tax is not new, but contradictions in the deputy Labour leader’s accounts are concerning, says Dan Neidle


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-angela-rayner-council-house-case-explained-by-a-tax-expert-8klnvzp0m

    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

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13039495/Rayner-puts-boot-Dr-Tartans.html




    .......and here's Malc sporting a nice little number by Vivienne Westwood in Paris

    https://www.tiktok.com/@dazed/video/7341759306838134048
    A disgraceful slur.
    Malc would never sport a beard.
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,065
    edited March 3
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    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).
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    With don’t knows Biden is home and dry. This is not the disaster some are saying, at best it is middling.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210

    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
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,398
    Richard Nixon on impressive foreign leaders (50-second video)
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1s2u11os97Y
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,250

    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?
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,009
    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.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 59,380
    HYUFD said:

    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.”

    https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/1764272794664075436
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,250

    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.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,009

    Richard Nixon on impressive foreign leaders (50-second video)
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1s2u11os97Y

    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.
  • Options
    JSpringJSpring Posts: 99
    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.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 59,380
    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.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/03/case-biden/677591/
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,009

    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.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,250

    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.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,492
    The Colombian mountains are hot. This is the extent of my South American research so far
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 59,380
    The Atlantic article.

    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.

  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 59,380
    Leon said:

    The Colombian mountains are hot. This is the extent of my South American research so far

    And full of mini narco factories.

    Or is that in the past now?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,250

    The Atlantic article.

    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
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,762

    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?

    Bonus song: “Kid Gloves” by Rush, https://youtu.be/7-lFr5N8KOc
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,762

    The Atlantic article.

    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.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,492

    Leon said:

    The Colombian mountains are hot. This is the extent of my South American research so far

    And full of mini narco factories.

    Or is that in the past now?
    Supposedly in the past

    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

  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403

    AN MP accused of rape has quietly returned to parliament despite being asked to stay away.

    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/

    The Conservative Party has chosen some real horrors, as its MP's.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403

    Richard Nixon on impressive foreign leaders (50-second video)
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1s2u11os97Y

    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.

    Truman, IMHO.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,398

    Richard Nixon on impressive foreign leaders (50-second video)
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1s2u11os97Y

    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.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,919
    this thread has departed for Jerusalem
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,599
    The earlier discusion about murders of MPS surprised me, since murders of US congressmen are quite rare-- just 4 in the last hundred years in what is undoubtedly a more violent nation:
    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.)
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,408
    Roger said:

    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?
This discussion has been closed.