never sure about tactical voting - voters become complacent and assume a win so dont make the effort to vote tactically, its a dangerous narrative (for the Reds) that Lab will romp home later this year.
On topic - no, there is no limit to how low. Aside from negative numbers.
Also, as a founder of The Royal Society For The Protection Of The Reputation Of Domestick Comestibles, please do not compare failed politicians to lard or lettuce.
With either ingredient, you can make food to feed the hungry, create joy… whereas making failed politicians into anything other than after diner speakers is frowned upon.
On topic - this is unsustainable. I don't think Sunak can do more than arrest their decline, perhaps at 18% if he is lucky. Inertia lets you float freely so entirely possible they get wafted upwards a few points in the wake of ReFUK at least approaching them.
But thats it. The country is broken, the real economy is knackered and people have made their minds up.
George Osborne on Political Currency suggested that Sunak do a big reshuffle. Remove all those leaving parliament and promote the people who would be the ongoing government.
Let us have Matt Vickers as Secretary of State for Health, brandishing a Parmo with his cheeky grin and thumbs up. That's got to be the election-saving strategy.
Judge Engoron, the judge in the New York civil fraud trial that has caused Trump's current money woes, has given more powers to the financial Monitor, retired Judge Barbara Jones, overseeing Trump's business empire. Just to make sure he doesn't try to play games to take his assets out the jurisdiction.
Oh, and Trump's "Save America" PAC has spent $5.6m on Trump's legal fees in February.
The PAC only raised $5m last month.
This issue is really biting into the Republican's ability to raise funds. Biden and the Democrats have double the money on hand of Trump and the Democrats. Both small and large donors are reluctant to fund Trump's lawyers. Trump having recently filled the Republican National Committee with his MAGA faithful, it is now an extension of his own bank account. This is robbing down-ticket Republican's of funding for their own campaigns. Given the Republican majority in the House is currently down to 2, he could be handing the House to the Democrats in November.
The Trusstershambles didn't seem to do that much damage to the Conservative reputation. It was gradually getting worse before her and carried on doing so after her.
Meanwhile Sunak has gone from being a lot better regarded than his party to being seen as almost exactly as dreadful.
It's not the lead singer- it's the backing group and the song. I suppose you could put someone like Mordaunt or Badenoch in and run while are still shiny(ish) and new(ish). But without a deeper and more difficult rethink of what the Conservatives are for, what's the point?
George Osborne on Political Currency suggested that Sunak do a big reshuffle. Remove all those leaving parliament and promote the people who would be the ongoing government.
Let us have Matt Vickers as Secretary of State for Health, brandishing a Parmo with his cheeky grin and thumbs up. That's got to be the election-saving strategy.
He also suggests naming the date of the election, even if that is October, to prevent the endless speculation
Yes. They can go lower. Talking to random people it’s odd how quiet they are about politics. I get the feeling that pity for possible conservative voters is keeping the conversations anodyne.
People and types I know would normally hold the blue line are looking a bit sheepish but are not defensive.
The conservative anti net zero story isn’t cutting through but once it does I’m expecting small c conservatives to lose what little enthusiasm they have left for conservative policy.
What attraction is there for a leader that uses helicopters and jets while the rivers stink? Not a lot from people that care for their country.
Oh I wish! It turned up - and turned heads - at a local car show. (I think the last one sold for £18m - rarer than the Ferrari 250 GTO that sell for seventy five million bucks a go!)
Opinium allocate DKs their previous allegiance, Kantar and MIC try to force a choice out of the DKs, so all 3 attempt to address swingback. So all favour the Tories more than typical pollsters as 2019 Tories are overrepresented as DKs.
It really is quite difficult to see how the Tories reverse their relentless decline. It looks like the DKs are making up their minds, and it is not benefiting the Tories.
George Osborne on Political Currency suggested that Sunak do a big reshuffle. Remove all those leaving parliament and promote the people who would be the ongoing government.
Let us have Matt Vickers as Secretary of State for Health, brandishing a Parmo with his cheeky grin and thumbs up. That's got to be the election-saving strategy.
He also suggests naming the date of the election, even if that is October, to prevent the endless speculation
Given how they have performed this parliament the most fitting ending would be to name the date as October before having to u-turn and hold it in June after the local elections disaster. And then campaign on Starmer being indecisive and inconsistent.
Sunak is not going to call an election. There will always be a reason to wait a bit longer - always that hope that people will finally see His brilliance and finally notice that Starmer has no plan.
The only reason it won't be 12th December or 23rd January is if the government finally collapses utterly - which is increasingly possible...
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Her accountants say it is fine. HMRC say it is fine The police say it is fine
The story isn't Rayner. Its the Tory press. The old adage "there's no smoke without fire" doesn't apply when the press are burning stuff to make the smoke then reporting on smoke.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Her accountants say it is fine. HMRC say it is fine The police say it is fine
The story isn't Rayner. Its the Tory press. The old adage "there's no smoke without fire" doesn't apply when the press are burning stuff to make the smoke then reporting on smoke.
A dispute over a possible £1500 pound tax bill 10 years ago shows the difference between Rayner and our Tory PM with his Non-Dom wife. The relative scale of tax dodging is huge and illustrative, and not in Sunaks favour.
Sunak is not going to call an election. There will always be a reason to wait a bit longer - always that hope that people will finally see His brilliance and finally notice that Starmer has no plan.
The only reason it won't be 12th December or 23rd January is if the government finally collapses utterly - which is increasingly possible...
Why would it be 12th December? If the Prime Miniature toughs it out that long, he might as well go the distance to the bitter end.
Of course the Conservatives CAN go lower. Down to 0 (in the bizarre eventuality of a party's MPs not voting for themselves). So can Labour or any other party for that matter.
WILL they? My sense is that their core support is around 18-20%, comprised of people who:
a) don't pay much attention but reflexively vote Conservative b) think that however bad the Conservatives are, Labour will be worse c) actively like their MP or an individual Conservative policy or two d) think that too big a Labour landslide would be bad
IIRC that was about their nadir in the VI polls during the end of TM's tenure.
I didn't get it in to the last thread but thanks to @MikeSmithson and others for all the work on this website and keeping it going for so long, I imagine it is quite a painful and time consuming process. It is very much appreciated.
I have read the website since around 2015 and have been commenting since partly in a now lost account. Over this time I have drifted away from the 'liberal left' that I used to be part of. Originally I came on to PB because it was 'right leaning' and I was looking for a forum online to try and challenge some of my views as everyone I knew in the 'in person' world had the same or similar politics to me. Over this time my politics started to change as I was becoming concerned about how extreme the 'mainstream' left were becoming after reading books like 'the coddling of the american mind' by Jon Haidt and co. It was in 2018 I came to the view that the left were a bigger problem and threat than the right, and potentially an existential problem for civilisation. These fears were realised with the various excesses of 'woke' from 2020 onwards. I can only hope that the inevitable and belated rise of the 'right woke' will act as a counter balance and we end up back in something resembling common sense. But perhaps the disruption caused by AI will somehow make such political discourse quaint and obsolete.
They can sink lower. The locals will set off another mini spiral and disaffected Tories and others with outlets like Guido are salivating at the prospect of Reform beating them in a poll so will push hard.
Sink lower in action? Yes, that too, desperation will see to that.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Her accountants say it is fine. HMRC say it is fine The police say it is fine
The story isn't Rayner. Its the Tory press. The old adage "there's no smoke without fire" doesn't apply when the press are burning stuff to make the smoke then reporting on smoke.
A dispute over a possible £1500 pound tax bill 10 years ago shows the difference between Rayner and our Tory PM with his Non-Dom wife. The relative scale of tax dodging is huge and illustrative, and not in Sunaks favour.
She told Nick Watt she had recently taken expert tax advice and was not eligible for any additional tax payments.
Can't be clearer than that.
The ball is now in HMRC's court presumably.
As she says CGT and residential status are complicated.
Sunak is not going to call an election. There will always be a reason to wait a bit longer - always that hope that people will finally see His brilliance and finally notice that Starmer has no plan.
The only reason it won't be 12th December or 23rd January is if the government finally collapses utterly - which is increasingly possible...
Why would it be 12th December? If the Prime Miniature toughs it out that long, he might as well go the distance to the bitter end.
Symbolism. 5 years to the day since Sunak won a majority of 80. What a guy!
I also think he will go the distance, and use the unusual campaign as at attempt at a wild card.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Her accountants say it is fine. HMRC say it is fine The police say it is fine
The story isn't Rayner. Its the Tory press. The old adage "there's no smoke without fire" doesn't apply when the press are burning stuff to make the smoke then reporting on smoke.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Her accountants say it is fine. HMRC say it is fine The police say it is fine
The story isn't Rayner. Its the Tory press. The old adage "there's no smoke without fire" doesn't apply when the press are burning stuff to make the smoke then reporting on smoke.
As a former unmarried mother with a discovered ( alleged) debt to HMG she has the qualifications for a custodial sentence. Lock her up!
Now get me the RAF on the phone, I need a helicopter to North Yorkshire and pronto!
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
IF you want to cut through the partisan bollocks about it here there is a really good thread on Twitter from Dan Neidle about it which shows it is opaque. In spite of what Rayner or her detractors claim.
This sort of thing seems to be a big problem in Britain. Anti-competitive practices need to be challenged by a confident state, but too often the British state enables them.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Her accountants say it is fine. HMRC say it is fine The police say it is fine
The story isn't Rayner. Its the Tory press. The old adage "there's no smoke without fire" doesn't apply when the press are burning stuff to make the smoke then reporting on smoke.
A dispute over a possible £1500 pound tax bill 10 years ago shows the difference between Rayner and our Tory PM with his Non-Dom wife. The relative scale of tax dodging is huge and illustrative, and not in Sunaks favour.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Her accountants say it is fine. HMRC say it is fine The police say it is fine
The story isn't Rayner. Its the Tory press. The old adage "there's no smoke without fire" doesn't apply when the press are burning stuff to make the smoke then reporting on smoke.
A dispute over a possible £1500 pound tax bill 10 years ago shows the difference between Rayner and our Tory PM with his Non-Dom wife. The relative scale of tax dodging is huge and illustrative, and not in Sunaks favour.
It’s probably a non story however your comparison between the Rayner accusation and the Sunak one is false. The point of the Rayner story is that it attempts to show and insinuates that she hasn’t paid tax that she is legally required to have paid. The Sunak’s haven’t paid tax on money that they don’t have to pay tax on because the laws allow what they did.
Sort of like saying the Sunak’s were spotted driving at 70 MPH on the motorway but Angela Rayner was only doing 30MPH, the problem is if she was doing the 30MPH in a 20 zone. It doesn’t matter that the Sunak’s were driving faster, they could do that under the law.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
It would be an acceptance that the rich and powerful should not be afraid to pay trivial amounts of tax.
Incidentally has Rayner's husband agreed to pay CGT on his home or were they living separate lives after getting married.
What makes you think she is afraid to pay tax?
At the time she admits she didnt know the rules fully but thought she was in compliance.
She subsequently appointed tax consultants to re-examine it and they say it is fine, perhaps on some technicality or perhaps she simply sold some shares that year that had made a loss to offset the £1,500 that someone without all the facts has estimated.
I am not against all MPs tax and finances being made public, but this carry on over £1,500 when there are others with multi million question marks over their tax handling is silly.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
It would be an acceptance that the rich and powerful should not be afraid to pay trivial amounts of tax.
Incidentally has Rayner's husband agreed to pay CGT on his home or were they living separate lives after getting married.
Yes, they were living apart, that is what she has said all along. Aside from paying tax being an admission of guilt (see Hazel Blears), the tax is a bit of a distraction. Politically, she doesn't want to be seen as someone that bought their council house and then rented it out. So, she cannot cough up any CGT because even if you think any admission of guilt on the tax doesn't matters, she would be admitting that she wasn't living there and hadn't sold the property when moving in with her husband.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
It would be an acceptance that the rich and powerful should not be afraid to pay trivial amounts of tax.
Incidentally has Rayner's husband agreed to pay CGT on his home or were they living separate lives after getting married.
What makes you think she is afraid to pay tax?
At the time she admits she didnt know the rules fully but thought she was in compliance.
She subsequently appointed tax consultants to re-examine it and they say it is fine, perhaps on some technicality or perhaps she simply sold some shares that year that had made a loss to offset the £1,500 that someone without all the facts has estimated.
I am not against all MPs tax and finances being made public, but this carry on over £1,500 when there are others with multi million question marks over their tax handling is silly.
Which is my point - a trivial amount but gets her lumped into the "they're all the same, always dodging tax with the help of lawyers and consultants" category.
Reform creeping up to 13% in the latest Techne poll.
We assume that their progress is largely a threat to the Tories but may it also not help explain why Labour's support is stuck in a narrow band at the low 40s? I think some Labour supporters find the idea of Reform quite attractive.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
It would be an acceptance that the rich and powerful should not be afraid to pay trivial amounts of tax.
Incidentally has Rayner's husband agreed to pay CGT on his home or were they living separate lives after getting married.
What makes you think she is afraid to pay tax?
At the time she admits she didnt know the rules fully but thought she was in compliance.
She subsequently appointed tax consultants to re-examine it and they say it is fine, perhaps on some technicality or perhaps she simply sold some shares that year that had made a loss to offset the £1,500 that someone without all the facts has estimated.
I am not against all MPs tax and finances being made public, but this carry on over £1,500 when there are others with multi million question marks over their tax handling is silly.
Which is my point - a trivial amount but gets her lumped into the "they're all the same, always dodging tax with the help of lawyers and consultants" category.
Paying it would be an admission of guilt or at best carelessness with a possibility of guilt. Not paying it is maintaining her innocence. Assuming she has a leg to stand on, which if you take what what she has said at face value she clearly does, not paying is clearly the better course of action politically.
Reform creeping up to 13% in the latest Techne poll.
We assume that their progress is largely a threat to the Tories but may it also not help explain why Labour's support is stuck in a narrow band at the low 40s? I think some Labour supporters find the idea of Reform quite attractive.
Most of the polls show that those saying they'll vote Reform voted Tory in 2019, but I think done if them would have switched to Labour if Labour and Starmer were doing better at convincing the electorate they had a plan to make things better.
I didn't get it in to the last thread but thanks to @MikeSmithson and others for all the work on this website and keeping it going for so long, I imagine it is quite a painful and time consuming process. It is very much appreciated.
I have read the website since around 2015 and have been commenting since partly in a now lost account. Over this time I have drifted away from the 'liberal left' that I used to be part of. Originally I came on to PB because it was 'right leaning' and I was looking for a forum online to try and challenge some of my views as everyone I knew in the 'in person' world had the same or similar politics to me. Over this time my politics started to change as I was becoming concerned about how extreme the 'mainstream' left were becoming after reading books like 'the coddling of the american mind' by Jon Haidt and co. It was in 2018 I came to the view that the left were a bigger problem and threat than the right, and potentially an existential problem for civilisation. These fears were realised with the various excesses of 'woke' from 2020 onwards. I can only hope that the inevitable and belated rise of the 'right woke' will act as a counter balance and we end up back in something resembling common sense. But perhaps the disruption caused by AI will somehow make such political discourse quaint and obsolete.
In fact, since Rogan’s show went back on Youtube at the beginning of the month, he’s had quite the rota of guests seemingly hand-picked to try and annoy Google’s moderation and demonetisation team, including James Lindsay, Abigail Shrier, Riley Gaines, and Christopher Rufo.
For the bettors among us, his interview with legendary American sports bettor Billy Walters is brilliant.
Reform creeping up to 13% in the latest Techne poll.
We assume that their progress is largely a threat to the Tories but may it also not help explain why Labour's support is stuck in a narrow band at the low 40s? I think some Labour supporters find the idea of Reform quite attractive.
The biggest motivation for voters now is not Tory. Naturally they will spread out, especially if the Tories are very unlikely to be re-elected.
It was heart-warming to read the many posts yesterday showing appreciation of OGH and his team. This was no surprise, but I was amazed at the number of comments from Lurkers who had posted seldom, or never before. That's some tribute. To think that in addition to the likes of me droning on publicly there's a small army of silent followers....
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
It would be an acceptance that the rich and powerful should not be afraid to pay trivial amounts of tax.
Incidentally has Rayner's husband agreed to pay CGT on his home or were they living separate lives after getting married.
What makes you think she is afraid to pay tax?
At the time she admits she didnt know the rules fully but thought she was in compliance.
She subsequently appointed tax consultants to re-examine it and they say it is fine, perhaps on some technicality or perhaps she simply sold some shares that year that had made a loss to offset the £1,500 that someone without all the facts has estimated.
I am not against all MPs tax and finances being made public, but this carry on over £1,500 when there are others with multi million question marks over their tax handling is silly.
Which is my point - a trivial amount but gets her lumped into the "they're all the same, always dodging tax with the help of lawyers and consultants" category.
Paying it would be an admission of guilt or at best carelessness with a possibility of guilt. Not paying it is maintaining her innocence. Assuming she has a leg to stand on, which if you take what what she has said at face value she clearly does, not paying is clearly the better course of action politically.
If paying £1,500 would make the story go away, I'm sure she would. But, it would mean she has been lying. And it wouldn't be so much to do with paying tax, it would be the lie about her living arrangements and being landlord (even if an informal landlord).
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
It would be an acceptance that the rich and powerful should not be afraid to pay trivial amounts of tax.
Incidentally has Rayner's husband agreed to pay CGT on his home or were they living separate lives after getting married.
What makes you think she is afraid to pay tax?
At the time she admits she didnt know the rules fully but thought she was in compliance.
She subsequently appointed tax consultants to re-examine it and they say it is fine, perhaps on some technicality or perhaps she simply sold some shares that year that had made a loss to offset the £1,500 that someone without all the facts has estimated.
I am not against all MPs tax and finances being made public, but this carry on over £1,500 when there are others with multi million question marks over their tax handling is silly.
Which is my point - a trivial amount but gets her lumped into the "they're all the same, always dodging tax with the help of lawyers and consultants" category.
Paying it would be an admission of guilt or at best carelessness with a possibility of guilt. Not paying it is maintaining her innocence. Assuming she has a leg to stand on, which if you take what what she has said at face value she clearly does, not paying is clearly the better course of action politically.
Is that only £1.5K? As you say, very easily covered.
The fact that the other house had to be adapted for a disabled family member instantly suggests one reason for occupying both houses for an interim period.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
I haven’t seen the police statement but surprised they could reach a determination that quickly
Doesn't take long to look at simple facts and the law and conclude there's nothing to see here.
If she made a nomination, then yes. But then why not just say that?
Because that would be lying. She's said that she was unaware of those rules at the time, and that she simply didn't think there was a tax liability on her only house. And claims she's since taken advice and been told there is no liability.
I don't particularly like Rayner, but this is a complete non story.
Just appalling. We will look back on this and weep at the madness
NEW: NHS England has announced that new youth gender services will provide masculinising and feminising hormones to children from ‘around their 16th birthday.’ This goes further than GIDS ever did: YPs cld only access hormones at 16 if they’d been on puberty blockers for 1 year🧵
How has a tiny band of crazy trans activists captured our entire health service? Indeed the entire establishment?
Here we run into the definition of adulthood. The former PB contributor @SeanT once wrote an article describing how in his thirties he made a prostitute pregnant and made her have an abortion. He stated that the age of the prostitute was seventeen. Now here's the question: when he did that, did he have sex with a child?
Societies and their people suffer when they fail to differentiate children from adults. Children do not have agency but adults do. I understand the arguments against childhood transition but not for adults: their bodies, their choice. Given that the @SeanT threshold for adulthood seems to be between 16 and 18, this would meet that criterion.
What a fantastic crushing response to Leon.
The guy’s utter hypocrisy, and permaconfusion, stripped bare like that naked girl.
I didn't mean it that way. My point was genuinely speaking to one of several concerns I have about the UK, which is the blurring of the difference between children and adults. This results in adultised children and infantilised adults, to nobody's benefit (and poor decision making). By selecting a well-known former contributor I hoped to concretize the issue: I genuinely don't think @SeanT commited a crime. But the UK needs to sort out the border between childhood and adulthood.
By his own admission @SeanT committed many crimes judging by his tawdry tales
There’s possibly a serious discussion to be had about the transition from childhood to adulthood, as indeed there is on gender issues. But I still don’t believe this internet forum to be the right place. There are too many hotheads, and unlike political debate on here far too much ignorance, including of the many nuances involved. The cloak of anonymity and lack of face-to-face representation makes discussion of certain deep topics not only ill-advised but injurious.
There’s a time and a place for everything and knowing the limits in life is always a good lesson. For example, you wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, come onto pb to air your recent session on a psychiatric couch.
This site is best when it sticks to politics.
I won’t of course stop people airing their views, I just shan’t participate even though I’ve been described as one of the country’s experts in this particular area.
I turned down a programme with Louis Theroux on this topic because even with him I didn’t feel the environment to be right. Saying no to Piers Morgan was a lot easier.
Bit strange. What unique insight does one need to have a view on this. Analogous to the abortion debate. We all agree that the abortion limit should be somewhere between zero weeks and full term but no one "knows" and there is no one answer.
Same with views on gender. The two sides are pretty straightforward - why should (how dare) someone police my view of my own gender; and why should someone I consider of the opposite sex be allowed to intrude upon "my" space.
It's where we draw the line that is the debate and you and I are just as at liberty to discuss it as ContraPoints or Matt Walsh.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
It would be an acceptance that the rich and powerful should not be afraid to pay trivial amounts of tax.
Incidentally has Rayner's husband agreed to pay CGT on his home or were they living separate lives after getting married.
Yes, they were living apart, that is what she has said all along. Aside from paying tax being an admission of guilt (see Hazel Blears), the tax is a bit of a distraction. Politically, she doesn't want to be seen as someone that bought their council house and then rented it out. So, she cannot cough up any CGT because even if you think any admission of guilt on the tax doesn't matters, she would be admitting that she wasn't living there and hadn't sold the property when moving in with her husband.
If they were living apart then why were her children registered as living with their step father not her?
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
I haven’t seen the police statement but surprised they could reach a determination that quickly
Doesn't take long to look at simple facts and the law and conclude there's nothing to see here.
If she made a nomination, then yes. But then why not just say that?
Because she that would be lying. She's said that she was unaware of those rules at the time, and that she simply didn't think there was a tax liability on her only house. And claims she's since taken advice and been told there is no liability.
I don't particularly like Rayner, but this is a complete non story.
What is notable is how the claims about her have changed over time, here on PB as well as in the newspapers. Classic sign of not finding what they had imagined in the first place.
'Betfair Con Seats Market now has >200 seats only a couple of percentage points more likely than <50 seats!
That's a great little market.
I'm green on all bands below 200 seats. Ok, I got on early but even now you can easily cover everything under 150 at zero cost and win a nice amount of it goes well for you.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
I haven’t seen the police statement but surprised they could reach a determination that quickly
Doesn't take long to look at simple facts and the law and conclude there's nothing to see here.
If she made a nomination, then yes. But then why not just say that?
Because she that would be lying. She's said that she was unaware of those rules at the time, and that she simply didn't think there was a tax liability on her only house. And claims she's since taken advice and been told there is no liability.
I don't particularly like Rayner, but this is a complete non story.
What is notable is how the claims about her have changed over time, here on PB as well as in the newspapers. Classic sign of not finding what they had imagined in the first place.
If she were Labour's shadow chancellor, it might be a story. As she's this generation's John Prescott, it isn't.
Emily Thornberry on LBC implicitly accepting that the govt is going to be in power "for the next nine months".
My Jan next GE bet might need topping up still further.
You might be right, but if you really think it will be Jan 2025 you could best clean up by backing Con 0-50 seats, which would be an obvious consequence of hanging on that long, and campaigning over Christmas.
Just appalling. We will look back on this and weep at the madness
NEW: NHS England has announced that new youth gender services will provide masculinising and feminising hormones to children from ‘around their 16th birthday.’ This goes further than GIDS ever did: YPs cld only access hormones at 16 if they’d been on puberty blockers for 1 year🧵
How has a tiny band of crazy trans activists captured our entire health service? Indeed the entire establishment?
Here we run into the definition of adulthood. The former PB contributor @SeanT once wrote an article describing how in his thirties he made a prostitute pregnant and made her have an abortion. He stated that the age of the prostitute was seventeen. Now here's the question: when he did that, did he have sex with a child?
Societies and their people suffer when they fail to differentiate children from adults. Children do not have agency but adults do. I understand the arguments against childhood transition but not for adults: their bodies, their choice. Given that the @SeanT threshold for adulthood seems to be between 16 and 18, this would meet that criterion.
What a fantastic crushing response to Leon.
The guy’s utter hypocrisy, and permaconfusion, stripped bare like that naked girl.
I didn't mean it that way. My point was genuinely speaking to one of several concerns I have about the UK, which is the blurring of the difference between children and adults. This results in adultised children and infantilised adults, to nobody's benefit (and poor decision making). By selecting a well-known former contributor I hoped to concretize the issue: I genuinely don't think @SeanT commited a crime. But the UK needs to sort out the border between childhood and adulthood.
By his own admission @SeanT committed many crimes judging by his tawdry tales
There’s possibly a serious discussion to be had about the transition from childhood to adulthood, as indeed there is on gender issues. But I still don’t believe this internet forum to be the right place. There are too many hotheads, and unlike political debate on here far too much ignorance, including of the many nuances involved. The cloak of anonymity and lack of face-to-face representation makes discussion of certain deep topics not only ill-advised but injurious.
There’s a time and a place for everything and knowing the limits in life is always a good lesson. For example, you wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, come onto pb to air your recent session on a psychiatric couch.
This site is best when it sticks to politics.
I won’t of course stop people airing their views, I just shan’t participate even though I’ve been described as one of the country’s experts in this particular area.
I turned down a programme with Louis Theroux on this topic because even with him I didn’t feel the environment to be right. Saying no to Piers Morgan was a lot easier.
Bit strange. What unique insight does one need to have a view on this. Analogous to the abortion debate. We all agree that the abortion limit should be somewhere between zero weeks and full term but no one "knows" and there is no one answer.
Same with views on gender. The two sides are pretty straightforward - why should (how dare) someone police my view of my own gender; and why should someone I consider of the opposite sex be allowed to intrude upon "my" space.
It's where we draw the line that is the debate and you and I are just as at liberty to discuss it as ContraPoints or Matt Walsh.
When was the last time a politician acknowledged there might be some merit in an opposing point of view, instead of trying to construct an argument whereby it was a fact that the other side were wrong?
That, there, that whole method of no-debate political debate, is how we've created the space for outright liars to flourish in our politics.
One of the reasons I make an effort not to always push my partisan point of view on here is that it's more interesting to find out why people disagree with me, rather than to attempt to construct a logically watertight argument that would force someone else to change their mind, if only they would bow to my undoubted superior intellect.
Emily Thornberry on LBC implicitly accepting that the govt is going to be in power "for the next nine months".
My Jan next GE bet might need topping up still further.
You might be right, but if you really think it will be Jan 2025 you could best clean up by backing Con 0-50 seats, which would be an obvious consequence of hanging on that long, and campaigning over Christmas.
It won't be 0-50 seats (you heard it here first, folks). But it will, I believe, be Jan 2025.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
I haven’t seen the police statement but surprised they could reach a determination that quickly
Doesn't take long to look at simple facts and the law and conclude there's nothing to see here.
If she made a nomination, then yes. But then why not just say that?
Because that would be lying. She's said that she was unaware of those rules at the time, and that she simply didn't think there was a tax liability on her only house. And claims she's since taken advice and been told there is no liability.
I don't particularly like Rayner, but this is a complete non story.
AIUI she lived there for several years, and then got married. You have several years to dispose of such a property become it becomes liable for CGT. She’s not my favourite politician either, but that part of the story does seem to be a nothing burger.
It would be interesting to see her addresses as listed with the Parliamentary authorities during that time though, that’s potentially the bigger political - rather than legal - story.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
It would be an acceptance that the rich and powerful should not be afraid to pay trivial amounts of tax.
Incidentally has Rayner's husband agreed to pay CGT on his home or were they living separate lives after getting married.
What makes you think she is afraid to pay tax?
At the time she admits she didnt know the rules fully but thought she was in compliance.
She subsequently appointed tax consultants to re-examine it and they say it is fine, perhaps on some technicality or perhaps she simply sold some shares that year that had made a loss to offset the £1,500 that someone without all the facts has estimated.
I am not against all MPs tax and finances being made public, but this carry on over £1,500 when there are others with multi million question marks over their tax handling is silly.
Which is my point - a trivial amount but gets her lumped into the "they're all the same, always dodging tax with the help of lawyers and consultants" category.
Paying it would be an admission of guilt or at best carelessness with a possibility of guilt. Not paying it is maintaining her innocence. Assuming she has a leg to stand on, which if you take what what she has said at face value she clearly does, not paying is clearly the better course of action politically.
if you take what what she has said at face value she clearly does
If.
Politicians don't tend to get the benefit of that if.
Especially when they're are multiple neighbours saying otherwise.
Curious as to why Rayner would describe herself as a 'landlord' of a house she claims to have been living in:
Now The Times can reveal that Rayner has been accused of introducing herself to a neighbour as “the landlord” during the period she said she was living at the house on Vicarage Road with her children.
Chris Hinett, 64, who still lives on the street, said he only met Rayner once when she intervened in a dispute over a broken window.
“I had never seen her but she was parked up in the street looking at the boy’s house,” he said. “But when she said ‘I’m the landlord’ of the house where the window was broken, I knew why she was there.” Hinett said it was Rayner’s brother, Darren Bowen, who was living in the property.
Emily Thornberry on LBC implicitly accepting that the govt is going to be in power "for the next nine months".
My Jan next GE bet might need topping up still further.
The 'nine months' thing was simply because Labour, who has no intention or money to pay out £99 trillion to grievance specialists (WASPIs and all others) but needs their votes for now, is not answering any questions about what they will do, and emphasising the '9 months' (ie a long time) as a way of focusing on the Tories not solving a thing Labour have no intention of solving either.
Plenty more of this to come. The BBC immediately turned Emily's mention of, I think prison places, into a headline about a Labour £4 billion extra spending pledge.
Reform creeping up to 13% in the latest Techne poll.
We assume that their progress is largely a threat to the Tories but may it also not help explain why Labour's support is stuck in a narrow band at the low 40s? I think some Labour supporters find the idea of Reform quite attractive.
Most of the polls show that those saying they'll vote Reform voted Tory in 2019, but I think done if them would have switched to Labour if Labour and Starmer were doing better at convincing the electorate they had a plan to make things better.
Only Rishi has a plan and the plan is working. Don't let Labour take you back to square one!
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Just appalling. We will look back on this and weep at the madness
NEW: NHS England has announced that new youth gender services will provide masculinising and feminising hormones to children from ‘around their 16th birthday.’ This goes further than GIDS ever did: YPs cld only access hormones at 16 if they’d been on puberty blockers for 1 year🧵
How has a tiny band of crazy trans activists captured our entire health service? Indeed the entire establishment?
Here we run into the definition of adulthood. The former PB contributor @SeanT once wrote an article describing how in his thirties he made a prostitute pregnant and made her have an abortion. He stated that the age of the prostitute was seventeen. Now here's the question: when he did that, did he have sex with a child?
Societies and their people suffer when they fail to differentiate children from adults. Children do not have agency but adults do. I understand the arguments against childhood transition but not for adults: their bodies, their choice. Given that the @SeanT threshold for adulthood seems to be between 16 and 18, this would meet that criterion.
What a fantastic crushing response to Leon.
The guy’s utter hypocrisy, and permaconfusion, stripped bare like that naked girl.
I didn't mean it that way. My point was genuinely speaking to one of several concerns I have about the UK, which is the blurring of the difference between children and adults. This results in adultised children and infantilised adults, to nobody's benefit (and poor decision making). By selecting a well-known former contributor I hoped to concretize the issue: I genuinely don't think @SeanT commited a crime. But the UK needs to sort out the border between childhood and adulthood.
By his own admission @SeanT committed many crimes judging by his tawdry tales
There’s possibly a serious discussion to be had about the transition from childhood to adulthood, as indeed there is on gender issues. But I still don’t believe this internet forum to be the right place. There are too many hotheads, and unlike political debate on here far too much ignorance, including of the many nuances involved. The cloak of anonymity and lack of face-to-face representation makes discussion of certain deep topics not only ill-advised but injurious.
There’s a time and a place for everything and knowing the limits in life is always a good lesson. For example, you wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, come onto pb to air your recent session on a psychiatric couch.
This site is best when it sticks to politics.
I won’t of course stop people airing their views, I just shan’t participate even though I’ve been described as one of the country’s experts in this particular area.
I turned down a programme with Louis Theroux on this topic because even with him I didn’t feel the environment to be right. Saying no to Piers Morgan was a lot easier.
Bit strange. What unique insight does one need to have a view on this. Analogous to the abortion debate. We all agree that the abortion limit should be somewhere between zero weeks and full term but no one "knows" and there is no one answer.
Same with views on gender. The two sides are pretty straightforward - why should (how dare) someone police my view of my own gender; and why should someone I consider of the opposite sex be allowed to intrude upon "my" space.
It's where we draw the line that is the debate and you and I are just as at liberty to discuss it as ContraPoints or Matt Walsh.
Talking about abortion - I noticed recently that our antiabortionists are actively campaigning for the rights of rapists to father children on unwilling women, for a much greater degree than expected. Presumably they are delighted with this news.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
It would be an acceptance that the rich and powerful should not be afraid to pay trivial amounts of tax.
Incidentally has Rayner's husband agreed to pay CGT on his home or were they living separate lives after getting married.
Yes, they were living apart, that is what she has said all along. Aside from paying tax being an admission of guilt (see Hazel Blears), the tax is a bit of a distraction. Politically, she doesn't want to be seen as someone that bought their council house and then rented it out. So, she cannot cough up any CGT because even if you think any admission of guilt on the tax doesn't matters, she would be admitting that she wasn't living there and hadn't sold the property when moving in with her husband.
If they were living apart then why were her children registered as living with their step father not her?
Could be lots of reasons. Because the intent was for them to live together in the future? Because it made her new husband feel better about taking the children on, that he was involved with them?
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
I haven’t seen the police statement but surprised they could reach a determination that quickly
Doesn't take long to look at simple facts and the law and conclude there's nothing to see here.
If she made a nomination, then yes. But then why not just say that?
Because she that would be lying. She's said that she was unaware of those rules at the time, and that she simply didn't think there was a tax liability on her only house. And claims she's since taken advice and been told there is no liability.
I don't particularly like Rayner, but this is a complete non story.
What is notable is how the claims about her have changed over time, here on PB as well as in the newspapers. Classic sign of not finding what they had imagined in the first place.
The real lesson here - when I sold my flat (usual get married, keep it for a while, then use it to pay down mortgage) I spent a few hundred quid on an accountant to do the CGT. For that, I got a neat PDF of exactly how he calculated the tax. With the evidence in the appendix.
He more than saved the money he cost - allowances for works done etc.
He included doing my full tax return for that year and even sorted out a screw up my employer had made with my tax code.
So I saved money and got peace of mind and proof that I’d done it right.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
I haven’t seen the police statement but surprised they could reach a determination that quickly
Doesn't take long to look at simple facts and the law and conclude there's nothing to see here.
If she made a nomination, then yes. But then why not just say that?
Because that would be lying. She's said that she was unaware of those rules at the time, and that she simply didn't think there was a tax liability on her only house. And claims she's since taken advice and been told there is no liability.
I don't particularly like Rayner, but this is a complete non story.
AIUI she lived there for several years, and then got married. You have several years to dispose of such a property become it becomes liable for CGT. She’s not my favourite politician either, but that part of the story does seem to be a nothing burger.
It would be interesting to see her addresses as listed with the Parliamentary authorities during that time though, that’s potentially the bigger political - rather than legal - story.
I think she's still fairly bulletproof on this. Even if her tax advice is successfully challenged, her claim of ignorance is fairly credible (in a way it wouldn't be for eg Reeves), and all she'd then have to do would be pay any tax owing.
Can't believe so much ink has been wasted on this story. There are far better critiques of Labour.
The Trusstershambles didn't seem to do that much damage to the Conservative reputation. It was gradually getting worse before her and carried on doing so after her.
Meanwhile Sunak has gone from being a lot better regarded than his party to being seen as almost exactly as dreadful.
It's not the lead singer- it's the backing group and the song. I suppose you could put someone like Mordaunt or Badenoch in and run while are still shiny(ish) and new(ish). But without a deeper and more difficult rethink of what the Conservatives are for, what's the point?
Yes, I agree that the Conservatives' reputation was steadily declining and that didn't fundamentally change with Truss. However, there's no inherent law of nature that means the Conservatives' reputation should steadily decline. Maybe the decline kept happening because people thought Truss was bad (and then Sunak was bad). I don't think we can rule out that the Trusstershambles is part of what's driving the steady decline.
It was heart-warming to read the many posts yesterday showing appreciation of OGH and his team. This was no surprise, but I was amazed at the number of comments from Lurkers who had posted seldom, or never before. That's some tribute. To think that in addition to the likes of me droning on publicly there's a small army of silent followers....
Impressive.
They should get themselves commenting. I know it's not for everyone but it all helps to make the site go round.
Vaguely related, I have often thought of two PB thought experiments.
The first is to have us all debating a familiar topic - Brexit, AV, what have you and instead of making our arguments simply use numbers to refer to the points eg Pt 1 = We were always sovereign, etc
The other is for one day (hour?) to have us all argue vehemently the opposite position to our own. @Richard_Tyndall for staying in (now rejoining) the EU, @BartholomewRoberts about the importance of the greenbelt and sanctity of our planning laws and the countryside, etc. Would be vaguely amusing.
Until the thread was sidetracked by a discussion about Transnistrian Cabernet Franc.
'Betfair Con Seats Market now has >200 seats only a couple of percentage points more likely than < 50 seats!
That's a great little market.
I'm green on all bands below 200 seats. Ok, I got on early but even now you can easily cover everything under 150 at zero cost and win a nice amount of it goes well for you.
I'm green on 100-199. If it comes in below 100, joy and amusement will be sufficient rewards.
Reform creeping up to 13% in the latest Techne poll.
We assume that their progress is largely a threat to the Tories but may it also not help explain why Labour's support is stuck in a narrow band at the low 40s? I think some Labour supporters find the idea of Reform quite attractive.
Labour's poll rating is strong and stable. So I suspect minimal leakage to Tice, Anderson, et al.
But yes, the voters that the Tories are losing now are predominantly moving to ReFuk rather than crossing the floor to Labour, by the looks of things.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
I haven’t seen the police statement but surprised they could reach a determination that quickly
Doesn't take long to look at simple facts and the law and conclude there's nothing to see here.
If she made a nomination, then yes. But then why not just say that?
Because that would be lying. She's said that she was unaware of those rules at the time, and that she simply didn't think there was a tax liability on her only house. And claims she's since taken advice and been told there is no liability.
I don't particularly like Rayner, but this is a complete non story.
AIUI she lived there for several years, and then got married. You have several years to dispose of such a property become it becomes liable for CGT. She’s not my favourite politician either, but that part of the story does seem to be a nothing burger.
It would be interesting to see her addresses as listed with the Parliamentary authorities during that time though, that’s potentially the bigger political - rather than legal - story.
I think she's still fairly bulletproof on this. Even if her tax advice is successfully challenged, her claim of ignorance is fairly credible (in a way it wouldn't be for eg Reeves), and all she'd then have to do would be pay any tax owing.
Can't believe so much ink has been wasted on this story. There are far better critiques of Labour.
Does anyone seriously believe HMRC haven't had a look already?
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
Emily Thornberry on LBC implicitly accepting that the govt is going to be in power "for the next nine months".
My Jan next GE bet might need topping up still further.
You might be right, but if you really think it will be Jan 2025 you could best clean up by backing Con 0-50 seats, which would be an obvious consequence of hanging on that long, and campaigning over Christmas.
It won't be 0-50 seats (you heard it here first, folks). But it will, I believe, be Jan 2025.
Under 100 seats is about a 40% chance. The media are looking at leaders who can keep the damage to 250 seats.....at least one group is very wrong.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
It would be an acceptance that the rich and powerful should not be afraid to pay trivial amounts of tax.
Incidentally has Rayner's husband agreed to pay CGT on his home or were they living separate lives after getting married.
What makes you think she is afraid to pay tax?
At the time she admits she didnt know the rules fully but thought she was in compliance.
She subsequently appointed tax consultants to re-examine it and they say it is fine, perhaps on some technicality or perhaps she simply sold some shares that year that had made a loss to offset the £1,500 that someone without all the facts has estimated.
I am not against all MPs tax and finances being made public, but this carry on over £1,500 when there are others with multi million question marks over their tax handling is silly.
Which is my point - a trivial amount but gets her lumped into the "they're all the same, always dodging tax with the help of lawyers and consultants" category.
Paying it would be an admission of guilt or at best carelessness with a possibility of guilt. Not paying it is maintaining her innocence. Assuming she has a leg to stand on, which if you take what what she has said at face value she clearly does, not paying is clearly the better course of action politically.
If paying £1,500 would make the story go away, I'm sure she would. But, it would mean she has been lying. And it wouldn't be so much to do with paying tax, it would be the lie about her living arrangements and being landlord (even if an informal landlord).
Its an everyday story of the complications of living which happens in many streets all over the country.
Perhaps a bit of informal rent paid here and a maybe bit of tax accidentally dodged there.
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
Eh? Paying the money would be an admission of guilt.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
I haven’t seen the police statement but surprised they could reach a determination that quickly
Doesn't take long to look at simple facts and the law and conclude there's nothing to see here.
If she made a nomination, then yes. But then why not just say that?
Because that would be lying. She's said that she was unaware of those rules at the time, and that she simply didn't think there was a tax liability on her only house. And claims she's since taken advice and been told there is no liability.
I don't particularly like Rayner, but this is a complete non story.
My *impression* is that her financial affairs were more than a little messy, as many of ours are at times.
Emily Thornberry on LBC implicitly accepting that the govt is going to be in power "for the next nine months".
My Jan next GE bet might need topping up still further.
You might be right, but if you really think it will be Jan 2025 you could best clean up by backing Con 0-50 seats, which would be an obvious consequence of hanging on that long, and campaigning over Christmas.
It won't be 0-50 seats (you heard it here first, folks). But it will, I believe, be Jan 2025.
I suppose it's possible that the final big wheeze to win a Tory majority of 150 will be to enliven everyone's lives by campaigning during Christmas Day. (Knock on the door at 2 pm during lunch from cheery Tory candidate, who you introduce to Uncle George and seven small children).
But even the Tories won't do that. Even the SAS would shrink from the challenge.
Emily Thornberry on LBC implicitly accepting that the govt is going to be in power "for the next nine months".
My Jan next GE bet might need topping up still further.
You might be right, but if you really think it will be Jan 2025 you could best clean up by backing Con 0-50 seats, which would be an obvious consequence of hanging on that long, and campaigning over Christmas.
I don't think there would be campaigning over Christmas. The advantage of holding the election in January is exactly that it would be mad to campaign over Christmas, and that the Tories would convince themselves that a short campaign would be to their benefit.
Parliament cleans up all it's business in early December. Election called on Wednesday 11th December for Thursday January 23rd. That weekend is I think the busiest weekend for work Christmas parties. There's some campaigning in week beginning 16th December, but people are well into the final straight for Christmas preparations and it doesn't gain any traction. Campaigning shuts down for Christmastide. Thursday 2nd January the election campaigns restart, but it takes a couple of days for things to ramp up. The election campaign is effectively shortened to less than three weeks, making it harder for local campaigning to signal to people how they should tactically vote, and favouring a campaign reliant on big money donations to fund an online campaign, rather than one with lots of volunteers.
Sunak having a plan reminds me of Ferrari having a race strategy.
Cast your mind back to the cliffhanger scene in the Italian Job when Croker exclaims as the bus teeters on the brink "hang on lads, I've got a plan, er, er, er..."
Emily Thornberry on LBC implicitly accepting that the govt is going to be in power "for the next nine months".
My Jan next GE bet might need topping up still further.
The 'nine months' thing was simply because Labour, who has no intention or money to pay out £99 trillion to grievance specialists (WASPIs and all others) but needs their votes for now, is not answering any questions about what they will do, and emphasising the '9 months' (ie a long time) as a way of focusing on the Tories not solving a thing Labour have no intention of solving either.
Plenty more of this to come. The BBC immediately turned Emily's mention of, I think prison places, into a headline about a Labour £4 billion extra spending pledge.
Oh yes totally understandable who wouldn't do the same in Lab's position. Just that she didn't decide to make a point of goading the Cons into an election asap and tacitly accepted they would govern to full term. Who knows who will have picked up on that but if I was a Cons strategist I would weave it in somewhere.
It was heart-warming to read the many posts yesterday showing appreciation of OGH and his team. This was no surprise, but I was amazed at the number of comments from Lurkers who had posted seldom, or never before. That's some tribute. To think that in addition to the likes of me droning on publicly there's a small army of silent followers....
Impressive.
They should get themselves commenting. I know it's not for everyone but it all helps to make the site go round.
Vaguely related, I have often thought of two PB thought experiments.
The first is to have us all debating a familiar topic - Brexit, AV, what have you and instead of making our arguments simply use numbers to refer to the points eg Pt 1 = We were always sovereign, etc
The other is for one day (hour?) to have us all argue vehemently the opposite position to our own. @Richard_Tyndall for staying in (now rejoining) the EU, @BartholomewRoberts about the importance of the greenbelt and sanctity of our planning laws and the countryside, etc. Would be vaguely amusing.
Until the thread was sidetracked by a discussion about Transnistrian Cabernet Franc.
I fondly remember the University debating society having the annual ‘argue the other side’ debate. It’s a very good intellectual exercise, to understand what your political opponents think and be able to argue their side.
The year they did womens society vs catholic society, on the subject of abortion, was probably the highlight of three years of attending debates.
Sadly it would never happen now, at least not for in-person debates, because social media clips and a lack of context.
Comments
Also, as a founder of The Royal Society For The Protection Of The Reputation Of Domestick Comestibles, please do not compare failed politicians to lard or lettuce.
With either ingredient, you can make food to feed the hungry, create joy… whereas making failed politicians into anything other than after diner speakers is frowned upon.
But thats it. The country is broken, the real economy is knackered and people have made their minds up.
George Osborne on Political Currency suggested that Sunak do a big reshuffle. Remove all those leaving parliament and promote the people who would be the ongoing government.
Let us have Matt Vickers as Secretary of State for Health, brandishing a Parmo with his cheeky grin and thumbs up. That's got to be the election-saving strategy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMSrq7d9RIQ
Oh, and Trump's "Save America" PAC has spent $5.6m on Trump's legal fees in February.
The PAC only raised $5m last month.
This issue is really biting into the Republican's ability to raise funds. Biden and the Democrats have double the money on hand of Trump and the Democrats. Both small and large donors are reluctant to fund Trump's lawyers. Trump having recently filled the Republican National Committee with his MAGA faithful, it is now an extension of his own bank account. This is robbing down-ticket Republican's of funding for their own campaigns. Given the Republican majority in the House is currently down to 2, he could be handing the House to the Democrats in November.
The Trusstershambles didn't seem to do that much damage to the Conservative reputation. It was gradually getting worse before her and carried on doing so after her.
Meanwhile Sunak has gone from being a lot better regarded than his party to being seen as almost exactly as dreadful.
It's not the lead singer- it's the backing group and the song. I suppose you could put someone like Mordaunt or Badenoch in and run while are still shiny(ish) and new(ish). But without a deeper and more difficult rethink of what the Conservatives are for, what's the point?
People and types I know would normally hold the blue line are looking a bit sheepish but are not defensive.
The conservative anti net zero story isn’t cutting through but once it does I’m expecting small c conservatives to lose what little enthusiasm they have left for conservative policy.
What attraction is there for a leader that uses helicopters and jets while the rivers stink? Not a lot from people that care for their country.
🚨Our new voting intention just shared with @JPonpolitics @TimesRadio sees the Conservatives hit a new low.
🌳 Conservative 25% (-2)
🌹Labour 43% (+1)
🔶Lib Dems 11% (+1)
🟣Reform 11% (+1)
💚Green 5% (-1)
Lab lead 18, highest under our current methodology
N=2027, 19-20/3
MiC do have an interesting way of tackling the DKs as discussed in my header in December.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/12/02/sweet-swingbacks-baadasssss-song/
Opinium allocate DKs their previous allegiance, Kantar and MIC try to force a choice out of the DKs, so all 3 attempt to address swingback. So all favour the Tories more than typical pollsters as 2019 Tories are overrepresented as DKs.
It really is quite difficult to see how the Tories reverse their relentless decline. It looks like the DKs are making up their minds, and it is not benefiting the Tories.
Greens bid to take down the Union flag from Glasgow City Chambers on seven key Royal occasions including the King’s birthday.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Blackley/status/1771080194104656050
Then I clicked the story and well the Scottish Greens are traitors and should be proscribed.
Outrage as Greens bid to take down the Union flag from Glasgow City Chambers... And fly the Cuban, Palestinian, French and other flags instead
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13225845/Greens-bid-Union-flag-Glasgow-City-Chambers-fly-Cuban-Palestine-Pride-flags.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68632621
Pay the money and claim moral superiority over tax dodgers.
The only reason it won't be 12th December or 23rd January is if the government finally collapses utterly - which is increasingly possible...
I prefer to use the term tax minimisation strategies.
The police have said its fine (although not sure why they investigated rather than HMRC) as has her tax accountant.
HMRC say it is fine
The police say it is fine
The story isn't Rayner. Its the Tory press. The old adage "there's no smoke without fire" doesn't apply when the press are burning stuff to make the smoke then reporting on smoke.
I pay tax
You minimise tax
He dodges tax
For a politician its better to be in the first person.
WILL they? My sense is that their core support is around 18-20%, comprised of people who:
a) don't pay much attention but reflexively vote Conservative
b) think that however bad the Conservatives are, Labour will be worse
c) actively like their MP or an individual Conservative policy or two
d) think that too big a Labour landslide would be bad
IIRC that was about their nadir in the VI polls during the end of TM's tenure.
I have read the website since around 2015 and have been commenting since partly in a now lost account. Over this time I have drifted away from the 'liberal left' that I used to be part of. Originally I came on to PB because it was 'right leaning' and I was looking for a forum online to try and challenge some of my views as everyone I knew in the 'in person' world had the same or similar politics to me. Over this time my politics started to change as I was becoming concerned about how extreme the 'mainstream' left were becoming after reading books like 'the coddling of the american mind' by Jon Haidt and co. It was in 2018 I came to the view that the left were a bigger problem and threat than the right, and potentially an existential problem for civilisation. These fears were realised with the various excesses of 'woke' from 2020 onwards. I can only hope that the inevitable and belated rise of the 'right woke' will act as a counter balance and we end up back in something resembling common sense. But perhaps the disruption caused by AI will somehow make such political discourse quaint and obsolete.
Sink lower in action? Yes, that too, desperation will see to that.
Can't be clearer than that.
The ball is now in HMRC's court presumably.
As she says CGT and residential status are complicated.
I also think he will go the distance, and use the unusual campaign as at attempt at a wild card.
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/02/29/rayner/
This is a balanced review and lays out the different scenarios. At worst a mistake but why not just say that if it was?
Another friendly article on her tax affairs and her home in the Indy
With a suitable picture showing her with a halo.
We are really blessed.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/angela-rayner-says-questions-about-her-tax-affairs-were-manufactured/ar-BB1kjNOO?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=8ae5c0050f5b40f19bd9a32371121ca6&ei=30
Now get me the RAF on the phone, I need a helicopter to North Yorkshire and pronto!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/22/tesco-accused-of-using-cash-and-carry-arm-booker-to-squeeze-village-stores-out-of-business
Congratulations @MikeSmithson and @TheScreamingEagles and @rcs1000 and everyone else who has contributed for the 20 years.
Mike thank you for all you have done here, I hope your health improves, and enjoy your retirement.
If they had said “no criminal offence not for us” they could do that quickly (and would be right).
But that’s not the same as “it’s fine”
Sort of like saying the Sunak’s were spotted driving at 70 MPH on the motorway but Angela Rayner was only doing 30MPH, the problem is if she was doing the 30MPH in a 20 zone. It doesn’t matter that the Sunak’s were driving faster, they could do that under the law.
Incidentally has Rayner's husband agreed to pay CGT on his home or were they living separate lives after getting married.
At the time she admits she didnt know the rules fully but thought she was in compliance.
She subsequently appointed tax consultants to re-examine it and they say it is fine, perhaps on some technicality or perhaps she simply sold some shares that year that had made a loss to offset the £1,500 that someone without all the facts has estimated.
I am not against all MPs tax and finances being made public, but this carry on over £1,500 when there are others with multi million question marks over their tax handling is silly.
We assume that their progress is largely a threat to the Tories but may it also not help explain why Labour's support is stuck in a narrow band at the low 40s? I think some Labour supporters find the idea of Reform quite attractive.
You avoid
He evades.
BTW Haidt was on Rogan the other day https://youtube.com/watch?v=jOC-RyoBcbQ
In fact, since Rogan’s show went back on Youtube at the beginning of the month, he’s had quite the rota of guests seemingly hand-picked to try and annoy Google’s moderation and demonetisation team, including James Lindsay, Abigail Shrier, Riley Gaines, and Christopher Rufo.
For the bettors among us, his interview with legendary American sports bettor Billy Walters is brilliant.
It was heart-warming to read the many posts yesterday showing appreciation of OGH and his team. This was no surprise, but I was amazed at the number of comments from Lurkers who had posted seldom, or never before. That's some tribute. To think that in addition to the likes of me droning on publicly there's a small army of silent followers....
Impressive.
The fact that the other house had to be adapted for a disabled family member instantly suggests one reason for occupying both houses for an interim period.
She's said that she was unaware of those rules at the time, and that she simply didn't think there was a tax liability on her only house.
And claims she's since taken advice and been told there is no liability.
I don't particularly like Rayner, but this is a complete non story.
Same with views on gender. The two sides are pretty straightforward - why should (how dare) someone police my view of my own gender; and why should someone I consider of the opposite sex be allowed to intrude upon "my" space.
It's where we draw the line that is the debate and you and I are just as at liberty to discuss it as ContraPoints or Matt Walsh.
My Jan next GE bet might need topping up still further.
'Betfair Con Seats Market now has >200 seats only a couple of percentage points more likely than <50 seats!
That's a great little market.
I'm green on all bands below 200 seats. Ok, I got on early but even now you can easily cover everything under 150 at zero cost and win a nice amount of it goes well for you.
As she's this generation's John Prescott, it isn't.
That, there, that whole method of no-debate political debate, is how we've created the space for outright liars to flourish in our politics.
One of the reasons I make an effort not to always push my partisan point of view on here is that it's more interesting to find out why people disagree with me, rather than to attempt to construct a logically watertight argument that would force someone else to change their mind, if only they would bow to my undoubted superior intellect.
It would be interesting to see her addresses as listed with the Parliamentary authorities during that time though, that’s potentially the bigger political - rather than legal - story.
If.
Politicians don't tend to get the benefit of that if.
Especially when they're are multiple neighbours saying otherwise.
Curious as to why Rayner would describe herself as a 'landlord' of a house she claims to have been living in:
Now The Times can reveal that Rayner has been accused of introducing herself to a neighbour as “the landlord” during the period she said she was living at the house on Vicarage Road with her children.
Chris Hinett, 64, who still lives on the street, said he only met Rayner once when she intervened in a dispute over a broken window.
“I had never seen her but she was parked up in the street looking at the boy’s house,” he said. “But when she said ‘I’m the landlord’ of the house where the window was broken, I knew why she was there.” Hinett said it was Rayner’s brother, Darren Bowen, who was living in the property.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/angela-rayner-house-tax-row-neighbours-wglbv9h2g
Plenty more of this to come. The BBC immediately turned Emily's mention of, I think prison places, into a headline about a Labour £4 billion extra spending pledge.
Have I got that right?
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/25/abortion-after-rape-laws-bans
He more than saved the money he cost - allowances for works done etc.
He included doing my full tax return for that year and even sorted out a screw up my employer had made with my tax code.
So I saved money and got peace of mind and proof that I’d done it right.
Even if her tax advice is successfully challenged, her claim of ignorance is fairly credible (in a way it wouldn't be for eg Reeves), and all she'd then have to do would be pay any tax owing.
Can't believe so much ink has been wasted on this story. There are far better critiques of Labour.
Vaguely related, I have often thought of two PB thought experiments.
The first is to have us all debating a familiar topic - Brexit, AV, what have you and instead of making our arguments simply use numbers to refer to the points eg Pt 1 = We were always sovereign, etc
The other is for one day (hour?) to have us all argue vehemently the opposite position to our own. @Richard_Tyndall for staying in (now rejoining) the EU, @BartholomewRoberts about the importance of the greenbelt and sanctity of our planning laws and the countryside, etc. Would be vaguely amusing.
Until the thread was sidetracked by a discussion about Transnistrian Cabernet Franc.
But yes, the voters that the Tories are losing now are predominantly moving to ReFuk rather than crossing the floor to Labour, by the looks of things.
Perhaps a bit of informal rent paid here and a maybe bit of tax accidentally dodged there.
It happened before Rayner became an MP.
But its the denial which causes the damage.
But even the Tories won't do that. Even the SAS would shrink from the challenge.
Parliament cleans up all it's business in early December. Election called on Wednesday 11th December for Thursday January 23rd. That weekend is I think the busiest weekend for work Christmas parties. There's some campaigning in week beginning 16th December, but people are well into the final straight for Christmas preparations and it doesn't gain any traction. Campaigning shuts down for Christmastide. Thursday 2nd January the election campaigns restart, but it takes a couple of days for things to ramp up. The election campaign is effectively shortened to less than three weeks, making it harder for local campaigning to signal to people how they should tactically vote, and favouring a campaign reliant on big money donations to fund an online campaign, rather than one with lots of volunteers.
Betting PostF1: not heroic, but backed Perez each way in the race at 14:
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2024/03/australia-pre-qualifying-2024.html
The year they did womens society vs catholic society, on the subject of abortion, was probably the highlight of three years of attending debates.
Sadly it would never happen now, at least not for in-person debates, because social media clips and a lack of context.