IMHO I feel very sorry for her reading that Telegraph article.
She had a horrific pregnancy/birth and
Sources close to the Deputy Prime Minister claim she was given three separate pieces of legal advice from a conveyancer and two experts in trust law, all of which suggested the amount of stamp duty she paid was correct.
But the Telegraph revelations last week had prompted her to re-examine that advice and to seek out a leading tax barrister, understood to Jonathan Peacock KC. He is thought to have reported back on Monday that the extra stamp duty should, in fact, have been paid.
Sources suggested that had she waited a few months longer, until her son’s 18th birthday, she would not have owed the extra stamp duty because her ownership would have passed entirely to him.
As I said earlier. It seems she took legal advice and it was shit.
Who amongst can throw a stone on that basis?
*If* she gave them the correct information.
The claim is that multiple experts were consulted and gave wrong advice on multiple things.
I don't think Rayner will resign. There will be a list of excuses and in the end Labour will not only brazen it out but can give examples of the Tories doing the same (Patel as an example).
They have teh brass neck for it for sure but even Starmer must realise it is fatal for him if he lets it drag on.
You obviously missed how he handled freebie gate. He had about 4 goes at trying to explain why he has a box.at Arsenal, each time digging himself a deeper hole (when that was the least of any of the stuff). They had to get somebody much better at PR to dig him out of it in the end.
I don't think Rayner will resign. There will be a list of excuses and in the end Labour will not only brazen it out but can give examples of the Tories doing the same (Patel as an example).
I hope so. I think Rayner brings something different to the table and I am a fan.
As a curious principle of mine, I never call for ministerial resignations or sackings*. I think that we have difficulty enough getting good MPs and ministers from a diversity of backgrounds already. Expecting them to have led saint like existences is both unrealistic and harmful to Parliament. It is the route to mediocrity and identical suit like drones rather than real people.
*and yes this was the case under previous governments too, even the Johnson and Truss ones that I loathed.
Advice doesn’t allow you to evade responsibility. Most HMRC firms are explicit about that.
There was also an interesting implication in the BBC story:
Rayner acknowledged her "reliance on advice on lawyers" did not take into account all the provisions of the situation.
That’s the clearest I think I’ve seen that she didn’t tell the lawyers all the facts
When I sold my old flat, I got the accountant I used to do my tax return for that year. So he literally put his chop on my CGT and other payments. So that there would be no question that he was responsible for the advice and action.
I don't think Rayner will resign. There will be a list of excuses and in the end Labour will not only brazen it out but can give examples of the Tories doing the same (Patel as an example).
I hope so. I think Rayner brings something different to the table and I am a fan.
(Snip)
All she brings to the table is grift, stupidity and nastiness. Oh, and she's quite attractive as well.
I wonder which of these attributes appeals to you?
Advice doesn’t allow you to evade responsibility. Most HMRC firms are explicit about that.
There was also an interesting implication in the BBC story:
Rayner acknowledged her "reliance on advice on lawyers" did not take into account all the provisions of the situation.
That’s the clearest I think I’ve seen that she didn’t tell the lawyers all the facts
When I sold my old flat, I got the accountant I used to do my tax return for that year. So he literally put his chop on my CGT and other payments. So that there would be no question that he was responsible for the advice and action.
I guess you didn’t read the paragraph just above the signature line… where you accept personal responsibility for the filing irrespective of advice… you might be able to sue them for negligence but HMRC will look at you
I don't think Rayner will resign. There will be a list of excuses and in the end Labour will not only brazen it out but can give examples of the Tories doing the same (Patel as an example).
I hope so. I think Rayner brings something different to the table and I am a fan.
As a curious principle of mine, I never call for ministerial resignations or sackings*. I think that we have difficulty enough getting good MPs and ministers from a diversity of backgrounds already. Expecting them to have led saint like existences is both unrealistic and harmful to Parliament. It is the route to mediocrity and identical suit like drones rather than real people.
*and yes this was the case under previous governments too, even the Johnson and Truss ones that I loathed.
I think there is a difference between prior to politics, especially government, and when you are in a position of power. I don't really care what people did 20 years ago as a student (within certain limits), but when you have the levers of power you have to be clean.
No advertisement, promotion, entreatment, inducement or related commercial activity in relation to the 25th December shall take place before the 6th November.
Well, it's more succinct than the Ordnance which banned Christmas outright at least. And what the heck is Whitsuntide?
All Festivals and Holy Days abolished,; Time allotted for Recreation.
Forasmuch as the Feasts of the Nativity of Christ, Easter and Whitsuntide, and other Festivals commonly called Holy-Dayes, have been heretofore superstitiously used and observed Be it Ordained, by the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled, That the said Feast of the Nativity of Christ, Easter and Whitsuntide, and all other Festival dayes, commonly called Holy-dayes, be no longer observed as Festivals or Holy-dayes within this Kingdome of England and Dominion of Wales, any Law, Statute, Custome, Constitution, or Cannon to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding: And to the end that there may be a convenient time allotted to Scholars, Apprentices, and other Servants for their Recreation: Be it Ordained by the authority aforesaid, That all Scholars, Apprentices, and other Servants shall, with the leave and approbation of their Masters respectively first had and obtained, have such convenient reasonable Recreation and Relaxation from their constant and ordinary Labours on every second Tuesday in the moneth throughout the year, as formerly they have used to have on such aforesaid Festivals, commonly called Holy-dayes. And that Masters of all Scholars, Apprentices, and Servants, shall grant unto them respectively such time for their Recreations on the aforesaid second Tuesdaies in every moneth, as they may conveniently spare from their extraordinary and necessary Services and Occasions. And it is further Ordained by the said Lords and Commons, That if any difference shall arise between any Master and Servant concerning the Liberty hereby granted, the next Justice of the Peace shall have power to hear and determine the same.
Nice bit of parliamentary drafting but Starmer is showing his Puritan side here. It'll never catch on.
I don't think Rayner will resign. There will be a list of excuses and in the end Labour will not only brazen it out but can give examples of the Tories doing the same (Patel as an example).
I don’t recall a Patel stamp duty scandal?
Where did I say there was? She is up in front of the ministerial standards bod. Who told Patel to resign, Boris! said no, and the standards bod resigned.
So let's assume the standards bod says she has been Bad. So what? The Tories set the awful precedent and I don't think a beleaguered PM wants to concede anything to the mob at the moment.
One of the problems with lowering the bar to labelling people terrorists is that, for some leaders, that's now a green light for extra-judicial execution.
That is a more sinister slippery slope than (say) assisted dying. The US is evidently some way down it.
Rand Paul: "The reason we have trials and we don't automatically assume guilt is what if we make a mistake and they happen to be people fleeing the Venezuelan dictator? ... off our coast it isn't our policy just to blow people up ... even the worst people in our country, if we accuse somebody of a terrible crime, they still get a trial." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1963382824880259393
Advice doesn’t allow you to evade responsibility. Most HMRC firms are explicit about that.
There was also an interesting implication in the BBC story:
Rayner acknowledged her "reliance on advice on lawyers" did not take into account all the provisions of the situation.
That’s the clearest I think I’ve seen that she didn’t tell the lawyers all the facts
When I sold my old flat, I got the accountant I used to do my tax return for that year. So he literally put his chop on my CGT and other payments. So that there would be no question that he was responsible for the advice and action.
I guess you didn’t read the paragraph just above the signature line… where you accept personal responsibility for the filing irrespective of advice… you might be able to sue them for negligence but HMRC will look at you
It’s important when considering penalties though. If someone has taken advice from a qualified adviser with the right competence and expertise, and - importantly - has furnished them with the correct facts, then it is extremely rare that HMRC pursues behaviour based penalties.
Just to troll Leon, the director of an AI company was on R4 this morning, and still talking about Brexit.
And how it made the UK a less attractive place for them to invest.
I was at an AI business event recently, its not Brexit, the cosensus was first and foremost our backwards culture of being incredibly risk averse when it comes to tech startups. The US mentality is totally different, they will give you £10m over lunch on a hunch. But if you think its bad here, try raising money for tech in somewhere like Germany, its like the stone age.
Advice doesn’t allow you to evade responsibility. Most HMRC firms are explicit about that.
There was also an interesting implication in the BBC story:
Rayner acknowledged her "reliance on advice on lawyers" did not take into account all the provisions of the situation.
That’s the clearest I think I’ve seen that she didn’t tell the lawyers all the facts
When I sold my old flat, I got the accountant I used to do my tax return for that year. So he literally put his chop on my CGT and other payments. So that there would be no question that he was responsible for the advice and action.
I guess you didn’t read the paragraph just above the signature line… where you accept personal responsibility for the filing irrespective of advice… you might be able to sue them for negligence but HMRC will look at you
No, I did.
The point was that by actually filling in the tax return he was definitely assuming responsibility in the negligence/professional indemnity front.
I don't think Rayner will resign. There will be a list of excuses and in the end Labour will not only brazen it out but can give examples of the Tories doing the same (Patel as an example).
I don’t recall a Patel stamp duty scandal?
Where did I say there was? She is up in front of the ministerial standards bod. Who told Patel to resign, Boris! said no, and the standards bod resigned.
So let's assume the standards bod says she has been Bad. So what? The Tories set the awful precedent and I don't think a beleaguered PM wants to concede anything to the mob at the moment.
Good morning
This is not about the Tories whose behaviour is already factored in but Starmer and his promise to govern with integrity
I doubt Rayner will resign but I cannot see how she can continue as Housing Secretary with the looming Autumn Statement homing in on property taxes
Furthermore, she is damaged by this and I expect the court of public opinion will not be impressed
I noticed a rather unkind cartoon of Rayner and Reeves with the caption ' two tears labour'
AIUI Starmer could relieve her of her ministerial duties re housing and the deputy prime ministership, but he has no say over her deputy leadership of the Labour Party.
I think the headline is simply misleading, in that it implies corrupt use of funds. No, she didn't.
But that's our tabloid media, when 98% of readers just see the headline and standfirst.
The Trust bought a part share of her adapted marital house so that her son could continue to live there, with her former husband and her in rotation. No problems there as long as it is at market value (which has a tolerance on it). She then used her own money as a deposit on a place in Brighton.
(Two minor points - Why did she only have a share of 25%? Perhaps as part of the divorce settlement or other reason we won't know. And why did the Trust need to own part of it - I suggest for making sure that her son has protected occupancy rights eg when the parents both pass away.)
I'll wait for the enquiry on the Stamp Duty matter - it sounds most like an expensive timing error.
Politically, it needs to be a quick enquiry (if not there is a more credible argument for standing aside), and if there is evidence of deliberate tax evasion she will be gone. She needs to produce copies of the advice.
I wonder if Kemi has overcooked it. Both sides seem hostile.
One of the problems with lowering the bar to labelling people terrorists is that, for some leaders, that's now a green light for extra-judicial execution.
That is a more sinister slippery slope than (say) assisted dying. The US is evidently some way down it.
Rand Paul: "The reason we have trials and we don't automatically assume guilt is what if we make a mistake and they happen to be people fleeing the Venezuelan dictator? ... off our coast it isn't our policy just to blow people up ... even the worst people in our country, if we accuse somebody of a terrible crime, they still get a trial." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1963382824880259393
Life meets Tom Clancy. “Clear and Present Danger”.
FWIW the crucial passage in the Rayner statement is this:
I have now been advised that although I did not own any other property at the time of the purchase, the application of complex deeming provisions which relate to my son’s trust gives rise to additional stamp duty liabilities. I acknowledge that due to my reliance on advice from lawyers which did not properly take account of these provisions, I did not pay the appropriate stamp duty at the time of the purchase.
Make of it what you will, but is has a slight incompleteness/ambiguity about it.
Did they ever get to the bottom of who profited from the vast amounts of money spent on dodgy material purchased during Covid. And the VIP preferences. Or is it all forgotten while the next media circus rolls into town.
The agencies who would have investigated weren't given the budget, Mone and Barrowman might be sacrificed. They're not going to start handing out "unexplained wealth orders" to the guest speakers at corporate jamborees.
FWIW the crucial passage in the Rayner statement is this:
I have now been advised that although I did not own any other property at the time of the purchase, the application of complex deeming provisions which relate to my son’s trust gives rise to additional stamp duty liabilities. I acknowledge that due to my reliance on advice from lawyers which did not properly take account of these provisions, I did not pay the appropriate stamp duty at the time of the purchase.
Make of it what you will, but is has a slight incompleteness/ambiguity about it.
I don't think Rayner will resign. There will be a list of excuses and in the end Labour will not only brazen it out but can give examples of the Tories doing the same (Patel as an example).
I don’t recall a Patel stamp duty scandal?
Where did I say there was? She is up in front of the ministerial standards bod. Who told Patel to resign, Boris! said no, and the standards bod resigned.
So let's assume the standards bod says she has been Bad. So what? The Tories set the awful precedent and I don't think a beleaguered PM wants to concede anything to the mob at the moment.
“The Tories doing the same (Patel as an example)”…
Rayner’s Twitter account is quite the goldmine of hypocrisy.
As others have said, she’d be in less trouble if she hadn’t been screaming from the rooftops at every little issue for political opponents for the past decade and a half.
Advice doesn’t allow you to evade responsibility. Most HMRC firms are explicit about that.
There was also an interesting implication in the BBC story:
Rayner acknowledged her "reliance on advice on lawyers" did not take into account all the provisions of the situation.
That’s the clearest I think I’ve seen that she didn’t tell the lawyers all the facts
When I sold my old flat, I got the accountant I used to do my tax return for that year. So he literally put his chop on my CGT and other payments. So that there would be no question that he was responsible for the advice and action.
I guess you didn’t read the paragraph just above the signature line… where you accept personal responsibility for the filing irrespective of advice… you might be able to sue them for negligence but HMRC will look at you
It’s important when considering penalties though. If someone has taken advice from a qualified adviser with the right competence and expertise, and - importantly - has furnished them with the correct facts, then it is extremely rare that HMRC pursues behaviour based penalties.
…by adopting the pretence his ministers regularly return home to living rooms bedecked in Union Jack bunting, the Prime Minister is taking the British people for fools.
It is also reinforcing the impression of Sir Keir as a man with no meaningful belief structure. In 2020, when the Black Lives Matter movement was all the rage, Starmer dropped to his knees in his parliamentary office to show solidarity 'with all those opposing anti-black racism'.
Now it's Operation Raise The Colours that's capturing the headlines. So suddenly Sir Keir is expressing his allegiance to those shimmying up flag lamp posts to express how they are 'a group of proud English men with a common goal to show the rest of the country of how proud we are of our history, freedoms and achievements'. Who does the Prime Minister think he's kidding?
Advice doesn’t allow you to evade responsibility. Most HMRC firms are explicit about that.
There was also an interesting implication in the BBC story:
Rayner acknowledged her "reliance on advice on lawyers" did not take into account all the provisions of the situation.
That’s the clearest I think I’ve seen that she didn’t tell the lawyers all the facts
When I sold my old flat, I got the accountant I used to do my tax return for that year. So he literally put his chop on my CGT and other payments. So that there would be no question that he was responsible for the advice and action.
I guess you didn’t read the paragraph just above the signature line… where you accept personal responsibility for the filing irrespective of advice… you might be able to sue them for negligence but HMRC will look at you
No, I did.
The point was that by actually filling in the tax return he was definitely assuming responsibility in the negligence/professional indemnity front.
It’s not the person filing who has the responsibility (accountants e-file as standard). It’s the person signing. If you had an engagement letter with the accountant you’d be covered under his indemnity
I don't think Rayner will resign. There will be a list of excuses and in the end Labour will not only brazen it out but can give examples of the Tories doing the same (Patel as an example).
I don’t recall a Patel stamp duty scandal?
Where did I say there was? She is up in front of the ministerial standards bod. Who told Patel to resign, Boris! said no, and the standards bod resigned.
So let's assume the standards bod says she has been Bad. So what? The Tories set the awful precedent and I don't think a beleaguered PM wants to concede anything to the mob at the moment.
Good morning
This is not about the Tories whose behaviour is already factored in but Starmer and his promise to govern with integrity
I doubt Rayner will resign but I cannot see how she can continue as Housing Secretary with the looming Autumn Statement homing in on property taxes
Furthermore, she is damaged by this and I expect the court of public opinion will not be impressed
I noticed a rather unkind cartoon of Rayner and Reeves with the caption ' two tears labour'
Not an edifyng couple of days
It is hugely damaging for her and more so for Starmer. My point is that our politics has been so debased that such scandals have been reduced to "meh" levels.
The Tories simply aren't relevant any more, and even less so when shrieking holier-than-thou with their own long list of scandals still fresh in the memory.
My take? Labour are crap at politics like this because they self-righteously believe they are the Good Guys. Which is how we end up with insanities like the minister for homelessness making her tenants homeless. "We're not the Tories" is something I heard too many Labour activists say over the years...
Just to troll Leon, the director of an AI company was on R4 this morning, and still talking about Brexit.
And how it made the UK a less attractive place for them to invest.
Taking the random AI tangent a bit further. Anguilla is now getting a quarter of its government spending simply from owning the once irrelevant .ai internet domain and projections are that will reach over half in the next couple of years. Life can be strange!
I think the headline is simply misleading, in that it implies corrupt use of funds. No, she didn't.
But that's our tabloid media, when 98% of readers just see the headline and standfirst.
The Trust bought a part share of her adapted marital house so that her son could continue to live there, with her former husband and her in rotation. No problems there as long as it is at market value (which has a tolerance on it). She then used her own money as a deposit on a place in Brighton.
(Two minor points - Why did she only have a share of 25%? Perhaps as part of the divorce settlement or other reason we won't know. And why did the Trust need to own part of it - I suggest for making sure that her son has protected occupancy rights eg when the parents both pass away.)
I'll wait for the enquiry on the Stamp Duty matter - it sounds most like an expensive timing error.
Politically, it needs to be a quick enquiry (if not there is a more credible argument for standing aside), and if there is evidence of deliberate tax evasion she will be gone. She needs to produce copies of the advice.
I wonder if Kemi has overcooked it. Both sides seem hostile.
She owned 50%, as did her husband. She then gave 25% to the trust, and sold 25%.
There would only be misconduct, as a trustee, had she sold her share for more than its market value. As I said, the headline is mendacious.
I assume the intention is to ensure that her son has a place he can always live in.
This is ridiculous - you can find the official gov.uk guidance on higher rate stamp duty for second home purchases in two clicks from googling 'stamp duty rules' where it says
If any of you will own, or part own more than one residential property worth £40,000 or more, you will have to pay the higher rates on your new purchase (unless there is another reason why the higher rates do not apply).
Include any residential property that:
is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees) you have an interest in as the beneficiary of a trust Include your current home, if you still own it at the end of the day you buy your new home.
'Expert opinion, complicated tax blah blah blah'
She can fuck right off
Based on what you know, is it clear to you it was a second home? What other home did she own?
The trust thing that was set up, that she thought she had completely withdrawn from and no longer counted for her (or that’s what she’s claiming she understood it based on advice.) is it still a crime if it happened based on someone else’s guidance from whom you sought how to do such things right, and whose answers you trusted? If the bad advice was from the trust who already had all the details of her particular position so she couldn’t have misled them in anyway.
But reading her body language, it tells me I completely agree with you - she knew she was on the make, and that she has to resign from government when the fast track investigation concludes. Do we have eta for the commissioners report?
But after resigning from Government, perhaps for the first time, what standard should she then be held to? Will you call for her to resign as an MP as well over this? when others have made strong political comebacks after very similar things, after time on back benches. Because if she doesn’t stand down as MP, and survives the election in May 2029, we know she will be back on the front bench because it’s what always happens. Ultimately can those who set themselves up as White Knights really be held to sterner punishments than everybody else? 🤷♀️
I think losing Rayner would be a major blow to a Starmer government that is already dead in the water. For all her faults she is one of the most dynamic and charismatic of Labour's front benches, very much her own person and not cut from the identi-cut PPE/SPAD/MP cloth. She may well have to go, and has certainly blotted her copy book very badly.
A couple of thoughts though:
Of our 650 MPs a great number have 2 or more homes, including Farage, Sunak, Jenrick etc etc, and even more notably the King and other members of the Royal family.. There may well be further casualties to this sort of scrutiny over property affairs. Rayner's came to light because of her visibility as a politician and role in charge of housing, but I bet there are a number of others looking anxiously over their property assets and tax affairs. There are some professions and domestic situations that multiple properties are a requirement rather than an extravagance.
Secondly, this entire mess has arisen from the differential treatment of second properties, and the anomalies arising from that. Stamp Duty used to be a transaction tax, but now is being used to punish second home owners, landlords etc as a way of distorting the market in favour of a perceived policy goal. Council tax replaced the Poll Tax (and that in turn replaced the Rates) and was originally designed to fund local services. At one time Council Tax had a discount for second homes (I think on the grounds that as part time residents, owners were light users of local services) but now are charged 2 or more times the rate as a way of punishing owners. If properties were merely taxed on the capital value rather than as a way of punishing second home owners then none of these issues would have arisen.
All the people sleeping in doorways, or can’t get on property ladder, isn’t second home tax for them? Or just another stealth tax?
I am suddenly getting endless targeted messages from the British Embassy in Cairo. Started approximately around my 5th pint and has escalated from there.
OT but I actually got charged £8 for a pint this evening and have retreated to my local in disgust for my £4.50 pale ale. This pub also comes with an obese beagle called Nigel and three people I recognise, so feeling much better.
In my dream last night I was at a posh hotel for graduation and was charged £10.30 for a pint… Anyone paid that yet, or is it a premonition?
I don't think Rayner will resign. There will be a list of excuses and in the end Labour will not only brazen it out but can give examples of the Tories doing the same (Patel as an example).
I don’t recall a Patel stamp duty scandal?
Where did I say there was? She is up in front of the ministerial standards bod. Who told Patel to resign, Boris! said no, and the standards bod resigned.
So let's assume the standards bod says she has been Bad. So what? The Tories set the awful precedent and I don't think a beleaguered PM wants to concede anything to the mob at the moment.
“The Tories doing the same (Patel as an example)”…
Yes, "the same" being breaching the ministerial code, which is what she has referred herself to.
I think there might be more sympathy for Rayner if she had bought a home near her constituency and her disabled son. Themes that I am picking up from comments from members of the public are that she used some of her disabled son's trust money to buy a luxury flat in Brighton so she can be near her boyfriend, who lives near his ex-wife and children. Meanwhile, hundreds of miles away, her ex-husband is looking after their disabled child.
I am suddenly getting endless targeted messages from the British Embassy in Cairo. Started approximately around my 5th pint and has escalated from there.
OT but I actually got charged £8 for a pint this evening and have retreated to my local in disgust for my £4.50 pale ale. This pub also comes with an obese beagle called Nigel and three people I recognise, so feeling much better.
In my dream last night I was at a posh hotel for graduation and was charged £10.30 for a pint… Anyone paid that yet, or is it a premonition?
Unusual for a Norwegian hotel to sell in pints and charge in pounds, but it’s possible I suppose
I think there might be more sympathy for Rayner if she had bought a home near her constituency and her disabled son. Themes that I am picking up from comments from members of the public are that she used some of her disabled son's trust money to buy a luxury flat in Brighton so she can be near her boyfriend, who lives near his ex-wife and children. Meanwhile, hundreds of miles away, her ex-husband is looking after their disabled child.
Not a good look.
It’s still somewhat opaque as to what exactly her living arrangements are . Although it does seem that she has a good relationship with her ex-husband which isn’t always the case in these scenarios.
Did they ever get to the bottom of who profited from the vast amounts of money spent on dodgy material purchased during Covid. And the VIP preferences. Or is it all forgotten while the next media circus rolls into town.
That was just a harmless bit of fun by some nice friends of Boris Johnson. This is a whole lot worse.
I don't think Rayner will resign. There will be a list of excuses and in the end Labour will not only brazen it out but can give examples of the Tories doing the same (Patel as an example).
I don’t recall a Patel stamp duty scandal?
But she did run her own parallel clandestine foreign policy.
Rayner should go, but in terms of mendacious political scandals it is pretty mean gruel. Imagine if you will, a British Foreign Secretary shaking off his minders to attend a party held in an Italian Villa with alcohol and call girls on tap, and hosted by a KGB grandee.
No one could come back from that sort of a scandal surely.
Advice doesn’t allow you to evade responsibility. Most HMRC firms are explicit about that.
There was also an interesting implication in the BBC story:
Rayner acknowledged her "reliance on advice on lawyers" did not take into account all the provisions of the situation.
That’s the clearest I think I’ve seen that she didn’t tell the lawyers all the facts
When I sold my old flat, I got the accountant I used to do my tax return for that year. So he literally put his chop on my CGT and other payments. So that there would be no question that he was responsible for the advice and action.
I guess you didn’t read the paragraph just above the signature line… where you accept personal responsibility for the filing irrespective of advice… you might be able to sue them for negligence but HMRC will look at you
No, I did.
The point was that by actually filling in the tax return he was definitely assuming responsibility in the negligence/professional indemnity front.
It’s not the person filing who has the responsibility (accountants e-file as standard). It’s the person signing. If you had an engagement letter with the accountant you’d be covered under his indemnity
I just have to assume people have no experience of employing accountants, having to employ accountants. There is no way her returns could be filed by someone who was not totally conversant with all the facts, could not happen. The days when a nonentity could claim to be an economist when she wasn't are long gone.
This story is weird insomuch as my accountant would not let me claim £100 VAT back, which I was owed because it became due to day after the return quarter ended. So I had to wait three months. The end result exactly the same and I presumably will be getting back in my account this week. Is is just that Cumbrian accountants are more picky than Manchester and Brighton ones ? I don't think so.
Rayner should probably resign, but not because of this silly tax lapse. Rather, because she’s achieved absolutely nothing of note in one of the government’s most critical portfolios.
Rayner should probably resign, but not because of this silly tax lapse. Rather, because she’s achieved absolutely nothing of note in one of the government’s most critical portfolios.
I have a bit of a 'meh' response to Angela Rayner. I don't think I've ever listened to a speech. Can't even recollect her voice. I know she's meant to be a rough diamond and one of the few characters in the Government but nothing about her makes me bothered to explore further. The parody of her on Youtube is quite funny - no idea how accurate it is.
Just a standard Labour politician raking in the freebies whilst the sun shines would be my guess.
Comments
As a curious principle of mine, I never call for ministerial resignations or sackings*. I think that we have difficulty enough getting good MPs and ministers from a diversity of backgrounds already. Expecting them to have led saint like existences is both unrealistic and harmful to Parliament. It is the route to mediocrity and identical suit like drones rather than real people.
*and yes this was the case under previous governments too, even the Johnson and Truss ones that I loathed.
I wonder which of these attributes appeals to you?
So let's assume the standards bod says she has been Bad. So what? The Tories set the awful precedent and I don't think a beleaguered PM wants to concede anything to the mob at the moment.
That is a more sinister slippery slope than (say) assisted dying.
The US is evidently some way down it.
Rand Paul: "The reason we have trials and we don't automatically assume guilt is what if we make a mistake and they happen to be people fleeing the Venezuelan dictator? ... off our coast it isn't our policy just to blow people up ... even the worst people in our country, if we accuse somebody of a terrible crime, they still get a trial."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1963382824880259393
The point was that by actually filling in the tax return he was definitely assuming responsibility in the negligence/professional indemnity front.
This is not about the Tories whose behaviour is already factored in but Starmer and his promise to govern with integrity
I doubt Rayner will resign but I cannot see how she can continue as Housing Secretary with the looming Autumn Statement homing in on property taxes
Furthermore, she is damaged by this and I expect the court of public opinion will not be impressed
I noticed a rather unkind cartoon of Rayner and Reeves with the caption ' two tears labour'
Not an edifyng couple of days
But that's our tabloid media, when 98% of readers just see the headline and standfirst.
The Trust bought a part share of her adapted marital house so that her son could continue to live there, with her former husband and her in rotation. No problems there as long as it is at market value (which has a tolerance on it). She then used her own money as a deposit on a place in Brighton.
(Two minor points - Why did she only have a share of 25%? Perhaps as part of the divorce settlement or other reason we won't know. And why did the Trust need to own part of it - I suggest for making sure that her son has protected occupancy rights eg when the parents both pass away.)
I'll wait for the enquiry on the Stamp Duty matter - it sounds most like an expensive timing error.
Politically, it needs to be a quick enquiry (if not there is a more credible argument for standing aside), and if there is evidence of deliberate tax evasion she will be gone. She needs to produce copies of the advice.
I wonder if Kemi has overcooked it. Both sides seem hostile.
The film was rubbish.
I have now been advised that although I did not own any other property at the time of the purchase, the application of complex deeming provisions which relate to my son’s trust gives rise to additional stamp duty liabilities. I acknowledge that due to my reliance on advice from lawyers which did not properly take account of these provisions, I did not pay the appropriate stamp duty at the time of the purchase.
Make of it what you will, but is has a slight incompleteness/ambiguity about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/03/angela-rayners-full-statement-on-her-stamp-duty-underpayment
They're not going to start handing out "unexplained wealth orders" to the guest speakers at corporate jamborees.
As others have said, she’d be in less trouble if she hadn’t been screaming from the rooftops at every little issue for political opponents for the past decade and a half.
…by adopting the pretence his ministers regularly return home to living rooms bedecked in Union Jack bunting, the Prime Minister is taking the British people for fools.
It is also reinforcing the impression of Sir Keir as a man with no meaningful belief structure. In 2020, when the Black Lives Matter movement was all the rage, Starmer dropped to his knees in his parliamentary office to show solidarity 'with all those opposing anti-black racism'.
Now it's Operation Raise The Colours that's capturing the headlines. So suddenly Sir Keir is expressing his allegiance to those shimmying up flag lamp posts to express how they are 'a group of proud English men with a common goal to show the rest of the country of how proud we are of our history, freedoms and achievements'. Who does the Prime Minister think he's kidding?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15063369/Starmers-Union-Jack-cringe-pathetic-Gordon-Brown-Arctic-Monkeys-DAN-HODGES.html
NEW THREAD
The Tories simply aren't relevant any more, and even less so when shrieking holier-than-thou with their own long list of scandals still fresh in the memory.
My take? Labour are crap at politics like this because they self-righteously believe they are the Good Guys. Which is how we end up with insanities like the minister for homelessness making her tenants homeless. "We're not the Tories" is something I heard too many Labour activists say over the years...
There would only be misconduct, as a trustee, had she sold her share for more than its market value. As I said, the headline is mendacious.
I assume the intention is to ensure that her son has a place he can always live in.
Not a good look.
Rayner should go, but in terms of mendacious political scandals it is pretty mean gruel. Imagine if you will, a British Foreign Secretary shaking off his minders to attend a party held in an Italian Villa with alcohol and call girls on tap, and hosted by a KGB grandee.
No one could come back from that sort of a scandal surely.
This story is weird insomuch as my accountant would not let me claim £100 VAT back, which I was owed because it became due to day after the return quarter ended. So I had to wait three months. The end result exactly the same and I presumably will be getting back in my account this week. Is is just that Cumbrian accountants are more picky than Manchester and Brighton ones ? I don't think so.
Just a standard Labour politician raking in the freebies whilst the sun shines would be my guess.